Off shoots

[Snow Patrol]

I happened to peruse the LDS board on another site. On it, it had a link to a picture of the FLDS temple in Texas that had a bed as one of its altars. At the bottom of the initial post there was a "reason" why this pertained to the LDS board. The reason they gave was that the FLDS got their start, or are an off shoot, from the LDS Church.

My question is... is it accurate and appropriate to bring in "off shoots" or "break aways" from a main body of believers in order to make the main body of believers look evil or wrong?

If you think the answer is NO, it shouldn't happen AND you are Christian, then why do you think that no other Christian on this other board came out and said anything?

If you think the answer is Yes, then are you prepared to have the mirror placed before you?

[Dante]

Experience on these types of boards would suggest that it is fair game to bring that type of criticism against the LDS due to the "continuing revelation" mentality it fosters in these misbegotten offshoots.

And conversely, the mirror is off limits.

Seebok, where for art thou?

[Libby]

I don't think it's really fair, even though the churches have the same roots. Obviously, they each believe the other is apostate, because of following false prophets...so, they have each gone their own way, in many respects, each becoming quite different from the other.

I miss Seebok. Wonder if we will see him here again?

[Dante]

Did he get booted, just decided it wasn't worth the time anymore or on a secret government mission?

[Libby]

I don't think he got booted, but the last two are definitely possibilities.

[seebok]

Originally Posted by Dante

Seebok, where for art thou?

Just kinda bored -- and very busy. The Perry's seem angrier than they were six months ago. Something happen at CARM to bring 'em over?

best

s.

[BrianH]

My question is... is it accurate and appropriate to bring in "off shoots" or "break aways" from a main body of believers in order to make the main body of believers look evil or wrong?

Depends on the context of the conversation.

Generally speaking, would you abide by the same restrictions that you seek to impose on your critics?

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

I can't see myself using the Branch Davidian fiasco as proof that SDA is evil.

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Depends on the context of the conversation.

What would qualify as an acceptable context?

Generally speaking, would you abide by the same restrictions that you seek to impose on your critics?

Absolutely. However, I will readily admit that I would not hesitate to bring the mirror out if the LDS critic initiates the topic.

[BrianH]

What would qualify as an acceptable context?

It is inappropriate, or at least inaccurate to hold LDS accountable for the teachings of some LDS offshoot that is deviating from LDS normative theology. OTH, if the offshoot is actually doing what the LDS "prophet" both taught and lived as an example, then there is a place for a debate on the matter.

That there ARE offshoots of biblical Christianity is no argument against biblical Christianity. The claims, scriptures, and other official representation of any religion can only be rightly evaluated on their own terms. Claiming for example that biblical Christianity is FALSE because the Westboro "Baptist" church carries signs that that announce "God Hates ***s" or that God is pleased to see dead U.S. soldiers is really just a red herring. The claims of Christianity do NOT include that God hates ***s, nor is there evidence in the claims of Christ or the Bible that God loves to see U.S. servicemen killed. That is the message of the Westboro Baptist church, not the Bible.

Similarly, if some wild hair offshoot of the LDS somewhere in the dessert starts killing and eating small children, it would be wrong to blame the LDS for that behavior.

But the problem you guys face is that your founding "prophet" both taught and clearly lived out the example of marrying adolescent girls and the wives of other men and he attributed his practices and teachings to God himself. While this is not currently "official doctrine" of the LDS it absolutely was the official doctrine of your founding prophet who blamed it on God. That makes Joseph Smith a FALSE prophet even when compared to your own (LDS) current doctrine.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BrianH

It is inappropriate, or at least inaccurate to hold LDS accountable for the teachings of some LDS offshoot that is deviating from LDS normative theology. OTH, if the offshoot is actually doing what the LDS "prophet" both taught and lived as an example, then there is a place for a debate on the matter.

That there ARE offshoots of biblical Christianity is no argument against biblical Christianity. The claims, scriptures, and other official representation of any religion can only be rightly evaluated on their own terms. Claiming for example that biblical Christianity is FALSE because the Westboro "Baptist" church carries signs that that announce "God Hates ***s" or that God is pleased to see dead U.S. soldiers is really just a red herring. The claims of Christianity do NOT include that God hates ***s, nor is there evidence in the claims of Christ or the Bible that God loves to see U.S. servicemen killed. That is the message of the Westboro Baptist church, not the Bible.

Similarly, if some wild hair offshoot of the LDS somewhere in the dessert starts killing and eating small children, it would be wrong to blame the LDS for that behavior.

But the problem you guys face is that your founding "prophet" both taught and clearly lived out the example of marrying adolescent girls and the wives of other men and he attributed his practices and teachings to God himself. While this is not currently "official doctrine" of the LDS it absolutely was the official doctrine of your founding prophet who blamed it on God. That makes Joseph Smith a FALSE prophet even when compared to your own (LDS) current doctrine.

-BH

.

Here we go again with Brian making accusations that he cannot give a source for. Brian please provide us all with the civil marriage
licenses? As you fail to note or even cite properly is that we are talking about sealing not civil marriages. Interesting.

r.

[BrianH]

Oh C'mawn Richard... You KNOW that Smith never got "civil marriage licenses" for his 30+ wives because polygamy is and was ILLEGAL. There is no way he could have gotten them so your lame little retort is, as usual, easily exposed as just another example of a Mormon using a logical fallacy to obscure the issue (specifically the argument from silence fallacy). That fails to obscure the FACT that Smith took several wives for himself including ****scent girls and other men's wives.

What was your "prophet" doing marrying other men's wives, Rich? Do you deny this?

Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Oh C'mawn Richard... You KNOW that Smith never got "civil marriage licenses" for his 30+ wives because polygamy is and was ILLEGAL. There is no way he could have gotten them so your lame little retort is, as usual, easily exposed as just another example of a Mormon using a logical fallacy to obscure the issue (specifically the argument from silence fallacy). That fails to obscure the FACT that Smith took several wives for himself including ****scent girls and other men's wives.

What was your "prophet" doing marrying other men's wives, Rich? Do you deny this?

Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny.

-BH

.

I know this will be near impossible for you good buddy, but for once could you please site your source if you have one. Yes, Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what? they never slept with him, that is if, "if", you can produce some creditable evidence to show otherwise. Please provide evidence that Joseph slept with any of the women who were, SEALED, to him. Also good buddy, how could a man have had 30 some wives and not have produced any children? They did not have the pill in those days friend.

I am eager to see your deflection when you try to rebut this piece of amateur ham work you consider still relevant. Must I remind you what Mossier and Owns said about old sensationalized criticisms, and false accusations.

Put up or s--- up Brian.

Richard.

[BrianH]

I know this will be near impossible for you good buddy, but for once could you please site your source if you have one. Yes, Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what?

First of all since you admit my claim, what purpose is there in me going and digging out my sources. Secondly, look what you just said: "Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what?" ...of course "sealed" is just a euphemism for marriage.

"So what"?

You say "So what"???

Richard, your so-called "prophet" MARRIED other men's wives. Are you so blind to evil and to sin that I have to spell out the "so what" to you?

Why would any man let his wife be married to another man is a great mystery. Would you let your wife be sealed to Thomas Monosn? Who's wife will she be in the hereafter, Rich? With whom will she be copulating to produce a planet full of spirit children to worship you as their God, Monson or you?

-BH

.

[Richard]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by BrianH

First of all since you admit my claim, what purpose is there in me going and digging out my sources. Secondly, look what you just said: "Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what?" ...of course "sealed" is just a euphemism for marriage.

"So what"?

You say "So what"???

Richard, your so-called "prophet" MARRIED other men's wives. Are you so blind to evil and to sin that I have to spell out the "so what" to you?

I know that historians show that Joseph was sealed to them, but they still remained married to their husbands, so what?

