Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Martin

The Legalization Of Polygamy In The United States

Recommended Posts

Martin writes:Yet there is nothing in that account which implies sex - unless you want to read it in that way. And when you speak of blinders, the pot calls the kettle black. Exactly what is your interest here other than to forward a specific view regardless of whether it is accurate or not ....

If Ms. Sessions believed her daughter was Joseph's, then how do you think she believed she became pregnant. No, there are other accounts, and they are available for all to seek. For instance, read "In Sacred Loneliness."

I think this has been an interesting exercise.

In summation: Mormons today want to dump D&C 132 as being the "new and everlasting covenant," which it obviously claims to be. Smith's "revelations" are better off swept under the proverbial rug, as they don't induce conversions to the group, especially among women. There are some men who would embrace polygamy gladly, but for the most part, Mormon men are not interested in it due to economic and social constraints.

I think that to claim Smith as a prophet of God and the Restorer of Christianity, and then to write off what he said in Sec. 132 as not important to the LDS Church, is hypocritical. But, I will leave that for you guys to decide. Good bye! for now.

Share this post


Link to post

Selek writes:

Well, since Mormon faith IS Christian faith, we agree.
Not really. He gave us Calvanism as the primary definition of Christianity. We DO NOT believe that Christ atoned only for the sins of those called by God. Such a doctrine is ludicrous and suggests that God created most of creation and then refused to call them so that He could condemn them to Hell. We DO believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind - not just some few elect predetermined by God to be the righteous ones who get redeemed. I would imagine that Martin himself imagines that he is one of these elect (although he would have a hard time proving it ...)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post

Whether Sessions daughter was Joseph's or not, it appears that the relationship was sexual; as were the many other relationships he indulged in with married women. Take off the blinders. He married them in

Please provide a refrence that JS relations were "sexual" So far you have offered nothing and continur to assert your point as if it is some fact that is beyond dispute. Perhaps you should take your own adavice and "take of the blinders".

Share this post


Link to post

Selek writes:Not really. He gave us Calvanism as the primary definition of Christianity. We DO NOT believe that Christ atoned only for the sins of those called by God. Such a doctrine is ludicrous and suggests that God created most of creation and then refused to call them so that He could condemn them to Hell. We DO believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind - not just some few elect predetermined by God to be the righteous ones who get redeemed. I would imagine that Martin himself imagines that he is one of these elect (although he would have a hard time proving it ...)

Ben

I stand corrected.

I sit funny, too.

I missed the "called" part (because as the Scripture states, God calls ALL MEN to repentence).

Though the Calvinism angle does explain a lot about the rigid and straited logic being employed.

Share this post


Link to post

If you knew who I am, you would laugh at that!

I really dont care who you are. Should I. and how would that make any body laugh? Try us. Now my curisoity is peaked. You cant leave us hanging. Who are you?

Share this post


Link to post

Just don't google it- whatever you do! ;):crazy::P

Don't worry. I used dictionary.com.

Share this post


Link to post

If Ms. Sessions believed her daughter was Joseph's, then how do you think she believed she became pregnant. No, there are other accounts, and they are available for all to seek. For instance, read "In Sacred Loneliness."

I think this has been an interesting exercise.

In summation: Mormons today want to dump D&C 132 as being the "new and everlasting covenant," which it obviously claims to be. Smith's "revelations" are better off swept under the proverbial rug, as they don't induce conversions to the group, especially among women. There are some men who would embrace polygamy gladly, but for the most part, Mormon men are not interested in it due to economic and social constraints.

I think that to claim Smith as a prophet of God and the Restorer of Christianity, and then to write off what he said in Sec. 132 as not important to the LDS Church, is hypocritical. But, I will leave that for you guys to decide. Good bye! for now.

Matthew 7: 5

Share this post


Link to post

I really dont care who you are. Should I. and how would that make any body laugh? Try us. Now my curisoity is peaked. You cant leave us hanging. Who are you?

IM: "Who are you? I must know!"

DPW: "Get used to disappointment."

Share this post


Link to post

Martin writes:

If Ms. Sessions believed her daughter was Joseph's, then how do you think she believed she became pregnant. No, there are other accounts, and they are available for all to seek. For instance, read "In Sacred Loneliness."
See, this is why it is all interpretational. We have a notion (which is probably more current than these events to some extent) that children who are born after parents are sealed are also assumed to be sealed to them (we call it being born under the covenant). If Ms. Sessions believed that because she had been sealed to Joseph that her daughter was thus sealed to Joseph as one born under the covenant, then the daughter could be considered to be Joseph's without there ever having been an intimate relationship. It is you who are reading this and asserting that this must imply sex - when in fact it doesn't seem to at all
In summation: Mormons today want to dump D&C 132 as being the "new and everlasting covenant," which it obviously claims to be. Smith's "revelations" are better off swept under the proverbial rug, as they don't induce conversions to the group, especially among women. There are some men who would embrace polygamy gladly, but for the most part, Mormon men are not interested in it due to economic and social constraints.

I think that to claim Smith as a prophet of God and the Restorer of Christianity, and then to write off what he said in Sec. 132 as not important to the LDS Church, is hypocritical. But, I will leave that for you guys to decide. Good bye! for now.

It makes the discussion kind of pointless when you get to tell us what we believe (when clearly we don't believe it at all).

Ben

Share this post


Link to post

You also must assume that all marriages must invariably include sexual intercourse.

Do you actually believe that these marriages were platonic?

Bear in mind, I am not asking if you know. Only two people would know for sure is the marriages were consummated.

Share this post


Link to post

If Ms. Sessions believed her daughter was Joseph's, then how do you think she believed she became pregnant. No, there are other accounts, and they are available for all to seek. For instance, read "In Sacred Loneliness."

I think this has been an interesting exercise.

In summation: Mormons today want to dump D&C 132 as being the "new and everlasting covenant," which it obviously claims to be. Smith's "revelations" are better off swept under the proverbial rug, as they don't induce conversions to the group, especially among women. There are some men who would embrace polygamy gladly, but for the most part, Mormon men are not interested in it due to economic and social constraints.

I think that to claim Smith as a prophet of God and the Restorer of Christianity, and then to write off what he said in Sec. 132 as not important to the LDS Church, is hypocritical. But, I will leave that for you guys to decide. Good bye! for now.

Yes. Kind of like how Christians want to sweep the law of moses and circumcision under the rug, though they were everlasting covenants. Hypocrite. :P Keep quote-mining, my friend.

miner2.gif

Share this post


Link to post

If Ms. Sessions believed her daughter was Joseph's, then how do you think she believed she became pregnant. No, there are other accounts, and they are available for all to seek. For instance, read "In Sacred Loneliness."

Most of us have and don't support the allegations you've tossed out. Then again, I doubt you've read it either (as much as proof-texted excerpts of the book on anti-Mormon sites).
I think this has been an interesting exercise.

I think it was the usual Eevie-Weavie waste of time. You came in, tossed out a bunch of allegations you couldn't prove and are now retreating in headlong flight to proclaim victory.

In summation: Mormons today want to dump D&C 132 as being the "new and everlasting covenant," which it obviously claims to be.

Your spin. Not supported by the facts.

Smith's "revelations" are better off swept under the proverbial rug, as they don't induce conversions to the group, especially among women.

Your spin. Not supported by the facts.

There are some men who would embrace polygamy gladly, but for the most part, Mormon men are not interested in it due to economic and social constraints.

Your spin. Not supported by the facts, nor by the thread itself.

I think that to claim Smith as a prophet of God and the Restorer of Christianity, and then to write off what he said in Sec. 132 as not important to the LDS Church, is hypocritical.
If anybody on this board knows hypocrisy, I'm sure you're it.
But, I will leave that for you guys to decide. Good bye! for now.

We'll see you again soon- after you get in another round of speculating about dead people's sex lives.

Can't say we'll miss you though.

Share this post


Link to post

Do you actually believe that these marriages were platonic?

Bear in mind, I am not asking if you know. Only two people would know for sure is the marriages were consummated.

Hell no Jaybear, it was totaly for sex. i just had to let the cat out of the bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, [Joseph Smith's] G-d's guy, so I luckily donĂ¢??t have to justify anything.

Amen and Amen! :P

Share this post


Link to post

Do you actually believe that these marriages were platonic?

I believe at the very least some were.

Bear in mind, I am not asking if you know. Only two people would know for sure is the marriages were consummated.

I believe more than just 2 could know.

Share this post


Link to post

Hell no Jaybear, it was totaly for sex. i just had to let the cat out of the bag.

I get it. You don't want to answer the question. No surprise there.

Share this post


Link to post

I get it. You don't want to answer the question. No surprise there.

Technically you were asking me, no? Mola was just being smarmy and blarmy.

Share this post


Link to post

jeffs-warren-cp-10647858.jpg

?

Oh, now that is really funny. I would laugh if I knew who you were. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Do you actually believe that these marriages were platonic?

Okay, now you've got my curiousity up.

Which marriages are you referring to as "these" marriages?

I guess I've been daydreaming about what I would do if God allowed me to have more than one wife.

Bear in mind, I am not asking if you know. Only two people would know for sure is the marriages were consummated.

If I was married to moere than one woman, I'm pretty sure I would be having sexual relations with all of them.

That wouldn't necessarily mean that all who were married as one would be having "sexual intercourse" with each other, though, and frankly that would be none of your business.

Share this post


Link to post

I get it. You don't want to answer the question. No surprise there.

Gees Jaybear. You wouldnt know sarcasim if it bit you in the buttism. Oh well no suprise there. You know I am so intelectually dishonest with my self. You shouldnt be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, now that is really funny. I would laugh if I knew who you were. :P

Okay- just cuz I'm feeling contrary:

I and several others pounced on ION MIC for comparing the Pope to a crack addict- it was disrespectful of other people's religions.

Now several here are compaing Warren Jeffs to the Crypt keeper.

Do I sense a double standard or has dealing with Martin lowered my IQ to the breaking point?

And for the record, which one of them should be offended?

Share this post


Link to post

Just don't google it- whatever you do! ;):crazy::P

You had to tell us not to do it....some of those places card ya! :fool:

I thought it was a Japanese word...I knew hantai meant "opposite", hentai means..."abnormal"

Share this post


Link to post

If Ms. Sessions believed her daughter was Joseph's, then how do you think she believed she became pregnant. No, there are other accounts, and they are available for all to seek. For instance, read "In Sacred Loneliness."

I think this has been an interesting exercise.

In summation: Mormons today want to dump D&C 132 as being the "new and everlasting covenant," which it obviously claims to be. Smith's "revelations" are better off swept under the proverbial rug, as they don't induce conversions to the group, especially among women. There are some men who would embrace polygamy gladly, but for the most part, Mormon men are not interested in it due to economic and social constraints.

I think that to claim Smith as a prophet of God and the Restorer of Christianity, and then to write off what he said in Sec. 132 as not important to the LDS Church, is hypocritical. But, I will leave that for you guys to decide. Good bye! for now.

Your leaving just when the discussion is getting good. Oh well you gotta do what you gotta do.

I dont think any mormons want to dump D&C 132. We defenatly dont veiw it the way you do and we are not obligated to accept your interpretation as if it was some how binding on anybody.

Go fish.

Okay- just cuz I'm feeling contrary:

I and several others pounced on ION MIC for comparing the Pope to a crack addict- it was disrespectful of other people's religions.

Now several here are compaing Warren Jeffs to the Crypt keeper.

Do I sense a double standard or has dealing with Martin lowered my IQ to the breaking point?

And for the record, which one of them should be offended?

Actually you have a point. I should be a little more respectful. Ill recant what I have said. Is recant even a word?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...