Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[CASteinman]

Your are wrong on both counts.

How, really would you know? First you claim to be ignorant, then when I answer you, you claim to know more on the subject. Which is it?

First, the fact that you are unwilling to answer a straightforward question, suggest to me that you do have a deeper understand of Smith's character, including his flaws.

Now you proceed into false accusations. I did answer your question. That you do not like the answer does not change the fact that I answered.

Someone with a shallow and superficial understanding of Smith would have told me something specific but inane about Smith.

Did I fail to produce something specific but inane? Because if I did fail in that, I will try again. Be it far from me to destroy your sense of superficiality amongst the Mormons.

Second, I did not expect you to answer the question, so I was not disappointed.

But I did answer the question. Your reaction to a legitimate answer is to be disappointed and to start throwing out false accusations.

You know, if you don't like the answers, you don't have to ask the questions. You are in control of your life.

[Jaybear]

Not that this whole subject matter is any of your business, but you of all people aren't in a position to determine for the discussion as a whole what is tripe and what may or may not add anything. If you personally lack the capacity to grasp the reasonably clear quoted sentences above, please don't project your ignorance onto the rest of us. Man up, and just say, "I personally don't understand what you mean by this. Could you help me out?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Tripe:

Definition: Something of no value.

Example present by Steinman's -- JS was a human being. JS was not as perfect as God.

I realize that you think you have a compulsive need to disagree with everything I write, as well as tell me its none of my business, and call me ignorant, but once and a while you need to try to be more judicious in your attacks. In this instance, I can assure that there is not a single person out there who believed JS was a robot or an alien, or that he was as perfect as God.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple Yes or No answer will suffice.

[Libs]

I think what Jaybear is saying/asking is, if the quip "he was only human and made mistakes (sinned on occasion)" is brought up, in a conversation like this (about polygamy) does that mean polygamy was one of his mistakes? I've asked that question and the answer is usually "no". So, then, I have to wonder why that is even used, in any conversation about polygamy.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Libs

[Jaybear]

Jaybear, I know you have trouble posting anything of substance and rationally discussing these issues. For those reasons I know that answering your posts and expecting rational discussion is insane, yet I keep tying occasionally but this is enough for now, will try again sometime.

Fascinating.

I ask a reasonable and straightforward question.

You refuse to answer the question, answer instead the question YOU think I should have asked.

I explain why your "answer" was not responsive to my question.

You then personally attack me.

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so. No need to go to all this trouble to create a diversion.

I get it some questions are just to hot for you handle.

Now you proceed into false accusations. I did answer your question. That you do not like the answer does not change the fact that I answered.

....

But I did answer the question. Your reaction to a legitimate answer is to be disappointed and to start throwing out false accusations.

CFR: Prove that I made a false accusation by proving that you answered my question.

Reprint my question. Then your answer.

You "responded" to my question. But you did not "answer" my question.

Jaybear:

Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple Yes or No answer will suffice.

Your question is based on a false premise ... that I beat my spouse.

The premise underlying my question was the acknowlegement that Smith made "mistakes."

I was told that Smith was human and made mistakes. I asked, simply, what they considered was his the most egregious mistake.

I also asked, specifically, if they believed that polygamy was one of those mistakes.

Those questions struck me as straightforward, reasonable and germane.

If you want to compare those questions to "Do you still beat your wife," you are walking down the same path of dissembling as your friends.

Though I do appreciate that you don't feel the need to throw personal insults at me. I admire and respect your wllingness to refrain from personal attacks.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Jaybear

[ERayR]

I think what Jaybear is saying/asking is, if the quip "he was only human and made mistakes (sinned on occasion)" is brought up, in a conversation like this (about polygamy) does that mean polygamy was one of his mistakes? I've asked that question and the answer is usually "no". So, then, I have to wonder why that is even used, in any conversation about polygamy.

I think my post #645 & #646 which jaybear rejected out of hand are relevant. Especially #646. He was a human being and as such was bound to have erred somewhere but it is not my prerogative to second guess him from the vantage point of my comfortable home where I sit in peace and security without mobs hounding at my door wanting to kill me. Who am I, Who are you and who is jaybear to pass judgement on him. That is Gods domain and very far above my pay grade.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I don't know if you still beat your spouse or not. I'm just asking asking a question. See how that works?

We have Scripture that says he did. But nothing really big or that would preclude him for being a Prophet. It is one thing to claim that someone sinned(We all do with one exception and JS wasn't it) and quite another to claim a particular person did a particular sin.

Edited July 27, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Tripe:

Definition: Something of no value.

Example present by Steinman's -- JS was a human being. JS was not as perfect as God.

I realize that you think you have a compulsive need to disagree with everything I write, as well as tell me its none of my business, and call me ignorant, but once and a while you need to try to be more judicious in your attacks. In this instance, I can assure that there is not a single person out there who believed JS was a robot or an alien, or that he was as perfect as God.

