Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,853 posts
Posted 05 November 2007 - 02:19 PM
Scottie, on Nov 5 2007, 02:15 PM, said:
Riiiiight....we start threads just because we imagined that apologsts say JS never had sex with his wives....gotcha...
I honestly wonder if I'm reading the same board as you guys are. First no apologists ever say that other members get a spiritual confirmation of the few truths their religion has, now no apologists ever say that JS' sealing were platonic...next you'll be telling me that apologists never argued that horses=tapirs.
Surely you know how to use an electronic search function. Can you come up with an instance of even one "apologist" arguing here that Joseph Smith was forbidden from ever consummating any of his plural marriages?
urroner, on Nov 5 2007, 02:15 PM, said:
I like it!
At lunch, I was pondering whether I could come up with an image of Ray Bolger's portrayal of the Scarecrow from "The Wizard of Oz" to use as an icon.
But this is good too.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 05 November 2007 - 02:20 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,853 posts
Posted 05 November 2007 - 02:22 PM
Duplicate post. Please ignore.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 05 November 2007 - 02:23 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Surely you know how to use an electronic search function. Can you come up with an instance of even one "apologist" arguing here that Joseph Smith was forbidden from ever consummating any of his plural marriages?
Sure, I'll find some quotes for ya...
But first, stop avoiding the question I posed to you. Do YOU think JS had sex with his wives?
I suspect squirrels running across your yard will validate your belief in lds. - Hoops
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,853 posts
Posted 05 November 2007 - 02:25 PM
Scottie, on Nov 5 2007, 02:23 PM, said:
Sure, I'll find some quotes for ya...
Lest you waste both your and my time, it has to be to the effect that Joseph Smith was forbidden from ever consummating any of the marriages, not just speculation that some of the sealings may have been platonic.
Quote
But first, stop avoiding the question I posed to you. Do YOU think JS had sex with his wives?
I didn't avoid the question. I said, "Who knows? Who cares?" That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter, except to echo DCP and say that it wouldn't bother me one way or the other.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 05 November 2007 - 02:30 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
I think there is quite a bit of doubt, actually. Seeing as it's next to impossible to get many apologists to admit that JS ever had anything but platonic relationships with his wives. These apologists don't seem to think that JS would have ever consummated a plural marriage.
However, as I've asked many time, and have never received an answer, where did the practice change between JS and BY? At what point did God come down and declare to BY that it is now ok to consummate these marriages where JS never could?
To me, this is the single biggest flaw in the "JS sealings were strictly platonic" argument.
Using the word "apologist" as you do in a broad ad hominem generalization is disingenous.
I admit that some members would rather pretend that Joseph Smith didn't have any real plural marriages and others who forcefully assert that all though he was sealed to other women, he did not consumate any plural marriages. Those are not what I would classify as apologists.
There is some annectotal evidence that seems to indicate that he did cosnumate at least one or more of them and had at least one child by a plural wife, but there is also some stong annecdotal evidence that he did not consumate some of them. All personal opinions aside, there however is not any unimpeachable evidence that he did or did not, the key word there being unimpeachable - that is, there is no confirmation and plenty of reasons to be skeptical of of the evidence both for and against.
I tend to believe that J.S. probably did consumate some, but probably not all, of those marriages. I think most serious students of the topic also believe that he at least consumated some of those marriages. But that is opinion, and no matter how logical it seems to you or me, absent evidence, opinion is not fact.
If one cannot offer facts, then what can one honestly say? Only that there are no known facts in the matter. And for that honesty, you hoist the apologist on a pillory because he does not admit to what you see as obvious, despite the absence of fact. For all you know, the apologist may be of the same personal opinion, but for the sake of historical accuracy understands the necessity of relating only the facts - for if he fails to do so, another will apply a history razor against him.
As I said, I tend to agree with you in principle, J.S. probably did consumate some of those marriages. I have no problems with that and it doesn't present any kind of a challenge to my understanding of the sealing and marriage principles taught by the church. I do however take umbrage to your generalization on apologists.
