Can we have a "real" discussion about Joseph Smith and Polygamy?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Bob sees through different eyegl***es than I do, or you do, and so he will never see as we do.

Well, as one of my friends scolded me, when I said that same thing about my husband, never say never!

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Bob Betts

Yet, you circumvent His truth, by ignoring what was allegedly decreed by God, in order to preserve a cherished image of Joseph Smith, based on a supreme value of believing "the best." Truth be ****ed. You (Mormons) are allowing the practices of those early 'church' leaders to cloud the facts of the alleged decree of God in verses 61-63. And, that's why I can't get a substantive argument from any Mormon on that subject.

Because I love you, Libby (and all Mormons), and can clearly see what is happening to you, I am going to Deseret to obtain and read my own copy of "Shaken Faith Syndrome." I believe that when I read it, I will find that the author taught you to avoid the details of the truth, and retreat to a "bottom line" of "faith alone," in order to avoid shaking your faith in Joseph Smith. Between that and the holy scriptures, I'm going to expose that lie, and stab your false "bottom line" method of interpretation in the heart.

Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." You (Mormons) are in bondage, and don't see it, being blinded by blind faith alone, ignoring the truth which is staring you in the face.

I'm on a mission.

Bob, in an effort to try to engage your own interests on this board, I'd like to know what your particular problem is here with D&C 132:61-63. I don't feel like trying to piece it together over the course of this entire thread, so if you could give me the cliff notes version I'd be happy to respond.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by maklelan

Bob, in an effort to try to engage your own interests on this board, I'd like to know what your particular problem is here with D&C 132:61-63. I don't feel like trying to piece it together over the course of this entire thread, so if you could give me the cliff notes version I'd be happy to respond.

I think Bob's post #309 pretty well sums it up.

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/s...&postcount=309

(I would really appreciate your input, Makelan)

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Bob Betts

Of all the reasons that I have heard given by LDS for plural marriage, this is the only one I've never heard given by any LDS: "to multiply and replenish the earth." This being the actual "law of the priesthood" reason, then how was it not the obligation of Joseph Smith to mate with every one of his plural wives, like a bunch of rabbits? And, if he did not, then he was in violation of the commandment.

What have I stated that is disputable by any LDS?

This is pretty basic stuff, Bob. Those women went back and lived with their husbands, who were often the people recommending the sealings. Sealing was a way to guarantee inclusion in Smith's lineage, which was considered for much of the early church a sure way to heaven. There's no evidence that any of those women married to other men ever had sexual relations with Smith (third-hand accounts of hazy memories from 75 years after the fact don't count, especially since DNA testing doesn't support the memories), and the fact that their husbands recommended the sealings, were present at the sealings, and then took the women back home with them is a clear indication these weren't traditional polygamous marriages. Keep in mind Joseph Smith was also sealed to several men. You're not going to insist he was gay too, are you? You're just conflating a bunch of material and expressing shock when it doesn't line up with your antagonistic and etic interpretation.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by maklelan

This is pretty basic stuff, Bob. Those women went back and lived with their husbands, who were often the people recommending the sealings. Sealing was a way to guarantee inclusion in Smith's lineage, which was considered for much of the early church a sure way to heaven. There's no evidence that any of those women married to other men ever had sexual relations with Smith (third-hand accounts of hazy memories from 75 years after the fact don't count, especially since DNA testing doesn't support the memories), and the fact that their husbands recommended the sealings, were present at the sealings, and then took the women back home with them is a clear indication these weren't traditional polygamous marriages. Keep in mind Joseph Smith was also sealed to several men. You're not going to insist he was gay too, are you? You're just conflating a bunch of material and expressing shock when it doesn't line up with your antagonistic and etic interpretation.

No evidence? Isn't it evidence that the 1832 D&C section 101 was needed to condemned the practice when no other church required such a declaration.. Nor is it evidence that Ema had a horrific reaction to the presence of Fanny Alger in her home... Tell me why the 101st section was needed if the sin of adultery and polygamy had been in the church at that time.. Why wasn't the section written by Joseph Smith? Why was it after Smith had the revelation that became the 132nd section of the D&C that the 101st section was soon removed? Why was it that Pres Young confirmed that Smith was a polygamist? There is more than enough evidence to show that Smith was in violation of the NT teaching that the leaders of the Church must be the husband of one wife.. IHS jim

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by James Banta

No evidence? Isn't it evidence that the 1832 D&C section 101 was needed to condemned the practice when no other church required such a declaration.. Nor is it evidence that Ema had a horrific reaction to the presence of Fanny Alger in her home... Tell me why the 101st section was needed if the sin of adultery and polygamy had been in the church at that time.. Why wasn't the section written by Joseph Smith? Why was it after Smith had the revelation that became the 132nd section of the D&C that the 101st section was soon removed? Why was it that Pres Young confirmed that Smith was a polygamist? There is more than enough evidence to show that Smith was in violation of the NT teaching that the leaders of the Church must be the husband of one wife.. IHS jim