It isn't that I have a compulsive need to disagree with you. It is just that there is so much that you dogmatically declare that is demonstrably false, which warrants disagreement. Case in point.

Here are even more cases in point: It wasn't your definition of "tripe" that I was questioning, but your application of the term in CASteinman's case, and doing so in such a way as to suggest it is how all of us in the discussion viewed it.

And, your asserting that no one believes JS is as perfect as God, doesn't mean that CASteinman's comment didn't add to the discussion for anyone or all in the discussion. I can assure you that it did for me.

Were you not so hypocritical about your seeming compulsion to disagree, and were you to take your own advice about being more judicious when considering what others have said, you may not have made all the errs in your posts that warranted me correcting them, and you might have actually correctly grasp the points others had made, rather than evidently missing them. Motes and beams.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 27, 2012 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

I don't know if you still beat your spouse or not. I'm just asking asking a question. See how that works?

I know precisely how it works.

Do you know what term "false premise" means?

Your analogy fails, because my questions did not have a false premise.

If you think my questions were unreasonable, or offensive, you need to explain why.

[Libs]

I think my post #645 & #646 which jaybear rejected out of hand are relevant. Especially #646. He was a human being and as such was bound to have erred somewhere but it is not my prerogative to second guess him from the vantage point of my comfortable home where I sit in peace and security without mobs hounding at my door wanting to kill me. Who am I, Who are you and who is jaybear to pass judgement on him. That is Gods domain and very far above my pay grade.

I'm not judging Joseph Smith, Ray. I was questioning why people, while discussing this subject, bring up Joseph Smith's "humanity" (he was only human and prone to error)...what exactly does that mean, in the context of this particular discussion? I have found that most do not mean that he was in error, in regards to polygamy...but, that is not usually apparent (which is why I have asked, in the past...and was thinking that might be where Jaybear was coming from, as well...but, I don't want to speak for him).

Edited July 27, 2012 by Libs

[Jaybear]

And, your asserting that no one believes JS is as perfect as God, doesn't mean that CASteinman's comment didn't add to the discussion for anyone or all in the discussion. I can assure you that it did for me.

Please enlighten me. In what way did Steinman provide substance the discussion by pointing out that (1) Smith was a human being; or (2) Smith was not as perfect as God.

Were you not so hypocritical about your seeming compulsion to disagree, and were you to take your own advice about being more judicious when considering what others have said, you may not have made all the errs in your posts that warranted me correcting them, and you might have actually correctly grasp the points others had made, rather than evidently missing them. Motes and beams.

I asked a question.

i got response to my post, but I did not receive an answer to the question.

I openly accepted the fact that I won't get an answer to the question.

I don't see a disagreement. The only disagreement that expressed here is whether he answered my question. That when you jump in with your typical "your ignorant" "its not your business" comments.

[ERayR]

I'm not judging Joseph Smith, Ray. I was questioning why people, while discussing this subject, bring up Joseph Smith's "humanity" (he was only human and prone to error)...what exactly does that mean, in the context of this particular discussion? I have found that most do not mean that he was in error, in regards to polygamy...but, that is not usually apparent (which is why I have asked, in the past...and was thinking that might be where Jaybear was coming from, as well...but, I don't want to speak for him).

OK then to that question. Some people think they should have an immediate answer to any and all questions posed by critics, antis and honest questioners. Sometimes a simple I don't know would be a much better answer but critics and antis are rarely if ever satisfied with that answer and continue to press for an answer they can attack. It is impossible for us from 200 years downstream to know the thought process that went into many of those decisions and for anybody to claim otherwise is flat out false. The best we can do is try to put ourselves in their position and speculate. Unless you have spent more than a day or two in circumstances similar to those it is impossible.

Again it is sometimes hard for us in our ease, comfort and security to understand things that were done in less than ideal circumstances and when asked those questions a simple I have no idea why don't you ask Joseph Smith should be the answer. One should not be pressured into giving an answer from ignorance.

[CASteinman]

CFR: Prove that I made a false accusation by proving that you answered my question.

Reprint my question. Then your answer.

You "responded" to my question. But you did not "answer" my question.

Its right here on the board. No need to run off for an imaginary reference. Just read the posts dude. I answered your question with your clarification of what you wanted to know. You do not like the answer so you are fussing. Oh well. Nothing I can do about that.

Your question: "You claim to accept that Smith was an imperfect human, but how so?"

The answer: "We mean he was a human being. A much better than average human being, but not perfect as God is. Which is not a matter of vice -- a direction and inclination to sin and satan. Its a matter of not being perfect -- a direction and inclination toward Godhood. "

You seem far more interested in playing games than in dialogue.

Edited July 27, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Jaybear: I asked a question.

That is true. You asked a question.

Jaybear: i got response to my post, but I did not receive an answer to the question.

That is false. You got an answer.

Jaybear: I openly accepted the fact that I won't get an answer to the question.