(edit: I see I need to type faster as Scottie has already been called on the carpet for this)
I honestly wonder if I'm reading the same board as you guys are. First no apologists ever say that other members get a spiritual confirmation of the few truths their religion has, now no apologists ever say that JS' sealing were platonic...next you'll be telling me that apologists never argued that horses=tapirs.
I want to apologize, from the bottom of my heart, for my all-too-frequent failure (and that of other "Mopologists") to give you the answers your paradigm predicts and demands.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,853 posts
Posted 05 November 2007 - 02:37 PM
Daniel Peterson, on Nov 5 2007, 02:31 PM, said:
I want to apologize, from the bottom of my heart, for my all-too-frequent failure (and that of other "Mopologists") to give you the answers your paradigm predicts and demands.
I went there and immediately found a great Ray Bolger image. Alas, it had errors when I tried to paste it.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
I think there is quite a bit of doubt, actually. Seeing as it's next to impossible to get many apologists to admit that JS ever had anything but platonic relationships with his wives. These apologists don't seem to think that JS would have ever consummated a plural marriage.
However, as I've asked many time, and have never received an answer, where did the practice change between JS and BY? At what point did God come down and declare to BY that it is now ok to consummate these marriages where JS never could?
To me, this is the single biggest flaw in the "JS sealings were strictly platonic" argument.
Wow, is that ever a strawman! As far as I know, there is no "'JS sealings were strictly platonic'" apologetic argument. There is no apologetic point defended by that. Rather, it is simply an observation of the apparent fact that no one has been able to find any offspring that were sired by Joseph in a polygamous marriage. I don't think any apologists really care whether his marriages (for the most part) were platonic or not.
(Edit: I really should read all the intervening posts before posting, because I see that this point was already beat to death before I got here.)
Edited by SolarPowered, 05 November 2007 - 02:43 PM.
Lest you waste both your and my time, it has to be to the effect that Joseph Smith was forbidden from ever consummating any of the marriages, not just speculation that some of the sealings may have been platonic.
Nice try there. Don't combine your two arguments into one.
I said,
Quote
I think there is quite a bit of doubt, actually. Seeing as it's next to impossible to get many apologists to admit that JS ever had anything but platonic relationships with his wives. These apologists don't seem to think that JS would have ever consummated a plural marriage.
to which you responded,
Quote
Interesting that none of these "many apologists" ever seem to show up on message boards such as this one. Pretty much every apologetic argument I've seen is to the effect that there is not enough information to state definitively one way or the other.
Methinks you know that this is a pretty common argument made by some apologists.
I will gladly admit that there is absolutely no evidence that JS was forbidden from consummating these marriages. Although if the platonic sealings apologists are right, what other reason would JS have for keeping it platonic?? He was pretty much given permission to have sex in 132, so if they were platonic, God must have rescinded that permission somewhere, right?
Quote
I didn't avoid the question. I said, "Who knows? Who cares?" That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter.
Nobody knows, but many of us care. It is a rather crucial aspect of determining the character of JS. So for you to wave it off as some minor detail that doesn't even warrant a moment of your time is surprising to me.
I suspect squirrels running across your yard will validate your belief in lds. - Hoops
Using the word "apologist" as you do in a broad ad hominem generalization is disingenous.
I wonder what term I should use then??
Quote
I admit that some members would rather pretend that Joseph Smith didn't have any real plural marriages and others who forcefully assert that all though he was sealed to other women, he did not consumate any plural marriages. Those are not what I would classify as apologists.
There is some annectotal evidence that seems to indicate that he did cosnumate at least one or more of them and had at least one child by a plural wife, but there is also some stong annecdotal evidence that he did not consumate some of them. All personal opinions aside, there however is not any unimpeachable evidence that he did or did not, the key word there being unimpeachable - that is, there is no confirmation and plenty of reasons to be skeptical of of the evidence both for and against.
First, I've never heard of any evidence that he sired a child. Do you have a link you could share? I would like to research this more.
