Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 442

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

  1. #101
    Russ
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeff View Post
    --Good point. Russ believes that God commanded Israel to commit genocide against the Amalekites, where kids and women were slaughtered mercilessly. Russ can accept that and still sleep at night, but for some reason if that same God commanded plural marriage, all of sudden it's time to be shocked and disgusted. Hmmmm. "Murder okay, but marriage an atrocity: Next week's sermon by Russ. Refreshments will be served." Me likee!
    You're talking about the same God which you profess belief in. It's a bit puzzling.

    P.S. As Libby points out, God did not command polygamy.

    The uniquely LDS Doctrine and Covenants states on behalf of God that polygamy is commanded but that is another LDS error.

    The D&C used to state that marriage was only for one man and one woman, but that section was removed and section 132 inserted in its place.

    Hey, new thread. :-)

  2. #102
    nrajeff
    Guest

    Default

    You may be right, Russ--you and I may indeed believe in the same God, but if you are right about that, then you have been wrong to be accusing the LDS of believing in a different God. Right? So which is it?

    And you are also right when you say that I believe in a God who, if He thinks it okay to occasionally command something as horrific as genocidal slaughter, should think it LESS of an atrocity--not more of one--to occasionally command plural marriage. You, on the other hand, seem to have your "atrocity meter" backwards, where God commanding genocidal slaughter isn't an atrocity at all, but if He were to command plural marriage, why, that is just a heinous, sinful, evil, satanic...atrocity and a sign of the occult. I think the average reasonable person would say your values are salmon-ackwards, since the average person would consider slaughter the more atrocious of the two commandments.

  3. #103
    Russ
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeff View Post
    You may be right, Russ--you and I may indeed believe in the same God, but if you are right about that, then you have been wrong to be accusing the LDS of believing in a different God. Right? So which is it?

    And you are also right when you say that I believe in a God who, if He thinks it okay to occasionally command something as horrific as genocidal slaughter, should think it LESS of an atrocity--not more of one--to occasionally command plural marriage. You, on the other hand, seem to have your "atrocity meter" backwards, where God commanding genocidal slaughter isn't an atrocity at all, but if He were to command plural marriage, why, that is just a heinous, sinful, evil, satanic...atrocity and a sign of the occult. I think the average reasonable person would say your values are salmon-ackwards, since the average person would consider slaughter the more atrocious of the two commandments.
    I will ask you, as a self-professing Christian, to explain "genocidal slaughter."

    It's your topic, so you should defend it and support it.

    By continuing to ***ert that God commanded polygamy you only reveal your Biblical ignorance. By ignorance I don't mean stupid. Rather, I point to your lack of Biblical study.

    P.S. "salmon-ackwards" is a minced oath.

  4. #104
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeff View Post
    --Good point. Russ believes that God commanded Israel to commit genocide against the Amalekites, where kids and women were slaughtered mercilessly. Russ can accept that and still sleep at night, but for some reason if that same God commanded plural marriage, all of sudden it's time to be shocked and disgusted. Hmmmm. "Murder okay, but marriage an atrocity: Next week's sermon by Russ. Refreshments will be served." Me likee!
    I hate getting bogged down in all of these side issues. For what it's worth, I do have a difficult time believing that God would order any kind of genocide.

    My issue with polygamy is not really even the polygamy, itself, but the ages of some of the "girls" and the fact that some of the women were married.

    I have actually been discussing this at length with a good LDS friend and he has given me many potential reasons, some of which are not likely, in my opinion...others, I give a "perhaps".

    In regards to Joseph's marriages to younger women, he brought up the typical LDS response to this, which was the idea that people married younger in the 1800's. That's actually not true (so LDS need to stop using that one). The average age for marriage in the 1800's was between 20-21. Today it is between 26-27.

    As for already married women, he said that Joseph knew that some of their husbands would not make it to the CK, so he was more or less making their calling and election sure by sealing them to himself. He said the marriages were for eternity, but not for "time" and that they were not consummated. I'm not sure how he knows that or if he is just guessing. I am going to ask him about it in my next email.

    So, anyway, as I said (for me) it's not so much the polygamy as the circumstances (ages/married women) that is difficult to understand/accept.
    Last edited by Libby; 01-15-2009 at 06:19 PM.

  5. #105
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Russ View Post
    I will ask you, as a self-professing Christian, to explain "genocidal slaughter."

    It's your topic, so you should defend it and support it.

    By continuing to ***ert that God commanded polygamy you only reveal your Biblical ignorance. By ignorance I don't mean stupid. Rather, I point to your lack of Biblical study.

    P.S. "salmon-ackwards" is a minced oath.
    Are you asking 'as' a self-professing Christian, or are you asking 'a' self-professing Christian? I didn't quite get that part.

    Maybe I can help:

    Genocide: is the organized attempt to deliberately and systematically destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

    (www.wikipedia.org)

    Slaughter: the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.

    (Dictionary.com)

    Do you accept the historical narrative of the Old Testament?

  6. #106
    Russ
    Guest

    Default Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    Do you accept the historical narrative of the Old Testament?
    God will always do what is right.

  7. #107
    Russ
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    So, anyway, as I said (for me) it's not so much the polygamy as the circumstances (ages/married women) that is difficult to understand/accept.
    For me, it's the polygamy period.

    A sick and twisted affair which causes heartache, confusion and jealousy.

    Smith's ideas were perversion.

    P.S. If "prophet Russ" came-a-calling on Libby, then Libby, Libby's husband and my own wife would call me "Warren Jeffs."
    Last edited by Russ; 01-15-2009 at 06:30 PM.

  8. #108
    nrajeff
    Guest

    Default

    For Russ: Fig gave you the definitions you needed. Now, which is the more atrocious atrocity in your opinion?

    a) If God were to command the genocidal slaughter of tens of thousands.

    b) If God were to command the plural marriage of hundreds.

    For Libs: I'd like to see evidence that the average age at which American girls married in the 1830s-1840s was 20-21 years of age. Because I am skeptical of that.

  9. #109
    Russ
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeff View Post
    If God were to command the plural marriage of hundreds.
    The large word "if" is the operative in this situation.

    God never did ordain polygamy nor did God command it.

    It remains a most problematic ins***ution proclaimed by Joseph Smith as ordained of God.

  10. #110
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    For Libs: I'd like to see evidence that the average age at which American girls married in the 1830s-1840s was 20-21 years of age. Because I am skeptical of that.
    Jeff, here are a couple of sources for the marriage information.

    http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_.../marriage.html

    The timing of marriage has fluctuated over the past century. In 1995 the median age of women in the United States at the time of their first marriage was 25. The median age of men was about 27. Men and women in the United States marry for the first time an average of five years later than people did in the 1950s. However, young adults of the 1950s married younger than did any previous generation in U.S. history. Today’s later age of marriage is in line with the age of marriage between 1890 and 1940. Moreover, a greater proportion of the population was married (95 percent) during the 1950s than at any time before or since. Experts do not agree on why the “marriage rush” of the late 1940s and 1950s occurred, but most social scientists believe it represented a response to the return of normalcy and prosperity after 15 years of severe economic depression and war.
    http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Age.htm

  11. #111
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    I never understood how Solomon was able to please 700 wives and 300 concubines. We barely succeed to live and please one wife in our modern time.

    One thousand woman for one man. Three women per night. I would bet he has a very good prostate.

    Trinity

  12. #112
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mesenja View Post

    The author of Genesis was Moses who was a polygamist. Also God's original plan was for Adam and Eve to walk around and never die.
    I'm not certain that Moses was still married to Zipporah when he married the "Cu****e" woman. An interesting question but IRRELEVANT regardless as well as your equivocation argument of God's plan for Adam and Eve to "walk around and never die", messdude.

    It's apparent from Genesis when God created Adam and Eve, that one man, one woman WAS THE NORM.

    Get it?

  13. #113
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mesenja View Post
    Which author and book do you rely on for this undisputed matter of record of fact?
    I am relying on the findings of the 1890 U.S. Census.

    On what, do you and Jeff base your opinion that people married much younger?

  14. #114
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mesenja View Post




    Even if true if this practice was morally objectionable then God would have not only condemned but forbidden the practice of polygamy in all times and under any circumstance.



    However this was not the case as I have previously shown you. In fact yibbum or levirate marriage was mandated by the Law of Moses. This was where the brother of a man who died without children has an obligation to marry the widow.

    Deuteronomy 25:5-6 ¶ If brethren dwell together,and one of them die,and have no child,the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger:her husband’s brother shall go in unto her,and take her to him to wife,and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be,that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead,that his name be not put out of Israel.
    Although, I am not personally fond of the idea of polygamy, I haven't really claimed that God found it completely "morally objectionable". I question that God "commanded it" and I question Smith's marriages to young girls and already married women.

  15. #115
    Russ
    Guest

    Default He didn't. nt

    Quote Originally Posted by mesenja View Post
    Why did God ask David through the prophet Nathan to enter into the horrible,cruel,sinful,perverted,unjust,disgusting and sinful practice of polygamy? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
    God didn't ask any such thing.