Why would any man let his wife be married to another man is a great mystery. Would you let your wife be sealed to Thomas Monosn? Who's wife will she be in the hereafter, Rich? With whom will she be copulating to produce a planet full of spirit children to worship you as their God, Monson or you?

-BH

I wouldn't since I have been married in the Temple and sealed to my wife for eternity, so my friend you see, which you apparently don't see, is that under the laws of Heaven, only a man and women sealed by God can have eternal life, where as you my friend and if you are married, are joined together only until death.





Nice deflection though.

[BrianH]

I know that historians show that Joseph was sealed to them, but they still remained married to their husbands, so what?

You are making a distinction between "sealed" and "married".

Cute trick, but you know its fake. And you know that I know that its fake.

So ....why bother with the trick? It makes you look silly.

I wouldn't since I have been married in the Temple and sealed to my wife for eternity, so my friend you see, which you apparently don't see, is that under the laws of Heaven, only a man and women sealed by God can have eternal life, where as you my friend and if you are married, are joined together only until death.

Interesting Freudian slip there Richard. Read what you just wrote out loud, slowly to yourself. So then these women are to abandon their husbands in heaven and cling to Smith, right?

Who made this stuff up, Rich?

Nice deflection though

Says the guy who almost NEVER answers any questions.

I suggest you learn what the word "deflection" means; I am directly attacking your claims, Rich.

-BH

.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=BrianH;13067]You are making a distinction between "sealed" and "married".

Cute trick, but you know its fake. And you know that I know that its fake.

So ....why bother with the trick? It makes you look silly.

Huge difference between sealed and married in a civil marriage, apparently God only recognizes sealed for eternity marriages performed by one holding the keys of the Priesthood to perform such marriages. Silly is you trying to provide any kind of marriage certificate showing it was anything other then a sealing. Interesting deflection as you sort through you anti- book cursing the fact that you can't find any information that Joseph was married to any of these women. Nor can you find that the relationship was consummated in the traditional way. I keep telling you to throw away those old antiquated anti-books and move on, you know, they make you look kind of silly.

Interesting Freudian slip there Richard. Read what you just wrote out loud, slowly to yourself. So then these women are to abandon their husbands in heaven and cling to Smith, right?
Who made this stuff up, Rich? Says the guy who almost NEVER answers any questions.

I suggest you learn what the word "deflection" means; I am directly attacking your claims, Rich.

-BH

Really, maybe you should re-read my answer. Since I have married and been sealed with my wife for time and eternity, there would be no reason to ask Pres. Monson to be sealed to her.

Sexual Relations and Polyandry

The above table shows that about one-fourth of Joseph's wives were married women, which Mormon historians have characterized as "polyandry" in a general sense. In Sacred Loneliness, however, uses the term specifically for a woman's marriage to more than one husband, with full physical intimacy. This is also the connotation of the standard definition: "having more than one husband or male mate at one time." In these cases, we simply know that an eternal marriage to Joseph was performed with the continuation of the temporal marriage to an existing husband. By 1846, most of these husbands accepted the eternal sealing to the Prophet. Compton overinterprets the phrase time and eternity, which some married women said was used in their sealings to Joseph Smith. The sealings established an eternal relationship with the Prophet from that point, but time did not necessarily imply present marital relations with two men. A verbal argument to that effect lacks substance. Polyandry should indicate a category of Joseph's sealings to some married women, without implying simultaneous sexual partners.

The published revelation on plural marriage records that certain women "have been given unto my servant Joseph" (D&C 132:52). After some chapters, readers may wonder, "Did God inspire or lead Joseph to be sealed to women who were already married?" The most direct response is "Yes." As believing Latter-day Saints and research historians, we interpret Joseph Smith's involvement with the introduction of plural (celestial) marriage as being firmly grounded in both moral and inspired eternal principles. This conclusion is based on a consistent picture in early documents, including the faithful lives and personal revelations of the first participants, and their remarkable perseverance in overcoming obstacles to accepting and living this celestial principle of marriage.