That is true. You showed your bias and then in order to make your words true you falsely proclaimed that you did not get an answer.

But you did get it, you just do not like the answer.

[Libs]

OK then to that question. Some people think they should have an immediate answer to any and all questions posed by critics, antis and honest questioners. Sometimes a simple I don't know would be a much better answer but critics and antis are rarely if ever satisfied with that answer and continue to press for an answer they can attack. It is impossible for us from 200 years downstream to know the thought process that went into many of those decisions and for anybody to claim otherwise is flat out false. The best we can do is try to put ourselves in their position and speculate. Unless you have spent more than a day or two in circumstances similar to those it is impossible.

Again it is sometimes hard for us in our ease, comfort and security to understand things that were done in less than ideal circumstances and when asked those questions a simple I have no idea why don't you ask Joseph Smith should be the answer. One should not be pressured into giving an answer from ignorance.

The question is: Why do people bring up the idea that Joseph Smith was only human (a sinner, in other words) in conversations about polygamy? Do they mean that polygamy was a mistake? A sin? Is that what they mean? (Most say "no"...which leaves people like me to wonder why they brought it up to begin with).

Edited July 27, 2012 by Libs

[Deborah]

The question is: Why do people bring up the idea that Joseph Smith was only human (a sinner, in other words) in conversations about polygamy?

Why do you think it's only brought up in conversations about polygamy? Plus I'm not sure LDS refer to him as "only" human but rather acknowledge that he was a human being with human weaknesses but overcame them and accomplished a remarkable work.

[ERayR]

The question is: Why do people bring up the idea that Joseph Smith was only human (a sinner, in other words) in conversations about polygamy? Do they mean that polygamy was a mistake? A sin? Is that what they mean? (Most say "no"...which leaves people like me to wonder why they brought it up to begin with).

I answered that question post #662 here it is again

OK then to that question. Some people think they should have an immediate answer to any and all questions posed by critics, antis and honest questioners. Sometimes a simple I don't know would be a much better answer but critics and antis are rarely if ever satisfied with that answer and continue to press for an answer they can attack. It is impossible for us from 200 years downstream to know the thought process that went into many of those decisions and for anybody to claim otherwise is flat out false. The best we can do is try to put ourselves in their position and speculate. Unless you have spent more than a day or two in circumstances similar to those it is impossible.

Again it is sometimes hard for us in our ease, comfort and security to understand things that were done in less than ideal circumstances and when asked those questions a simple I have no idea why don't you ask Joseph Smith should be the answer. One should not be pressured into giving an answer from ignorance.

[KevinG]

I don't bring up the possibility of Joseph being a sinner when it comes to polygamy and I think thats treading on thin ice for those who think to judge brother Joseph.

I do agree he was human and he admits as much in his own histories, although the details of his sins are left between him and God. I have suspicions that he was tempted to use the plates to enrich his family and that was part of the reason he was asked to wait to retrieve them but even that is reading between the lines.

[why me]

The question is: Why do people bring up the idea that Joseph Smith was only human (a sinner, in other words) in conversations about polygamy? Do they mean that polygamy was a mistake? A sin? Is that what they mean? (Most say "no"...which leaves people like me to wonder why they brought it up to begin with).

I think that these people are either critics or people who are attempting to come to grips with Joseph's polygamy. However, I think that the people who defend the church on this forum would not consider Joseph's polygamy a sin but a commandment from god.

[Libs]

I think so, too.

[Libs]

I am not inclined to criticize Joseph Smith, these days. I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, so I know that God used him in some way. Just not sure polygamy was a part of that, but since I don't know, for sure, I am not going to go off the deep end, over this issue.

[why me]

I am not inclined to criticize Joseph Smith, these days. I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, so I know that God used him in some way. Just not sure polygamy was a part of that, but since I don't know, for sure, I am not going to go off the deep end, over this issue.

You know, libs, that if you doubt Joseph over polygamy, you will also need to doubt the spiritual witnesses that many of women received before they said yes to him. This may be a tough thing to do since you would then imply that these women were tricked by god or emotions.

[Libs]

You know, libs, that if you doubt Joseph over polygamy, you will also need to doubt the spiritual witnesses that many of women received before they said yes to him. This may be a tough thing to do since you would then imply that these women were tricked by god or emotions.

Yes, I have taken that into consideration. I still find the whole business kind of repugnant and difficult to accept.

[CASteinman]

Yes, I have taken that into consideration. I still find the whole business kind of repugnant and difficult to accept.

I might have an answer for you that would help. But maybe not. Can you be specific about what it is that you find repugnant? What is it that you think to yourself "This is awful". "This is unholy" or whatever it is. And are those things related to the whole business or some detail incidental to it?

[wenglund]

Yes, I have taken that into consideration. I still find the whole business kind of repugnant and difficult to accept.

...and that is okay since it is, or at least ought to be, entirely irrelevant to you today fully progressing towards Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-