why me Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 What's a CFR?You gave him one: Call for References
why me Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 But that's not polygamy.Technically it is not polyandry either, if you see the examples of when it is used in my previous posts.
Calm Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Ummmm, yeah, sure you didn't. I was taught this in seminary.(Link to this site is not allowed here)Not all seminary teachers are equal...it is in the institute manuals, both the current Church History one and the one used previously.Though I am rather mystified that those who claim to read their scriptures have missed it. Why would he have received a revelation and the not practiced it?And how can they miss verse 52?add-on: I didn't realize that this was given as an example. My response is off topic therefore.Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. Edited July 5, 2012 by calmoriah
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 You gave him one: Call for ReferencesI gave him two.
Rob Bowman Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Again, my CFR (call for references) was not for ex-Mormons stating that they did not learn about Joseph's plural wives from LDS Church sources. My CFR was for "critics" stating that the LDS Church never acknowledges that Joseph engaged in the practice.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Technically it is not polyandry either, if you see the examples of when it is used in my previous posts.From my own research I canclude that there is no evidence of sexual relations between Joseph Smith and anyone but with Emma Smith. So, strictly speaking, and in accordance to the definition you provided in your #25 post, you are correct in that Joseph never practiced polyandry. There never was any "mating".
why me Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 Again, my CFR (call for references) was not for ex-Mormons stating that they did not learn about Joseph's plural wives from LDS Church sources. My CFR was for "critics" stating that the LDS Church never acknowledges that Joseph engaged in the practice.Is this a joke? An exmormon criticizing the fact that the church hid Joseph's practice of polygamy becomes a critic of the lds church. 1
why me Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 From my own research I canclude that there is no evidence of sexual relations between Joseph Smith and anyone but with Emma Smith. So, strictly speaking, and in accordance to the definition you provided in your #25 post, you are correct in that Joseph never practiced polyandry. There never was any "mating".Well, this is a different topic. But let me state it this way. Joseph was a polygamist. He was not a polyandrist. Men can not be polyandrists. Only women can be such when they take on more than one husband.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Not all seminary teachers are equal...it is in the institute manuals, both the current Church History one and the one used previously.Though I am rather mystified that those who claim to read their scriptures have missed it. Why would he have received a revelation and the not practiced it?And how can they miss verse 52?add-on: I didn't realize that this was given as an example. My response is off topic therefore.Yup. You'll find polygamy talk in the years the LDS Church studies the Doctrine and Covenants.As for seminary teachers, I think one significant reason my seminary teachers brought up polygamy and some ofthe pllygamous wives Joseph Smith had, was because the issue was known to be broght up amongst us teens at school. "You're a Mormon? Does that mean you can have lots of wives?"
RLBaty Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.How curious!That's the same reference I have been using in recent days as the foundation of that poll I have been taking and is copied in my introduction thread here.Funny how so many Mormons I have asked have NOT been willing to simply give me a "yes" or "no" as to which of the 5, simple, factual, historical claims they believe.Van Hale's producer Don Ormsby has scheduled me to appear this Sunday on Van's radio show to discuss that and who knows what else.Sincerely,Robert Batyhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Again, my CFR (call for references) was not for ex-Mormons stating that they did not learn about Joseph's plural wives from LDS Church sources. My CFR was for "critics" stating that the LDS Church never acknowledges that Joseph engaged in the practice.They claim that they never knew Joseph Smith practiced polygamy *because* the LDS Church never taught them it. They say it never taught them it because the LDS church hides this historic fact as a secret. As why me's point is, this is a bogus charge. Purely fallacious.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 How curious!That's the same reference I have been using in recent days as the foundation of that poll I have been taking and is copied in my introduction thread here.Funny how so many Mormons I have asked have NOT been willing to simply give me a "yes" or "no" as to which of the 5, simple, factual, historical claims they believe.Van Hale's producer Don Ormsby has scheduled me to appear this Sunday on Van's radio show to discuss that and who knows what else.Sincerely,Robert Batyhttp://groups.yahoo....Maury_and_Baty/How curious you *didn't* make this a post after you were able to. All you ever did was whine about Mormons evading your poll because that's what mormons do: evade the topic of polygamy. I'd say you have not manifested the best of marketing skills.Your call to answer "yes or no" justifiably throws up red flags as a strict "yes or no" answers can easily be manipulated contextually into different forms of conclusions. I wouldn't want to participate in your polls neither. I also find your posts focused entirely on you. That your position is all about what you want mormons to do: your way and ion your own terms. So, if you want to dismount the haughty horse and add to this conversation, now would be the perfect time. 1
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) [sELF DELETED FOR REPETITION] Edited July 5, 2012 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Oh, and, of course, that grand radio promo. Good luck with that. I've no desire to listen in but i will advise you to have access to bottled water in case your throat dries up. That's about the best advice I can offer. Edited July 5, 2012 by Darren10
RLBaty Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 How curious you *didn't* make this a post after you were able to. All you ever did was whine about Mormons evading your poll because that's what mormons do: evade the topic of polygamy. I'd say you have not manifested the best of marketing skills.Your call to answer "yes or no" justifiably throws up red flags as a strict "yes or no" answers can easily be manipulated contextually into different forms of conclusions. I wouldn't want to participate in your polls neither. I also find your posts focused entirely on you. That your position is all about what you want mormons to do: your way and ion your own terms. So, if you want to dismount the haughty horse and add to this conversation, now would be the perfect time.Thanks for the demonstration and evasion!Maybe others are able to give a simple "yes" or "no" to what are simple "yes" or "no" issues.Here's a hint: If you do NOT believe the 5 simple, factual, historical claims to be true, your answer would be "no"!Poll Issues:> (A) God revealed the doctrine of> plural marriage to Joseph Smith?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No> (B) God commanded Joseph Smith> to live it?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No> © Joseph Smith taught the> doctrine to some associates?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - Yes> (D) Joseph Smith and a number of> his associates entered into plural> marriages?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - Yes> (E) Joseph Smith and his associates> needed and received personal inspiration> from God to help them enter in to> plural marriages?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No
Thinking Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Was it on the Church website in 1977 when I started attending seminary in California?I will tell you what I was taught about polygamy from my seminary and Sunday school teachers.Many men were killed by anti-mormons, and polygamy was introduced so that the widows could have husbands. Joseph Smith had only two or three wives, and only because the Lord commanded it.
ANACO Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Was it on the Church website in 1977 when I started attending seminary in California?I will tell you what I was taught about polygamy from my seminary and Sunday school teachers.Many men were killed by anti-mormons, and polygamy was introduced so that the widows could have husbands. Joseph Smith had only two or three wives, and only because the Lord commanded it.Being sealed to more than one "wife" and being legally married to - are two different things, aren't they?
why me Posted July 5, 2012 Author Posted July 5, 2012 Many men were killed by anti-mormons, and polygamy was introduced so that the widows could have husbands. Joseph Smith had only two or three wives, and only because the Lord commanded it.I think that this was common folklore among many mormons and they taught it to their students. But my point was simple: Joseph's polygamy is on the official church website. Nothing is hidden. Now about polyandry. Men cannot be polyandrists. Only women can. Joseph regardless if he were sealed to other men's wives would still be a polygamist. However, the married women who consented to be sealed to him could technically be termed polyandrists. (if such a word exists) In other words, it is the women who practiced polyandry and not Joseph.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Thanks for the demonstration and evasion!What are you talking about? After I evaded *nothing*, ("refused", yes, "evaded", no), you accuse me of evasion? This reply comes so automatic from your keyboard that it almost seems preprogrammed into your dialogue. You seem determined to alsways portray Mormons as evading topics. On a thread which addresses your the very topic you wish to adddress - polygamy - and I expicitly invited you to participate into this discussion, you accuse me of evading the topic which is open for you to participate in and which I made a direct invite to you to participate in, and which I have been participating in. What gives? You have purported multiple uses of your poll yet your bias against Mormons escapes your lips more regularly than my eyes blink. As I pointed out previously, your marketing skills are pessimistically poor. downright abismal. Accusing me of any negative behavior is not an effective tool to pursuade me to participate in your poll. Now, are your posts going to be about you or are you going to actually add to the discussion here? 2
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) I think that this was common folklore among many mormons and they taught it to their students.I agree and believed the interpretation of LDS history along the lines of polygamy being praticed to take care of the widows because it made some sense. But later on in my life what made more sense to me was that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of *all things* and that includes polygamy. Edited July 5, 2012 by Darren10
ANACO Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 I think that this was common folklore among many mormons and they taught it to their students. But my point was simple: Joseph's polygamy is on the official church website. Nothing is hidden. Now about polyandry. Men cannot be polyandrists. Only women can. Joseph regardless if he were sealed to other men's wives would still be a polygamist. However, the married women who consented to be sealed to him could technically be termed polyandrists. (if such a word exists) In other words, it is the women who practiced polyandry and not Joseph.By definition, both polygamy and polyandry are forms of marriage-physical relations. A sealing is not.I know of LDS men who are legally divorced but still sealed to their former spouse.If they re-marry outside of the Temple, they're not practicing polygamy.The Prophet may have been married to more than one wife, but sealed to more women.It doesn't mean he was married to the latter or those women were practicing polyandry.
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Being sealed to more than one "wife" and being legally married to - are two different things, aren't they?Yes but they are often conflated by those who don't understand either. 1
RLBaty Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 What are you talking about? After I evaded *nothing*, ("refused", yes, "evaded", no), you accuse me of evasion? This reply comes so automatic from your keyboard that it almost seems preprogrammed into your dialogue. You seem determined to alsways portray Mormons as evading topics. On a thread which addresses your the very topic you wish to adddress - polygamy - and I expicitly invited you to participate into this discussion, you accuse me of evading the topic which is open for you to participate in and which I made a direct invite to you to participate in, and which I have been participating in. What gives? You have purported multiple uses of your poll yet your bias against Mormons escapes your lips more regularly than my eyes blink. As I pointed out previously, your marketing skills are pessimistically poor. downright abismal. Accusing me of any negative behavior is not an effective tool to pursuade me to participate in your poll.Now, are your posts going to be about you or are you going to actually add to the discussion here?I get the idea you must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote most of that.As for me, my poll is a rather simple exercise with various utilitarian purposes in the broader, public debate regarding things Mormon.Here are the 5 issues for "yes" or "no" responses should there be any here wishing to participate:Poll Issues:> (A) God revealed the doctrine of> plural marriage to Joseph Smith?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No> (B) God commanded Joseph Smith> to live it?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No> (-C-) Joseph Smith taught the> doctrine to some associates?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - Yes> (D) Joseph Smith and a number of> his associates entered into plural> marriages?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - Yes> (E) Joseph Smith and his associates> needed and received personal inspiration> from God to help them enter in to> plural marriages?>>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Was it on the Church website in 1977 when I started attending seminary in California?I will tell you what I was taught about polygamy from my seminary and Sunday school teachers.Many men were killed by anti-mormons, and polygamy was introduced so that the widows could have husbands. Joseph Smith had only two or three wives, and only because the Lord commanded it.Would you please find me a quote from a seminary manual that says that.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Being sealed to more than one "wife" and being legally married to - are two different things, aren't they?These sealings were also legal marriages. They were so until the federal government outlawed them (whichn in my opinion, the federal government could do upon Utah since Utah at that time was a territory, not a state) and the US Supreme Court upheld that law. After making plural marriages illegal, the practice of polygamy, upon direct revelation from God, soon ceased to be practiced and later polygamous marriages nullified and disolved.
Recommended Posts