DavidB Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 David B the difference between Abraham and Joseph Smith is that Abraham was directed by Almighty GodAbraham being directed by God, is what I am asking you to show. Can you show Biblical verses where God directed Abraham to engage in polygamy or otherwise have conceive a child with a woman not his wife?I can understand that you may not believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet.
Questing Beast Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 That last paragraph will get the thread locked again and I'm rather enjoying the conversation. Sexual speculation is banned (Speculation n. \ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\: "a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence").I know... that makes me a:Are you asserting that Nauvoo sexual polygamy is speculative? What IS speculation, without evidence, is that sexual relations with plural wives waited until after the death of Joseph Smith; until the move to Utah....
Questing Beast Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Other things I don't like. Partial history. Why not include and study all of it?Latest example was last Sunday's combined R.S. and priesthood meeting. A slide show taken from the Church's website was used, and in it they illustrated Joseph Smith's visitation by the Angel Moroni with the old inaccurate Tom Lovell painting.http://www.realmormo...angelmoroni.jpgI love the paintings by Tom Lovell. The details in this one are not Lovell's fault. We know, we knew then but it was denied by the "official" history of the Church, that Joseph Smith shared that bed with his brothers. The only bow to that detail, that I know of, is in the Church History Museum, where a painting depicting the event shows his brothers still asleep on either side of him while he listens to the angel.http://mormonthink.c...moroniaug09.jpgThat pic appeared in the Ensign, yet even now the Church's website uses the same old inaccurate, but more believable visually, picture of Joseph sleeping alone.Other examples can be multiplied. With the Net access widening all the time, the Church's "faith promoting history" approach is doomed. And what I don't like is continuing evidence that the leaders don't see or accept this as a fact, and do something right now to adjust to the fulsome history of the Church that is out there for everyone to see.... Edited January 22, 2013 by Questing Beast 1
volgadon Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Other things I don't like. Partial history. Why not include and study all of it?When? We don't even get the chance to study all the faith promoting stories. To study ALL of the history is not feasible, not even in a university context. 1
cdowis Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) I am satisfied with the history of the church that I learned in SS, etc.The purpose of church is not to create scholars but to build knowlegeable testimonies. As my interest for details grows, there are a boatload of books that I can peruse. There may be a very few interested in how many slept in a bed in the Smith household, and they can do research on their own. Edited January 22, 2013 by cdowis 1
Questing Beast Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 When? We don't even get the chance to study all the faith promoting stories. To study ALL of the history is not feasible, not even in a university context.That's not what I am talking about. Acknowledging facts and evidence is what I am talking about. Structuring the official history based on all of it, as it comes to light altering and including what is accepted as factual. The Church does not do this.... 2
cdowis Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 That's not what I am talking about. Acknowledging facts and evidence is what I am talking about. Structuring the official history based on all of it, as it comes to light altering and including what is accepted as factual. The Church does not do this....Have you attended BYU church history classes?
canard78 Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Are you asserting that Nauvoo sexual polygamy is speculative? What IS speculation, without evidence, is that sexual relations with plural wives waited until after the death of Joseph Smith; until the move to Utah....While you have a point, the mods may see otherwise. If you want to discuss polygamy, staying off discussion about the sexualy activity of past leaders is probably the only way to keep it open.
canard78 Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 I am satisfied with the history of the church that I learned in SS, etc.The purpose of church is not to create scholars but to build knowledgeable testimonies. As my interest for details grows, there are a boatload of books that I can peruse. There may be a very few interested in how many slept in a bed in the Smith household, and they can do research on their own.But they could at least be accurate in the very limited church history they do include in the curriculum... Which is not the case. 1
Tacenda Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Have you attended BYU church history classes?I attended LDS business college in my youth and it was required to take a church history class. Boy, I wish I'd listened better, I don't know if the curriculum was like BYU's or not. I'm thinking BYU's was quite extensive as your post alludes to.
Nathair/|\ Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 I don't understand what's wrong with polygamy and polyandry as long as everyone involved is happy. People simply say it's wrong as though it should be self evident, but I've never seen an argument supporting it. 2
Tacenda Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 I don't understand what's wrong with polygamy and polyandry as long as everyone involved is happy. People simply say it's wrong as though it should be self evident, but I've never seen an argument supporting it.Emma never quite accepted it, to the point that she told her own sons that their father wasn't a polygamist. I have to say that being a woman, it's an easy call to say most women don't like to share their husbands.
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Emma never quite accepted it, to the point that she told her own sons that their father wasn't a polygamist. I have to say that being a woman, it's an easy call to say most women don't like to share their husbands.It is probably a fair statement that most men do not was to share their wife either.I guess I am an oddball. I think it would be hard but doable. When I was disaffected I almost joined such a relationship so I might be biased.
Tacenda Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 It is probably a fair statement that most men do not was to share their wife either.I guess I am an oddball. I think it would be hard but doable. When I was disaffected I almost joined such a relationship so I might be biased.Well I predict in the near future that polygamy will be accepted by law. The Brown family are taking this to the Supreme Court, so atleast you wouldn't be breaking any laws.
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Well I predict in the near future that polygamy will be accepted by law. The Brown family are taking this to the Supreme Court, so atleast you wouldn't be breaking any laws.I would get excommunicated. I have not been in touch with them for some time. I doubt the invitation to join the three of them is still open and if I would not take the step while disaffected I doubt I would do it while I am active and stronger.
Tacenda Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 I would get excommunicated. I have not been in touch with them for some time. I doubt the invitation to join the three of them is still open and if I would not take the step while disaffected I doubt I would do it while I am active and stronger.I'm sorry I forgot you're active LDS.
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 I'm sorry I forgot you're active LDS.More like a combination of oddball and orthodox LDS. 1
canard78 Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Well I predict in the near future that polygamy will be accepted by law. The Brown family are taking this to the Supreme Court, so atleast you wouldn't be breaking any laws.Given polygamy stopped once it became illegal, I wonder how quickly we'd bring it back once it was legal. I think I know the answer to that one
savedbygrace Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 I have loved this thread, I have loved the interaction with you all, and your openness, but I feel it has come to it's natural end, thankyou my friends, hope to see you all at some other time on these boards
Tacenda Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 I have loved this thread, I have loved the interaction with you all, and your openness, but I feel it has come to it's natural end, thankyou my friends, hope to see you all at some other time on these boardsGreat thread that thankfully I didn't get kicked off of, as in the past. Hopefully you don't go too far away SBG!
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Given polygamy stopped once it became illegal, I wonder how quickly we'd bring it back once it was legal. I think I know the answer to that one Probably would not come back. It is still an excommunicable offense even in parts of the world where polygamy is legal.
canard78 Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 I have loved this thread, I have loved the interaction with you all, and your openness, but I feel it has come to it's natural end, thankyou my friends, hope to see you all at some other time on these boardsThanks for your participation. It's good to be challenged on our presumptions.
canard78 Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Probably would not come back. It is still an excommunicable offense even in parts of the world where polygamy is legal.Thankfully...
The Nehor Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Thankfully...At least until Pres Woodruff and Pres Snow's concubine ideas come into effect.
Recommended Posts