Compton does not specify or quantify or document his generalized conclusion that "in a significant number" of these plural marriages Joseph Smith had sexual contact with his partner. If by "significant" Compton implies that a majority of these marriages had what he terms the "sexual dimension," his statement is not supported by the data he presents. This is an example of many questionable conclusions in this book that are overly broad, nonspecific, or undocumented.

[BrianH]

Huge difference between sealed and married in a civil marriage, apparently God only recognizes sealed for eternity marriages performed by one holding the keys of the Priesthood to perform such marriages.

Show me where God makes this distinction, Rich. Until you do, it is obvious that this is nothing but another doctrine that Joseph Smith developed to cover his own personal sins (in this case polygamy) with the false rubric of another fake revelation. You have been SO duped.

I dare you to even TRY to show me biblical support for this lame, artificial and obviously self-serving distinction between "sealing" and "marriage". If you even bother to try to live up to your responsibility to meet that challenge, you will quickly discover that once again, as usual, you have swallowed the whole thing: hook, line, single, pole, fisherman and boat without even bothering to see if it is in any way scriptural. You have believed it because Joseph Smith said it (again ...to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed), and your church TELLS you to "believe it".

-BH

.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Show me where God makes this distinction, Rich. Until you do, it is obvious that this is nothing but another doctrine that Joseph Smith developed to cover his own personal sins (in this case polygamy) with the false rubric of another fake revelation. You have been SO duped.

Duped? what the heck you talking about, the accusation you made was, "for his 30+ wives because polygamy is and was ILLEGAL. and then you followed up with, "FACT that Smith took several wives for himself including ****scent girls and other men's wives. This is part of Doctrine you never apparently read, so you carelessly made two mistakes, one is that Polygamy was illegal, and the other is you cannot produce marriage certificates of a civil marriage. Interesting. Then you do not understand Polyandry as God quiet plainly explains in the verse I quoted to you. By 1846, most of these husbands accepted the eternal sealing to the Prophet. Compton overinterprets the phrase time and eternity, which some married women said was used in their sealing to Joseph Smith. The sealing established an eternal relationship with the Prophet from that point, but time did not necessarily imply present marital relations with two men. A verbal argument to that effect lacks substance. Polyandry should indicate a category of Joseph's to some married women, without implying simultaneous sexual partners.

The published revelation on plural marriage records that certain women "have been given unto my servant Joseph" (D&C 132:52).

I dare you to even TRY to show me biblical support for this lame, artificial and obviously self-serving distinction between "sealing" and "marriage". If you even bother to try to live up to your responsibility to meet that challenge, you will quickly discover that once again, as usual, you have swallowed the whole thing: hook, line, single, pole, fisherman and boat without even bothering to see if it is in any way scriptural. You have believed it because Joseph Smith said it (again ...to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed), and your church TELLS you to "believe it".

-BH

You can dare all you want Brian, but the challenge is for you to prove that Polygamy was illegal, and that these marriages where anything other then a sealing. You are limited to what your poor sources speculate, you cannot provide any evidence of sexual relations, children from these sealing, etc, etc.

So big mouth, do the following as you so clearly stated, "Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny".

Thanks partner, and good luck.

R.

[BrianH]

Duped? what the heck you talking about, the accusation you made was, "for his 30+ wives because polygamy is and was ILLEGAL. and then you followed up with, "FACT that Smith took several wives for himself including ****scent girls and other men's wives. This is part of Doctrine you never apparently read, so you carelessly made two mistakes, one is that Polygamy was illegal, and the other is you cannot produce marriage certificates of a civil marriage.

Wrong Rich ...the simple FACT is, Smith did not get a marriage certificate is because it was illegal for him to be married to other men's wives, not because it was part of doctrine that "I never read", nor anyone else ever read. In fact it is not part of any "doctrine" outside the doctrines of the Mormon imagination. Secondly, MANY people have marriage certificates resulting from civil marriages. So as usual, you are either ignorant or lying.

Then you do not understand Polyandry as God quiet plainly explains in the verse I quoted to you.

You never quoted me anything other than the product of the Mormon imagination. What these OTHER dupes and victims of Smith's deceptions fell for is immaterial. The FACT is they let their wives be married (or sealed) to another man for eternity - at least in their imaginations. That they did such a thing only shows the depth of their deception and their gullibility.

The published revelation on plural marriage records that certain women "have been given unto my servant Joseph" (D&C 132:52).

..which was WRITTEN BY JOSEPH SMITH in an obvious effort to rationalize his own polygamous indulgences ...its AMAZING how anyone could actually be so duped by this stuff. You have been played like a card, pal.

You can dare all you want Brian, but the challenge is for you to prove that Polygamy was illegal, and that these marriages where anything other then a sealing. You are limited to what your poor sources speculate, you cannot provide any evidence of sexual relations, children from these sealing, etc, etc.

Yes I can dare and, as usual, the Mormon will not meet the challenge I place before him so he is forced to try to obscure his lack of response to that challenge by issuing his own counter-challenge. Obviously there is no biblical support for your "doctrine" so, you are forced by your pathetic little ego problem to hide like a wounded kitten and lash out with your own nonsense to try to hide your embarr***ment.

I can only wonder if you have somehow managed to fool yourself, or if you somehow think that your stupid tactics have in any way fooled anyone else (except other Mormons, that is - but then again, apparently Mormons are EASILY fooled.)

Yes, Rich you have been duped; polygamy was illegal. In fact, just to clue you in and bring your woefully inadequate education up to speed, the simple FACT is that the statehood of Utah hinged on your church DROPPING this doctrine in order to conform to the law of the nation the people of Utah was trying to join. Suddenly (and conveniently) the Mormon "God" changed his mind and Mormons did away with polygamy.

It seems you are not only ignorant of the basics here, but your God is apparently willing to alter his own laws to accommodate the dictates of men.

So big mouth, do the following as you so clearly stated, "Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny".

So then you deny that Smith invented the Mormon doctrine of polygamy, right?

-BH

.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=BrianH;13117]Wrong Rich ...the simple FACT is, Smith did not get a marriage certificate is because it was illegal for him to be married to other men's wives, not because it was part of doctrine that "I never read", nor anyone else ever read. In fact it is not part of any "doctrine" outside the doctrines of the Mormon imagination. Secondly, MANY people have marriage certificates resulting from civil marriages. So as usual, you are either ignorant or lying.

Get a life and join the world of the what, how and why of Polyandry as given unto Joseph, which was in no way the Polyandry you might want your little anti-book to be believed. Which to say, no other then a dunce such as the gullible Brian, who has never researched any thing in his life, including reading the Book of Mormon. If you can provide a marriage certificate, license or witnesses of a civil marriage, then guess what Brian, you may have a case if then you can prove sexual relations. Since you only have a religious sealing, the Law could care less, so the proof is still your problem, if you want to be considered credible, prove what you claim.

You never quoted me anything other than the product of the Mormon imagination. What these OTHER dupes and victims of Smith's deceptions fell for is immaterial. The FACT is they let their wives be married (or sealed) to another man for eternity - at least in their imaginations. That they did such a thing only shows the depth of their deception and their gullibility.

What I quoted you was a spiritual law, not the law of the land, which you seem to have problems separating. Sealing in no way could be considered polyandry, if you want to state otherwise then you risk accusing Joseph of a crime that never even existed. All of these wives continued to remain married to their husbands, and continued to live with them. For whatever reason they allowed their wives to be sealed for eternity is not clear, but the fact that we only have sketchy history and nothing other then that these sealing took place, we still have nothing indicating a immoral relationship, so what is the big deal partner.

R.

[BrianH]

Get a life and join the world of the what, how and why of Polyandry as given unto Joseph, which was in no way the Polyandry you might want your little anti-book to be believed.