    Please read a commentary for further insights. (Please choose one outside Mormondom.)

  16. #116
    nrajeff
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    I am relying on the findings of the 1890 U.S. Census.
    --Why 1890? Last time I checked, Smith married 0 people in 1890. How about, say, the 1840 census? And for Illinois? Wouldn't that be fairer?

    I did notice that in the 1850 Census, 41.7% of women married as teenagers---compared to only 4.1% of men.
    Last edited by nrajeff; 01-16-2009 at 04:55 PM.

  17. #117
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    In a patriarchal society, the polygamy is something perfectly natural. There were a time where women had no value, and not even a soul. Not so long ago, women were not even bright enough to vote.

    Leviticus 27:6
    A boy between the ages of one month and five years is valued at five pieces of silver; a girl of that age is valued at three pieces of silver.

    I know no woman who wants to return to the moses law. Even the most conservative women living in the United States. If we compare the women in the time of moses with today evangelical women, well, all the born-again women are extremely liberal.

    Trinity

  18. #118
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeff View Post
    --Why 1890? Last time I checked, Smith married 0 people in 1890. How about, say, the 1840 census? And for Illinois? Wouldn't that be fairer?

    I did notice that in the 1850 Census, 41.7% of women married as teenagers---compared to only 4.1% of men.
    I tried to find earlier information on marriage ages, but it didn't seem to be available (or is rather sketchy) other than what I linked. Can you link me to the information you found? I am fairly sure 14 has never been an "average age" for marriage in this country.

  19. #119
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mesenja View Post
    I am asking you on what basis do you make your claim that Joseph Smith married a 14 yeaar old girl?
    Marriage to Fanny Alger wasn't a matter of public record, if that's what you mean. Journal writings, mostly hearsay, as far as I know. But, his marriage to Helen Mar Kimball is well documented in her journal writings and she was only 14 at the time.

    http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26...MarKimball.htm

  20. #120
    nrajeff
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    I tried to find earlier information on marriage ages, but it didn't seem to be available (or is rather sketchy) other than what I linked. Can you link me to the information you found?
    ---I think that census data came from fairwiki. After I quoted it, I closed the window. I can find it again if you really want to see it.

    I am fairly sure 14 has never been an "average age" for marriage in this country.

    ---It wasn't an average age for Smith's wives, either.

  21. #121
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nrajeff View Post



    ---It wasn't an average age for Smith's wives, either.
    I never said it was. I just took exception to the justification that 14 (or there abouts) was an "average age" for women to marry in the 1800's. That there was some kind of cultural gap, in this area, which doesn't actually exist.

  22. #122
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mesenja
    What does it matter Libby if there was no biblical mandate or command to practice plural marriage as God did not condemn the practice of plural marriage in the Bible?
    Like I've said (a couple of times, already), I'm not really questioning polygamy, in and of itself (too much). My questions have always been around the why of Joseph Smith's marriages to the younger girls and to already married women. That's what bothers me the most (personally).
    Last edited by Libby; 01-17-2009 at 12:24 AM.

  23. #123
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Actually, I am almost beyond being "bothered" by it. I am tired of thinking about and talking about it. I accept that it's a matter of faith.

    I told Fig a few months ago that I could see both sides of this question of whether or not the church is true...and I truly can, for the most part. I have been on the extremes of both sides of that question and I think I am now moving more to the middle. I acknowledge that there are a lot of things about church history that I can't know...things that have to be taken on faith, if one is inclined to believe. I wasn't able to do that, completely, but I have come to a place where I think I have, at least, not thrown out the baby with the bath water.

  24. #124
    nrajeff
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    I never said it was. I just took exception to the justification that 14 (or there abouts) was an "average age" for women to marry in the 1800's. That there was some kind of cultural gap, in this area, which doesn't actually exist.
    ---Sorry if anyone claimed that 14 was the average age for women to marry in the 1800s. I agree that the average was probably higher. I was skeptical of the claim that the average was between 20-21 for women in 1840s Illinois. But suppose you are right, and 21 WAS the average marrying age. And suppose Smith married 5 women whose ages were 14, 16, 21, 33, and 55. What would the average age of the women he married be? About 28 years old, which is HIGHER than the national average was, right? So what's the problem?

  25. #125
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    What's the problem, jeff?

    Uh...it's not a case of "averages" but that of his sleeping with UNDERAGE GIRLS, around 14 years of age.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •