ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 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) - NoTo what purpose is you little informal poll to be used. It looks as if you already have your mind made up so it couldn't be to help you make up your mind.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 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.Again, you make an accusation against me and invite me (implicitly) to participate in your poll? If you have nothing to add to this dialogue, than there's no reason you should make posts in this thread, is there? And repeating the exact same, or virtually the same, posts is called "spamming", which is annoying. That's something nobody wants on their phone messages, find in their mailbox, nor read on the blogosphere.
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 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.I don't believe all of them were so will have to issue a CFR that sealings and marriages were synonymous
RLBaty Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 To what purpose is you little informal poll to be used. It looks as if you already have your mind made up so it couldn't be to help you make up your mind.The poll, as I have stated, has a number of utilitarian purposes.You are welcome to your own uses of it.I have mine.I have my mind made up as far as the issues, and as I have "given an answer".I think Mormons, for the most part, have their mind made up as well, but are a reluctant lot when asked to "give an answer".I also think that not all Mormons would, if open and honest about it, would give the same answers.Sincerely,Robert Batyhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/
RLBaty Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Again, you make an accusation against me and invite me (implicitly) to participate in your poll? If you have nothing to add to this dialogue, than there's no reason you should make posts in this thread, is there? And repeating the exact same, or virtually the same, posts is called "spamming", which is annoying. That's something nobody wants on their phone messages, find in their mailbox, nor read on the blogosphere.Another fine evasion.As with so many disputes, a defining of terms often reveals that the parties are not speaking the same language.And so it is with your proposed definition of "spamming".The poll awaits your participation or further confirmation that you are not up to "giving an answer":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
ANACO Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 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.I understand the history.My point is being sealed and pronounced legally husband and wife are two separate items in a Temple wedding.One is a priesthood function, the other a secular/legal issue recognized by the "State" - (at least in America) both performed by the Sealer.Joseph Smith could have been sealed to many/few women, but not legally married to them.So he didn't have relations with the latter. Isn't that ultimately the point of those complaining - that he was a moral degenerate because he was a polygamist?[ BTW Darren, what's that on your head? Ear muffs? Is that a photo of you in a gun/firing range? ]Kind regards
sunstoned Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 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.Polygamy was illegal in Illinois when Joseph Smith first started the practice.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 I understand the history.My point is being sealed and pronounced legally husband and wife are two separate items in a Temple wedding.One is a priesthood function, the other a secular/legal issue recognized by the "State" - (at least in America) both performed by the Sealer.That much I very much agree with you.Joseph Smith could have been sealed to many/few women, but not legally married to them.Quite possible.So he didn't have relations with the latter.I've never found any evidence to conclude that he did.[ BTW Darren, what's that on your head? Ear muffs? Is that a photo of you in a gun/firing range? ]LOL. A most pertinant question, sir. My blogging hiatus began with politcal blogs. When gravatars became available I searched in my stash of digital photos for a "conservative looking" one and so I immediately thought of the ones I have of me at the gun range my father-in-law runs in New Mexico. Good observation on your part.BTW, I only had on regular clothes plus a flannel and it was *COLD* that day on the range.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Polygamy was illegal in Illinois when Joseph Smith first started the practice.I don't think polygamy was but hiding previous marriages when seeking new marriages was and so I do think you could make a case against the legality of polygamy in Illinois.
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 The poll, as I have stated, has a number of utilitarian purposes.You are welcome to your own uses of it.I have mine.I have my mind made up as far as the issues, and as I have "given an answer".I think Mormons, for the most part, have their mind made up as well, but are a reluctant lot when asked to "give an answer".I also think that not all Mormons would, if open and honest about it, would give the same answers.Sincerely,Robert Batyhttp://groups.yahoo....Maury_and_Baty/And you must indeed be a marvelous clairvoyant.
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 I understand the history.My point is being sealed and pronounced legally husband and wife are two separate items in a Temple wedding.One is a priesthood function, the other a secular/legal issue recognized by the "State" - (at least in America) both performed by the Sealer.Joseph Smith could have been sealed to many/few women, but not legally married to them.So he didn't have relations with the latter. Isn't that ultimately the point of those complaining - that he was a moral degenerate because he was a polygamist?[ BTW Darren, what's that on your head? Ear muffs? Is that a photo of you in a gun/firing range? ]Kind regardsYou are quite correct that while being performed together they are not synonymous. 1
RLBaty Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) And you must indeed be a marvelous clairvoyant.I don't know what you are referring to with that quip, but my non-clairvoyant guess is that it has something to do with the issue you raised about folks having made up their minds.As I noted in my poll, it doesn't require clairvoyance to propose what I proposed:That is, if you do NOT believe the 5 specific, factual, historical claims to be true, your answer would be "no" to the ones you do NOT believe to be true.. Edited July 5, 2012 by RLBaty
Damien the Leper Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 While I think you are strictly-speaking correct, there is the advocacy by LDS critics that the LDS Church makes the practice a secret. While the LDS church does not promote the idea of polygamy, (why should it?), in many of its official portrayals of its history, it does not hold it secret from the world.Just because the church doesn't practice it now does not mean that it is to be in any way de-emphasized from history or historical portrayals. As I have stated before, I have nothing against the practice.To further the point, if there were to ever be a historical portrayal that would overlap with the time frame that BY gave the Adam-God doctrine...I would have no problem with the historical portrayal talking openly about the doctrine.