Second, you are absolutely correct. There is evidence, then there is fact. Very little of what happened in the early church is fact. Should that stop me from making decisions based on the evidence that is available? If scientists waited until they KNEW everything, nothing would get done. We have to take what we have, form guesses and work within those parameter. When new evidence presents itself, we should alter our worldview to fit within the new evidences.
Quote
I tend to believe that J.S. probably did consumate some, but probably not all, of those marriages. I think most serious students of the topic also believe that he at least consumated some of those marriages. But that is opinion, and no matter how logical it seems to you or me, absent evidence, opinion is not fact.
This is what my current thinking is as well. And I am completely open to rethinking my viewpoint if new evidences are introduced.
Quote
If one cannot offer facts, then what can one honestly say? Only that there are no known facts in the matter. And for that honesty, you hoist the apologist on a pillory because he does not admit to what you see as obvious, despite the absence of fact. For all you know, the apologist may be of the same personal opinion, but for the sake of historical accuracy understands the necessity of relating only the facts - for if he fails to do so, another will apply a history razor against him.
Again, I have to disagree here. If we were limited to only facts, we would have next to nothing. We must take the evidences we do have, judge them and draw our own conclusions. We should consider ourselves lucky if we run across something we consider fact.
Daniel Peterson, on Nov 5 2007, 02:31 PM, said:
I want to apologize, from the bottom of my heart, for my all-too-frequent failure (and that of other "Mopologists") to give you the answers your paradigm predicts and demands.
Apology accepted.
SolarPowered, on Nov 5 2007, 02:41 PM, said:
Wow, is that ever a strawman! As far as I know, there is no "'JS sealings were strictly platonic'" apologetic argument. There is no apologetic point defended by that. Rather, it is simply an observation of the apparent fact that no one has been able to find any offspring that were sired by Joseph in a polygamous marriage. I don't think any apologists really care whether his marriages (for the most part) were platonic or not.
(Edit: I really should read all the intervening posts before posting, because I see that this point was already beat to death before I got here.)
The fact that you guys really don't care if JS had sex with these wives is awfully disturbing to me. This is the crux of the loss of many members testimonies. And you treat it as if it were something as trivial as whether JS wore red or blue socks.
Edited by Scottie, 05 November 2007 - 02:54 PM.
I suspect squirrels running across your yard will validate your belief in lds. - Hoops
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,853 posts
Posted 05 November 2007 - 03:00 PM
Scottie, on Nov 5 2007, 02:42 PM, said:
Nice try there. Don't combine your two arguments into one.
I said,
to which you responded,
Methinks you know that this is a pretty common argument made by some apologists.
What argument? That he never would have consummated any of his plural marriages? I acknowledge no such thing.
I take it, though, that on a search you haven't been able to come up with anything. I didn't think you could.
Quote
I will gladly admit that there is absolutely no evidence that JS was forbidden from consummating these marriages. Although if the platonic sealings apologists are right, what other reason would JS have for keeping it platonic?? He was pretty much given permission to have sex in 132, so if they were platonic, God must have rescinded that permission somewhere, right?
More straw-man argumentation. Thus far, you have failed to come up with even one instance of a Mormon apologist asserting that all of Joseph's plural marriages were platonic. By the way, do you know Daniel Peterson is on the "Platonic Sealings" thread, searching for instances in which Mormon "apologists" are asserting all of Joseph's plural marriages were platonic? So far, he hasn't spotted any. Perhaps you can go on there and point them out to him.
Quote
Nobody knows, but many of us care. It is a rather crucial aspect of determining the character of JS. So for you to wave it off as some minor detail that doesn't even warrant a moment of your time is surprising to me.
Practicing plural marriage in obedience to a commandment from God does not indicate a character flaw -- just the opposite, in fact. So if by "many of us" you mean Mormonism's antagonists, color me unimpressed.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
The fact that you guys really don't care if JS had sex with these wives is awfully disturbing to me. This is the crux of the loss of many members testimonies. And you treat it as if it were something as trivial as whether JS wore red or blue socks.
I'm not bothered by sex. I don't think it's dirty or evil. Did Joseph Smith have sex with polygamous wives? Possibly. Probably. On the whole, so what? Once the legitimacy of plural marriage is granted, sex within a plural marriage is no more problematic, morally, than sex within a monogamous marriage.
I understand that you're particularly exercised about cases involving already-married women and very young women. The evidence for sexual relations in these cases, however, is typically thin to nonexistent, and very likely completely beyond our retrieval. Not much point in hyperventilating about it.
What argument? That he never would have consummated any of his plural marriages? I acknowledge no such thing.
I take it, though, that on a search you haven't been able to come up with anything. I didn't think you could.
You mean the altered goal posts that you claim you were arguing all along? The one that I admitted was my opinion? Nope, couldn't find a thing.
Quote
More straw-man argumentation. Thus far, you have failed to come up with even one instance of a Mormon apologist asserting that all of Joseph's plural marriages were platonic. By the way, do you know Daniel Peterson is on the "Platonic Sealings" thread, searching for instances in which Mormon "apologists" are asserting all of Joseph's plural marriages were platonic? So far, he hasn't spotted any. Perhaps you can go on there and point them out to him.
Did you, or did you not change the requirement for the search a couple of posts up???? Now you take me to task for not looking??? Increditble.
Quote
Practicing plural marriage in obedience to a commandment from God does not indicate a character flaw -- just the opposite, in fact. So if by "many of us" you mean Mormonism's antagonists, color me unimpressed.
But that's just the point, who's to say God commanded it?
Any atrocity is justified if God commanded it.
I suspect squirrels running across your yard will validate your belief in lds. - Hoops
The fact that you guys really don't care if JS had sex with these wives is awfully disturbing to me. This is the crux of the loss of many members testimonies. And you treat it as if it were something as trivial as whether JS wore red or blue socks.
He was married to them, so if he had sex with them I don't have an issue with it. I'm not convinced I'd be able to live plural marriage in complete happiness, I'm not certain Joseph could, either, but I don't know. It's slighlty more disconcerting to know Joseph fulfilled this particular commandment than the command Noah had to build an ark. I don't have to do either things.
Sex is such a taboo issue.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
I'm not bothered by sex. I don't think it's dirty or evil. Did Joseph Smith have sex with polygamous wives? Possibly. Probably. On the whole, so what? Once the legitimacy of plural marriage is granted, sex within a plural marriage is no more problematic, morally, than sex within a monogamous marriage.
So if your daughter were to come home tonight and tell you that she has joined a cult that practices ritualistic sexual acts, but it's ok because God commanded it, you'd be just fine with that, huh? After all, it's just sex. And, the leader says he has God's say so, so it's now morally justified.
Quote
I understand that you're particularly exercised about cases involving already-married women and very young women. The evidence for sexual relations in these cases, however, is typically thin to nonexistent, and very likely completely beyond our retrieval. Not much point in hyperventilating about it.
Already married women, yes. Underage women, not so much. I don't believe JS was a pedophile. I agree that there is very little evidence to support that JS had sex with Helen.
I suspect squirrels running across your yard will validate your belief in lds. - Hoops
A leader wanting to instill loyalty could do worse than devising a system that rewards his most loyal of followers by marrying them to lots of women and ensuring them an ever-increasing brood.
Would inheriting any believer genes put one more at risk for Multi-level Marketing?
"Thy mercy, Lord, is great And far above the heavâ??ns. Let none be made ashamed That wait upon thee."
He was married to them, so if he had sex with them I don't have an issue with it. I'm not convinced I'd be able to live plural marriage in complete happiness, I'm not certain Joseph could, either, but I don't know. It's slighlty more disconcerting to know Joseph fulfilled this particular commandment than the command Noah had to build an ark. I don't have to do either things.
Sex is such a taboo issue.
No, just because JS said he was married to them doesn't mean he actually was. If he wasn't, it creates a HUGE problem.
I suspect squirrels running across your yard will validate your belief in lds. - Hoops
0
This topic is locked
Scottie, on Nov 5 2007, 02:15 PM, said:
