BCSpace Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 And thus, the problem. Other women's sexual behavior (but not the men's) is associated with "faithful". So when the game is over and it can no longer be denied that there was polyandry, you will have proved Joseph to be "unfaithful." But if and only if you're able to show that there was such behavior and so far it can't be done because the evidence leads us away from polyandrous relationships in the supposed JS cases and now as it turns out, probably the supposed BY cases as well. It is far better to take JS at his word, and the Lord's besides, and assume JS followed the doctrine that was taught and the scripture that was given rather than adopt some form of 'Sunstonian' attitude just because, perhaps, one might have been unsuccesful in the past defending the Church and JS in the matter.
canard78 Posted May 23, 2014 Author Posted May 23, 2014 I don't believe canard ever claimed he had proof, just that there was evidence for sexual polyandry that people could draw their own conclusions from. Please read the conversation in the other thread for the context. If a legal marriage is in place and there is evidence of the legal husband living with his legal wife, that seems to me to be evidence for physical intimacy though since there are marriages that are never physically consummated, that is an assumption based on probability. Thanks for sharing with us your opinion. Again I refer you to the discussion in the other thread for the context. (Sorry, missed page 2 on the initial conversation, no worries if you miss this reply. This thread is tailing off anyway). Here's what I said... for context... As to whether he consummated any of the polyandrous wives. I don't know. Brian Hales suggest evidence for 3 (I think).Josephsmithpapers also talks about Joseph's "polyandrous marriages." Where did I claim proof? You're the one who introduced a need for proof after I'd said "I didn't know..." Is that what we call a... 1
canard78 Posted May 23, 2014 Author Posted May 23, 2014 Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.... That's precedent for Joseph Smith's polyandry??!!
canard78 Posted May 23, 2014 Author Posted May 23, 2014 I don't believe canard ever claimed he had proof, just that there was evidence for sexual polyandry that people could draw their own conclusions from.If a legal marriage is in place and there is evidence of the legal husband living with his legal wife, that seems to me to be evidence for physical intimacy though since there are marriages that are never physically consummated, that is an assumption based on probability. Thanks Cal, I missed this first time round.
BCSpace Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) If a legal marriage is in place and there is evidence of the legal husband living with his legal wife, that seems to me to be evidence for physical intimacy though since there are marriages that are never physically consummated, that is an assumption based on probability. The criticism against the Church and JS is geared towards sexual relations/access with two husbands at the same time and that is also the general understanding in the definition of polyandry. In each of the supposed cases, the evidence is more towards relationships that are not polyandrous; no concurrent cohabitation for example and even a careful making sure that the relationship with the previous husband is over. Edited May 23, 2014 by BCSpace
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) That's precedent for Joseph Smith's polyandry??!! One interesting that popped into my mind was an idea that I first heard on my mission that God and Mary were married. Official note: This is not official doctrine. Edited May 23, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
JLHPROF Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 One interesting that popped into my mind was an idea that I first heard on my mission that God and Mary were married. Official note: This is not official doctrine. I mentioned this doctrine a while back and got jumped on. But it makes more logical sense, and required less manipulation of Christ's conception than other ideas I'd heard. Christ is God's only "begotten in the flesh". How does one beget a child in the flesh? Mary gave birth to God's son in the flesh. We may not know for 100% official doctrine certain what this means, but if there were ANY sexual type relations involved then it would have been sinful without a valid marriage sealing.Brigham Young certainly said there is only one way to conceive a child eternities without end and I know of no other revealed explanation. But if we prefer to come up with some alternative method of conception with no basis in natural law or scripture then I suppose that works too.
Senator Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 But if we prefer to come up with some alternative method of conception with no basis in natural law or scripture then I suppose that works too. I seem to always have a problem trying to stuff the glorified, eternal realms into mortal boxes. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 But if we prefer to come up with some alternative method of conception with no basis in natural law or scripture then I suppose that works too.Never heard of IVF or artificial insemination? 1
canard78 Posted May 23, 2014 Author Posted May 23, 2014 One interesting that popped into my mind was an idea that I first heard on my mission that God and Mary were married. Official note: This is not official doctrine. I mentioned this doctrine a while back and got jumped on. But it makes more logical sense, and required less manipulation of Christ's conception than other ideas I'd heard. Christ is God's only "begotten in the flesh". How does one beget a child in the flesh? Mary gave birth to God's son in the flesh. We may not know for 100% official doctrine certain what this means, but if there were ANY sexual type relations involved then it would have been sinful without a valid marriage sealing.Brigham Young certainly said there is only one way to conceive a child eternities without end and I know of no other revealed explanation. But if we prefer to come up with some alternative method of conception with no basis in natural law or scripture then I suppose that works too. That's a pretty small minded view of what's scientifically possible. God wouldn't have needed to have sex with mary for her to conceive... even with our own limited science today that would be possible.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 That's a pretty small minded view of what's scientifically possible. God wouldn't have needed to have sex with mary for her to conceive... even with our own limited science today that would be possible.BTW, Canard, I never offered my position on how I think Mary conceived Jesus. Thanks for your judgment on me though. It means exactly what I paid for it.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I mentioned this doctrine a while back and got jumped on. But it makes more logical sense, and required less manipulation of Christ's conception than other ideas I'd heard. Christ is God's only "begotten in the flesh". How does one beget a child in the flesh? Mary gave birth to God's son in the flesh. We may not know for 100% official doctrine certain what this means, but if there were ANY sexual type relations involved then it would have been sinful without a valid marriage sealing.Brigham Young certainly said there is only one way to conceive a child eternities without end and I know of no other revealed explanation. But if we prefer to come up with some alternative method of conception with no basis in natural law or scripture then I suppose that works too.What is official is that Mary was a virgin. So I am not saying that any type of sexual relations took place. 1
JLHPROF Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 That's a pretty small minded view of what's scientifically possible. God wouldn't have needed to have sex with mary for her to conceive... even with our own limited science today that would be possible. What is official is that Mary was a virgin. So I am not saying that any type of sexual relations took place. And I am simply saying that of all known theories, options, laws of nature, and possibilities that sexual relations is the most probable (unless someone has an ancient scriptural etching of an IVF tube or turkey baster that I have yet to read about). Is it possible that Christ was conceived in a non-traditional manner? Of course. Of course it is.But for me proabable outweighs possible. I consider Mary to be one of Heavenly Father's wives and that they reproduced Christ as every other offspring has ever been reproduced that we have record of, albeit in a more sanctified environment according to scripture. And I have seen nothing in Holy Writ to lead me to believe otherwise other than people's discomfort with the idea.
ALarson Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 What is official is that Mary was a virgin. So I am not saying that any type of sexual relations took place.Do you believe that she was a virgin before she conceived or even after she gave birth? I know many Catholics believe that she remained a virgin for her entire life even after marrying Joseph.
Skylla Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 This conversation has gone into distasteful speculation. Thread closed. Skylla
Recommended Posts