Damien the Leper Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 But that's not polygamy.You are correct. In this case, it is a violation.
ANACO Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 LOL. A most pertinant question, sir. My blogging hiatus began with politcal blogs. When gravatars became available I searched in my stash of digital photos for a "conservative looking" one and so I immediately thought of the ones I have of me at the gun range my father-in-law runs in New Mexico. Good observation on your part. Good sport. I can't afford it now. John Browning was a Mormon, you knew?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning But I digress. This is about polygamy.
Damien the Leper Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) I don't know what you are referring to with that quip, but my non-clairvoyant guess is that it has something to do with the issue you raised about folks having made up their minds.As I noted in my poll, it doesn't require clairvoyance to propose what I proposed:That is, if you do NOT believe the 5 specific, factual, historical claims to be true, your answer would be "no" to the ones you do NOT believe to be true..You have made your purpose here on this board quite clear. You appear to be biased and closed minded in actually learning about what our faith has taught and does now teach. Rather than applying the poor apologetic tactic that you do, perhaps you could actually dialogue with us.No one is interested in your silly poll or its results. Nor do I believe anyone on this board is concerned or interested in your participation with a radio show. Your little plug has been noted and dismissed by not just myself but others.Thus far, you have failed to show any relevant documentation or research concerning the study of Mormonism. In fact, you seem to only employ a narcissistic attitude by flaunting your Yahoo group and your polls. Therefore, your presence has yet to show any relevance.I'm not sure how seriously members of this board will take you until you show real substance rather than leaching onto topics and running with them. Edited July 5, 2012 by Valentinus 3
RLBaty Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 You have made your purpose here on this board quite clear. You appear to be biased and closed minded in actually learning about what our faith has taught and does now teach. Rather than applying the poor apologetic tactic that you do, perhaps you could actually dialogue with us.No one is interested in your silly poll or its results. Nor do I believe anyone on this board is concerned or interested in you participation with a radio show. Your little plug has been noted and dismissed by not just myself but others.Thus far, you have failed to show any relevant documentation or research concerning the study of Mormonism. In fact, you seem to only employ a narcissistic attitude by flaunting your Yahoo group and your polls. Therefore, your presence has yet to show any relevance.I'm not sure how seriously members of this board will take you until you show real substance rather than leaching onto topics and running with them.Alas, another evasion. . . . .with unfounded commentary.The claims I have used for my poll are taken from and LDS Church website and the quote is in the first post in this thread.I don't happen to think the posting of that first post was a coincidence. If it was, how curious a coincidence.The LDS Church makes the 5 simple, factual, historical claims.It's legitimate to inquire as to whether or not Mormons believe them; with appropriate discussion and analysis.Answer or not; I can live with it either way.
spartacus Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 I agree. There's no way they "never knew" of polygamy in the LDS Church's history.So far the only evidence that the LDS Church does not hide Joseph Smith's practicing polygamy or (the larger and more difficult claim) polygamy altogether is that you can find it on an LDS website if you search for the term "polygamy"? Really?Is it in the Gospel Principles? Is it even in Gospel Essentials? Teachings of the Prophets? (I am not totally sure about all of these, but you guys tell me. You have to have more than just the searching for "polygamy" on a site.Obviously, LDS Scripture still includes DnC 132. Which makes claims that the LDS Church has nothing to do with polygamy (((((((now)))))))) a bit inaccurate. In fact, I wonder if Hinckley spoke of Joseph Smith's polygamy when he so strongly denied the Church's participation in the practice. Oh, nope, he doesn't (saw link below on the original link's webpage.So where and when would a member come across polygamy being addressed by the Church, let alone something as specific as Joseph Smith's practice of it, if not in the manuals, lessons, and talks on Sunday?Also, despite what is commonly thought, many if not most Americans still do not have home internet and would thus be uninterested in going to a library to use a PC for a limited time to learn stuff through a website when they already go to the Ward regularly.
