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

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by mesenja

and eternal life were also the norm at the time. Get it?

Not relevant, messy. God condoned polygamy for a time but then put a STOP to it in the NT...a work you have little familiarity with.

Also it is not irrelevant to bring up the fact that the author of Genesis was a polygamist with two wives. Moses who was "

was very meek,above all the men which were upon the face of the earth" and of who God said that the Spirit of God "is upon thee" (Numbers 12:3;Numbers 11:17) apparently according to your argument either is not informed of God's original plan for marriage or deliberately chooses to ignore it.

Hey, I'm merely showing you the NORM, which was MONOGAMY which is evident EVEN in Genesis. I've already conceded that God ALLOWED polygamy in OT times, but it's CLEAR that was NOT His intention NOR the NORM.

You're forced to take your Mormonesque cues from the OT, and blithely IGNORE THE NT WHICH DENOUNCES POLYGAMY.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

--Okay, so the problem is not polygamy--the problem is the ages of the wives, a few of which were under the average for the time, while more of them were OVER the average. All right, then.

"It's the age 14 marriage to Helen Mar Kimball that is especially troubling, but as Todd Compton points out, "there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage."

In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven![13]

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

In past centuries, women would often die in childbirth, and men often remarried younger women afterwards. Women often married older men, because these were more financially established and able to support them than men their own age.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smit...to_young_women

[Father_JD]

Anything to vindicate/justify JS' PEDOPHILIA, jeff?

Sure you're gonna go with that?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Anything to vindicate/justify JS' PEDOPHILIA, jeff?

Sure you're gonna go with that?

Anything to sucker punch at Joseph Smith, JD?

"Win at all costs" is not going to lead you to the truth, JD. God giveth grace to the humble. Just a thought.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Anything to sucker punch at Joseph Smith, JD?

"Win at all costs" is not going to lead you to the truth, JD. God giveth grace to the humble. Just a thought.

And God giveth not feelings that are contrary to His written Word, the Bible! Just a thought.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

And God giveth not feelings that are contrary to His written Word, the Bible! Just a thought.

Then check your own feelings, JD. And quit presuming to judge those of another. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Then check your own feelings, JD. And quit presuming to judge those of another. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.

My "feelings" are irrelevent, figgie. This is something you just don't get being Mormon and your whole belief system is predicated on a "burning in the bosom" or as I like to characterize it, the WARM-FUZZY.

And WHY do you hypocritically cite Biblical verses to ME, since you do NOT believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture? You're very invocation of this verse IS to tacitly attribute, convey BOTH inerrancy and infallibility to that very verse.

So, to be HONEST, you've gotta do one of two things, figster:

Cease and desist on EVER citing the Bible...OR
Admit that you're conveying inerrancy and infallibility to THOSE CITED VERSES.

To do anything less is to play the hypocrite.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

My "feelings" are irrelevent, figgie. This is something you just don't get being Mormon and your whole belief system is predicated on a "burning in the bosom" or as I like to characterize it, the WARM-FUZZY.

Your "eelings" would explain your hostility toward Joseph Smith. How is your hostility irrelevant to your accusations?

Originally Posted by Father_JD

And WHY do you hypocritically cite Biblical verses to ME, since you do NOT believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture? You're very invocation of this verse IS to tacitly attribute, convey BOTH inerrancy and infallibility to that very verse.

The Bible is infallible enough to condemn the hypocrisy of someone presuming to judge another person. So, I will continue to use Bible verses to point out such hypocrisy in the future. You shouldn't mind, unless you think you have no sin.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

So, to be HONEST, you've gotta do one of two things, figster:

Cease and desist on EVER citing the Bible...OR
Admit that you're conveying inerrancy and infallibility to THOSE CITED VERSES.

To do anything less is to play the hypocrite.

It hurts to see your own book condemn you, doesn't it. I do feel sorry for you, if that helps.

Humble yourself, JD. God gives grace to the humble.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD
My "feelings" are irrelevent, figgie. This is something you just don't get being Mormon and your whole belief system is predicated on a "burning in the bosom" or as I like to characterize it, the WARM-FUZZY.

Your "feelings" would explain your hostility toward Joseph Smith. How is your hostility irrelevant to your accusations?

LOL. Now we're dealing with YOUR "feelings" that I'm being "hostile" to your phony prophet. What IS relevant are his FALSE PROPHECIES, dude. Get a clue.



Originally Posted by Father_JD
And WHY do you hypocritically cite Biblical verses to ME, since you do NOT believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture? You're very invocation of this verse IS to tacitly attribute, convey BOTH inerrancy and infallibility to that very verse.

The Bible is infallible enough to condemn the hypocrisy of someone presuming to judge another person. So, I will continue to use Bible verses to point out such hypocrisy in the future. You shouldn't mind, unless you think you have no sin.

So then, your answer is just another tacit admittance that THAT particular verse MUST be INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE as to why you're quoting it.

How about a straight answer instead of playing your little Mormon reindeer games of evasion and deflection??



Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD

So, to be HONEST, you've gotta do one of two things, figster:

Cease and desist on EVER citing the Bible...OR
Admit that you're conveying inerrancy and infallibility to THOSE CITED VERSES.

To do anything less is to play the hypocrite.

It hurts to see your own book condemn you, doesn't it. I do feel sorry for you, if that helps.

Humble yourself, JD. God gives grace to the humble.

IF "my" book is CONDEMNING me, then that MUST mean you hold those verses to BE INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE.

Why do Mos play such dishonest GAMES, figgie?

Your reply is nothing short of being hypocritical AND dishonest. It seems you're the one who needs to humble himself, dude!!

[Mesenja]

Show me where monogamy was always the norm.

[Father_JD]

Are you that obtuse that you can't see it...even beginning in the Garden of Eden with the creation of Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Eve, and Susie, and Wendy, and Elizabeth, and Nancy, and Jennifer, et al.????

Or from such verses is that "a man shall leave his family and cleave to his WIFE (notice, SINGULAR) and the two become one flesh"????

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Are you that obtuse, messy, that you can't see it...even beginning in the Garden of Eden with the creation of Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Eve, and Susie, and Wendy, and Elizabeth, and Nancy, and Jennifer, et al.????Or from such verses is that "a man shall leave his family and cleave to his WIFE (notice, SINGULAR) and the two become one flesh"????

----But if those early days are the pattern that must be followed for all time without any deviation, then people should be marrying their siblings, right? Like in the beginning...

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

----But if those early days are the pattern that must be followed for all time without any deviation, then people should be marrying their siblings, right? Like in the beginning...

Ah, but you're forgetting two things, jeff:

God explicitly FORBADE the marrying of siblings at one point in the OT just like He explicitly FORBADE polygamy in the NT.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Ah, but you're forgetting two things, jeff:
God explicitly FORBADE the marrying of siblings at one point in the OT just like He explicitly FORBADE polygamy in the NT.

--So wait-- you believe that God sometimes commands things that, at a later date, He forbids? Does that work the other way as well, where He might forbid something that He later commands? This is fascinating.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--So wait-- you believe that God sometimes commands things that, at a later date, He forbids? Does that work the other way as well, where He might forbid something that He later commands? This is fascinating.

Jeff, I believe you don't intend to equivocate the arguments, but you did it again.

God did NOT command polygamy.

[nrajeff]

I am not trying to equivocate, I am trying to nail you down to a consistent statement about whether God ever commands and later forbids a practice, and vice versa.

[Father_JD]

I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff.

I'm all ears.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff.

I'm all ears.

Hmmm.

Has God ever forbid animal sacrifice?

Does God forbid his disciples to practice the Law of Moses today?

Has God ever commanded to take another's life?

Does God forbid the practice of picking up large rocks and throwing them at a person for certain sins? Or is that practice now forbidden? Or is it merely optional now?

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Hmmm.
Has God ever forbid animal sacrifice?
Does God forbid his disciples to practice the Law of Moses today?
Has God ever commanded to take another's life?
Does God forbid the practice of picking up large rocks and throwing them at a person for certain sins? Or is that practice now forbidden? Or is it merely optional now?

---FrJD says "I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff. I'm all ears."

Maybe FrJD has "another Bible" where the stuff you mentioned got deleted.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff.

I'm all ears.

I have great respect for Father_JD but I have to be fair and truthful.

"Circumcision."

Trinity

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Trinity

I have great respect for Father_JD but I have to be fair and truthful.

"Circumcision."

Trinity

I thought of that too. But it didn't quite fit the exact requirements that JD laid out--because God doesn't exactly "forbid it" right now.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

I thought of that too. But it didn't quite fit the exact requirements that JD laid out--because God doesn't exactly "forbid it" right now.

In the book of Acts, it was the main concern of the Jerusalem council, and the practice became forbidden for the gentile converts.

Trinity

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Trinity

In the book of Acts, it was the main concern of the Jerusalem council, and the practice became forbidden for the gentile converts.

Trinity

Then, add one more to my growing list of sins.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Trinity

I have great respect for Father_JD but I have to be fair and truthful.

"Circumcision."

Trinity

Uh, sorry...but you're in ERROR. NO WHERE is it stated that circumcision was banished. I suggest you READ your Bible more closely!

[Father_JD]

Hmmm.

Has God ever forbid animal sacrifice?

No. Show me were He forbade animal sacrifice, ok?

Does God forbid his disciples to practice the Law of Moses today?

No. The Ten Commandments are still in force last time I heard. And anything of ceremonial law was not FORBIDDEN. Please show otherwise from the Bible.

Has God ever commanded to take another's life?

You'll have to clarify what you mean here.

Does God forbid the practice of picking up large rocks and throwing them at a person for certain sins? Or is that practice now forbidden? Or is it merely optional now?

No. God didn't forbid the practice. Please show from scripture that it is NOW FORBIDDEN.