You've totally misread my post. Try again, and this time pay attention. I'll get you going in the right direction. What evidence, specifically, did I say is lacking?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by James Banta

No evidence? Isn't it evidence that the 1832 D&C section 101 was needed to condemned the practice when no other church required such a declaration.. Nor is it evidence that Ema had a horrific reaction to the presence of Fanny Alger in her home... Tell me why the 101st section was needed if the sin of adultery and polygamy had been in the church at that time.. Why wasn't the section written by Joseph Smith? Why was it after Smith had the revelation that became the 132nd section of the D&C that the 101st section was soon removed? Why was it that Pres Young confirmed that Smith was a polygamist? There is more than enough evidence to show that Smith was in violation of the NT teaching that the leaders of the Church must be the husband of one wife.. IHS jim

First of all James, you state a false unprovable accusation, quote James, " sin of adultery and polygamy". As we have been stating over and over, no one has stepped up to the plate and produced any evidence of immoral behavior. Don't post with accusation you cannot quote or site.

R.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by maklelan

You've totally misread my post. Try again, and this time pay attention. I'll get you going in the right direction. What evidence, specifically, did I say is lacking?

So you are willing to admit that Smith took other women for wife and had serious personal relationships with them.. At least enough to make the church question whether adultery and polygamy was being allowed at the top levels of the church.. That is a good step forward.. No matter how rude you are about admitting it I still like the progress... IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Richard

First of all James, you state a false unprovable accusation, quote James, " sin of adultery and polygamy". As we have been stating over and over, no one has stepped up to the plate and produced any evidence of immoral behavior. Don't post with accusation you cannot quote or site.

R.

While I wouldn't call this proof I do call it evidence of which you just said there is none.. This kills that ***ertion.. There is indeed evidence!!

Chauncey Webb recounts Emma’s later discovery of the relationship: “Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house”. (Mormon Polygamy: A History, pgs 6, 10, 85)

This however is fact that the church leadership (Not Smith) saw a problem in the church and published this as a church tenet not to be removed until 1876 when polygamy was far to widespread to hide..

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife, and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (Doctrine and Covenants 1835, section 101, verse 4)

I know you don't like it.. I am sorry for you and hold out my hand in friendship. I also point to He who can offer you salvation and has purchased it for you with His own blood.. Jesus stand ready to give you this life if you would only reach out and take it from His willing hands.. IHS jim

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by James Banta

So you are willing to admit that Smith took other women for wife and had serious personal relationships with them.. At least enough to make the church question whether adultery and polygamy was being allowed at the top levels of the church.. That is a good step forward.. No matter how rude you are about admitting it I still like the progress... IHS jim

This is the sign of someone more interested in perpetuating his dogma than in being honest or finding the truth. It's been made clear to you that you were totally mistaken, and rather than being a decent human being and recognizing that, you vomit up this sad little attempt to turn the tables and talk down to me. You don't even have the decency to take responsibility for stupid mistakes and you really think these pathetic little insults mean something? You're just an enormous waste of my time. You're on ignore.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

LOL. Not when Mormon screed has been OBJECTIVELY determined to be FRAUDULENT.

A knowledge of the Book of Mormon would give credibility to your claims of expertise.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

You've never demonstrated error on my part,M. Mormonism's soteriology is faith + WORKS.

I have already provided you with quotes from the Book of Mormon that counter this argument.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

I refuse to dignify your forum name 'cause you're NO messenger of Jehovah...so what alternative name would be acceptable to you? Gory for "Egor"? Tooster for "Gentoo"??

M would be fine.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Oh,BTW...I'm NOT wrong...I p****d your little soteriological framework. You haven't proven ME wrong,but have demonstrated to all lurkers that you're either:

1. Dishonest...or

2. Confused.

Which is it?

What exactly have you proven to the lurkers by this?

Originally Posted by Father_JD

No, you're merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine. You've exposed your hand many times Messy with your misunderstanding of "free will":In your scenario,one chooses to be good one day,and bad the next...and if the "good" outweighs the "bad" that one just might make it to one of your multi-tiered "heavens"!!

This is not what we believe in.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Oh,because I didn't mention that you believe one MUST also have a smidgen of what you think is "faith" to the above??

No because you never bothered to study the Book of Mormon either while a member of the church or afterwards as an anti-Mormon.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD
LOL. Not when Mormon screed has been OBJECTIVELY determined to be FRAUDULENT.

A knowledge of the Book of Mormon would give credibility to your claims of expertise.

I DO have a knowledge of it...that's just one reason I reject it as "scripture".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
You've never demonstrated error on my part,M. Mormonism's soteriology is faith + WORKS.

I have already provided you with quotes from the Book of Mormon that counter this argument.

I don't care what citations you bring to the table...you yourself have CONTRADICTED your own spurious screed when it comes to faith and works. I merely parroted back to you your own words, summarizing them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
I refuse to dignify your forum name 'cause you're NO messenger of Jehovah...so what alternative name would be acceptable to you? Gory for "Egor"? Tooster for "Gentoo"??

M would be fine.

Ok, <ahem> Mr. M.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Oh,BTW...I'm NOT wrong...I p****d your little soteriological framework. You haven't proven ME wrong,but have demonstrated to all lurkers that you're either:

1. Dishonest...or

2. Confused.

Which is it?

What exactly have you proven to the lurkers by this?

When they can read your own comments and deduce from them that you believe salvation is:

Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that.

But with your vehement denials that that's what you believe, you come across either confused or purposely dishonest. Context determines meaning and it's clear you're one or the other.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
No, you're merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine. You've exposed your hand many times Messy with your misunderstanding of "free will":In your scenario,one chooses to be good one day,and bad the next...and if the "good" outweighs the "bad" that one just might make it to one of your multi-tiered "heavens"!!

This is not what we believe in.

Ri-i-i-ight. Another "nuh-uh" response I see.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Oh,because I didn't mention that you believe one MUST also have a smidgen of what you think is "faith" to the above??

No because you never bothered to study the Book of Mormon either while a member of the church or afterwards as an anti-Mormon.

And just how am I wrong, M.? Just remember, you have yet to prove me somehow wrong.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

When they can read your own comments and deduce from them that you believe salvation is:

Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that.

JD, our works are only a manifestation of our faith and belief in the Savior's own words.

I guess I should just parrot the notion that you believe that simply uttering the words "Lord, Lord" are sufficient for you to be saved.

Great. I think I'll do that.

[Zakuska]

Whats funny is Bod calls JS an Adultuerer and a False Prophet. He says he can't beleive some one who doesn't tell the truth at all times.

Yet Bob Believes the Pslams in the Bible written by one of the Most Famous Adultuerers in all History, as well as the words of a self confessed pathological Liar.

Talk about strange bed fellows.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, as one of my friends scolded me, when I said that same thing about my husband, never say never!

That's true Libby. What I meant was that he will never see what a believer sees as long as he only wears the gl***es of the unbeliever.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by maklelan

This is the sign of someone more interested in perpetuating his dogma than in being honest or finding the truth. It's been made clear to you that you were totally mistaken, and rather than being a decent human being and recognizing that, you vomit up this sad little attempt to turn the tables and talk down to me. You don't even have the decency to take responsibility for stupid mistakes and you really think these pathetic little insults mean something? You're just an enormous waste of my time. You're on ignore.

It would seem that maklelan won't see this because he has me on ignore.. I guess when real evidence is presented that shows that polygamy was not allowed by the church at the same time Smith was fully engaged in it's practice that maklelan had no answer so he decide to drop one last personal attack on me and close off to reason and logic.. I have stated that in 1839 polygamy was considered a sin by the mormon church.. To maklelan that is considered to be a lie.. He has made it clear that I made it up.. That I am the liar and Smith was pure... I have no fear of maklelan I will not block his twists and denies of scripture or history.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by maklelan

Those women went back and lived with their husbands, who were often the people recommending the sealings. Sealing was a way to guarantee inclusion in Smith's lineage, which was considered for much of the early church a sure way to heaven.

So one of the main reasons for these sealings was to ensure that these woman could get into heaven? Who gave these woman the idea that being sealed to Joseph would help them get into heaven?

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So one of the main reasons for these sealings was to ensure that these woman could get into heaven? Who gave these woman the idea that being sealed to Joseph would help them get into heaven?

That was just the earliest perception all the members had of the sealing power.

[JDErickson]

Originally Posted by maklelan

That was just the earliest perception all the members had of the sealing power.

And Joseph Smith didn't correct their false doctrinal ideas?

Why?

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by JDErickson

And Joseph Smith didn't correct their false doctrinal ideas?

Why?

He promoted the idea too. It wasn't necessarily a false doctrine, it was just another perspective.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by maklelan

He promoted the idea too. It wasn't necessarily a false doctrine, it was just another perspective.

How does being sealed to Joseph Smith help one get into heaven, all else being equal?

[JDErickson]

Originally Posted by maklelan

He promoted the idea too. It wasn't necessarily a false doctrine, it was just another perspective.

So Joseph Smith promoted the idea that being sealed to him would help them get to heaven?

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Billyray

How does being sealed to Joseph Smith help one get into heaven, all else being equal?

His lineage was considered so powerful. It would have been like being adopted into Jesus' family.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by JDErickson

So Joseph Smith promoted the idea that being sealed to him would help them get to heaven?

He promoted the idea that filling in the genealogical gaps in ones lineage would help the salvation of one's line, and being added to his lineage was one of the best ways to do this.

[JDErickson]

Originally Posted by maklelan

He promoted the idea that filling in the genealogical gaps in ones lineage would help the salvation of one's line, and being added to his lineage was one of the best ways to do this.

So in this same theme if a woman was sealed to say the Apostle Peter she would have a better chance of going to Heaven?