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 You have made your purpose here on this board quite clear. You appear to be biased and closed minded in actually learning about what our faith has taught and does now teach. Rather than applying the poor apologetic tactic that you do, perhaps you could actually dialogue with us.No one is interested in your silly poll or its results. Nor do I believe anyone on this board is concerned or interested in you participation with a radio show. Your little plug has been noted and dismissed by not just myself but others.Thus far, you have failed to show any relevant documentation or research concerning the study of Mormonism. In fact, you seem to only employ a narcissistic attitude by flaunting your Yahoo group and your polls. Therefore, your presence has yet to show any relevance.I'm not sure how seriously members of this board will take you until you show real substance rather than leaching onto topics and running with them.When you lack substance float a poll. 1
ERayR Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 So far the only evidence that the LDS Church does not hide Joseph Smith's practicing polygamy or (the larger and more difficult claim) polygamy altogether is that you can find it on an LDS website if you search for the term "polygamy"? Really?Is it in the Gospel Principles? Is it even in Gospel Essentials? Teachings of the Prophets? (I am not totally sure about all of these, but you guys tell me. You have to have more than just the searching for "polygamy" on a site.Obviously, LDS Scripture still includes DnC 132. Which makes claims that the LDS Church has nothing to do with polygamy (((((((now)))))))) a bit inaccurate. In fact, I wonder if Hinckley spoke of Joseph Smith's polygamy when he so strongly denied the Church's participation in the practice. Oh, nope, he doesn't (saw link below on the original link's webpage.So where and when would a member come across polygamy being addressed by the Church, let alone something as specific as Joseph Smith's practice of it, if not in the manuals, lessons, and talks on Sunday?Also, despite what is commonly thought, many if not most Americans still do not have home internet and would thus be uninterested in going to a library to use a PC for a limited time to learn stuff through a website when they already go to the Ward regularly.Give two good reasons it should be.
Damien the Leper Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Alas, another evasion. . . . .with unfounded commentary.The claims I have used for my poll are taken from and LDS Church website and the quote is in the first post in this thread.I don't happen to think the posting of that first post was a coincidence. If it was, how curious a coincidence.The LDS Church makes the 5 simple, factual, historical claims.It's legitimate to inquire as to whether or not Mormons believe them; with appropriate discussion and analysis.Answer or not; I can live with it either way.You have yet to show that your posts and information warrant a worthy response. Are you a CARMite trolling the site?The five claims you suggest are off topic. This thread is specifically about polygamy. Now, if you have anything of substance to contribute we may perhaps entertain your thoughts and speculations.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Just because the church doesn't practice it now does not mean that it is to be in any way de-emphasized from history or historical portrayals. As I have stated before, I have nothing against the practice.To further the point, if there were to ever be a historical portrayal that would overlap with the time frame that BY gave the Adam-God doctrine...I would have no problem with the historical portrayal talking openly about the doctrine.To what end should the Church not de-emphasize polygamy in its history? It most definitely does not "hide it" but to what end would it serve to "emphasize" it in its cirriculum?As forthe Adam-God theory...YIKES!!! Teach that in Church? No way. That would place somne legitimacy upon that idea. I want to go to church to learn of its doctrines; not what Brigham Young may have thought at one point in time about Adam being God. I go to church to learn of and reinforce my faith and wrship.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Alas, another evasion. . . . .with unfounded commentary."Unfounded"? WOW!!! Not only was Valentinus' observation of RLBaty dead on accurate but Valentius' response to him were utmost poignant. But, alas, i'm sure accusing Valentius of being "unfounded" will get him to take Baty's poll. 1
spartacus Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Bowman said: "It is also likely that in many cases what troubles Mormons is not the discovery that Joseph practiced polygamy but some of the details about the matter -- such as his marriages to other men's wives."But that's not polygamy.If polygamy "means one man having more than one living wife at the same time", how does "his marriages to other men's wives" elicit your claims "But that's not polygamy."? I really find this astounding. LDS and non-LDS lists of Joseph Smith's "plural wives" and "polygamous" relationships include these women that were already married. Even the Church genealogy website includes these marriages - if they were living women and they were married to Joseph, how were they not polygamous?I can see how Joseph Smith's marriages to other men's wives were in violation of DnC 132, as these women (certainly some of them if not all) were not virgins (v.61), nor "vowed to no other man" (v.61, v.63) So, in this sense, I can agree with you - "But that's not (God's Lawful) polygamy".But other than that it seems that the definition of polygamy as given by the LDS website clearly includes his marriages to other men's wives.
Darren10 Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 So far the only evidence that the LDS Church does not hide Joseph Smith's practicing polygamy or (the larger and more difficult claim) polygamy altogether is that you can find it on an LDS website if you search for the term "polygamy"? Really?Yes, really.Is it in the Gospel Principles?Probably not.Is it even in Gospel Essentials?I'd have ot say, "no".Teachings of the Prophets?Most likely not.To what end would the Church achieve by placing it in these manuals?You have to have more than just the searching for "polygamy" on a site.No you don't. just search "polygamy" on the LDS Church's website and you'll find exactly what why me posted.In fact, I wonder if Hinckley spoke of Joseph Smith's polygamy when he so strongly denied the Church's participation in the practice.Huh? Why would he? Joseph Smith is not alive today and the LDS Church does not practice polygamy, period.So where and when would a member come across polygamy being addressed by the Church1) When studying D&C2) When studying the Bible3) When studying the Book of Mormon4) When attending seminary5) In casual conversationmany if not most Americans still do not have home internetYes they do. but regardless of having it at home or not, the vast majority of Americans do use the internet.and would thus be uninterested in going to a libraryYou may have a point there. I hate library research.
Recommended Posts