Wake up and realize that neither YOU nor yoru boy Joseph Smith have the authority to invent the laws of polygamy and polyandry to suit your selves.

What I quoted you was a spiritual law, not the law of the land...

Nonsense. What you quoted was Joseph Smith's invention as a means to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed. The law of the land (the US) held polygamy as illegal. Your lame attempt to equivocate "sealing" as irrelevant to marriage is an AMZING display of the kind of mental anguish that Mormons must impose on themselves.

-BH

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Wake up and realize that neither YOU nor yoru boy Joseph Smith have the authority to invent the laws of polygamy and polyandry to suit your selves.

Invent what laws slicko? Joseph never committed polyandry. I could start a new organization tomorrow and claim that a sealing to other mens wives was a religious rite, and not be in any harms way with the law, as long as it was not a legal civil marriage.


Nonsense. What you quoted was Joseph Smith's invention as a means to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed. The law of the land (the US) held polygamy as illegal. Your lame attempt to equivocate "sealing" as irrelevant to marriage is an AMZING display of the kind of mental anguish that Mormons must impose on themselves.

-BH

Invention? where did you glean that from? If I remember right, it was years after that the law was p***ed on polygamy. In 1862, Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all U.S. territories. Was it illegal in Illinois, yes. What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages? Since you can not provide any historical documents to prove evidence one way or the other, you can only speculate.

R.

[BrianH]

Invent what laws slicko?

The laws governing marriage

Joseph never committed polyandry.

No ...he just married other men's wives.

What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages?

Why does that alleged distinction between two types of 'marriages' somehow amount to a distinction between 'marriage' and the NON-marriage which you want us to think is what Smith did. And why would these women not want to be "sealed" to their own Mormon-God husbands? Why was Smith out taking all those women for HIMSELF? No matter how you try to obscure it, Rich - your "prophet" was a punk.

Invention? where did you glean that from?

From the FACT that 100% of all of this nonsense comes from Joseph Smith HIMSELF. I challenge you to show me any distinctions between marriage and marriage-called-"sealings" anywhere outside the rhetoric of Smith and his followers.

Face it, Rich. Your boy Smith was just makin' stuff up to suit his own fancy.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Quote:
Invent what laws slicko?
The laws governing marriage

Oh, thats right, mans laws.

Joseph never committed polyandry.
No ...he just married other men's wives.

Show me the evidence partner, were they sealings or marriages? interesting that you fail to ever provide any evidence to back up you claims. Gosh, darn, it must be frustrating to find that your little anti books are so limited in helping you as you furiously flip the pages, cussing that you just can't find any evidence.

Quote:
What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages?
Why does that alleged distinction between two types of 'marriages' somehow amount to a distinction between 'marriage' and the NON-marriage which you want us to think is what Smith did. And why would these women not want to be "sealed" to their own Mormon-God husbands? Why was Smith out taking all those women for HIMSELF? No matter how you try to obscure it, Rich - your "prophet" was a punk.

Well good buddy, where are all the children that would make your point valid. Interesting that this continues to be a huge stumbling block, and yet you continue to believe that Joseph could be that well practiced, and with out any Birth control pills, to never have slipped up even once, as we so far have no evidence of DNA proof. I tend to believe that sealings are not what most intelligent people would consider a civil marriage, but again I can't get in your closed mind.

Quote:
Invention? where did you glean that from?
From the FACT that 100% of all of this nonsense comes from Joseph Smith HIMSELF. I challenge you to show me any distinctions between marriage and marriage-called-"sealings" anywhere outside the rhetoric of Smith and his followers.

Face it, Rich. Your boy Smith was just makin' stuff up to suit his own fancy.

-BH

No Brian, the challenge is back at you, you made the claim of marrying other mens wives, so with that definition good buddy, would that not mean sexual relations also. Would that not entail adultery?
Would that not most likely mean children. Speculation is a wonderful way to claim something you cannot prove. Speculation Brian, is your forte. Frustrating I imagine.

R.