VideoGameJunkie Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 12 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Having been in this church for 60+ years I will state that I don't recall a time when I did NOT know that Joseph practiced polygamy. I did read section 132 of the D&C . I read some of the History of the Church volumes. I read the Journal of Discourses . I read the Church History text in Seminary. Now, it is conceivable that some leaders may not have been as informed as I and may have mis-taught about Joseph's polygamy. We often teach what we know as fact when what we 'know' may not be the whole story. Also, from what I have read, marriage in the frontier in the early 1800's was a different situation than marriage in the 1950's. Just like marriage now is not treated the same by society than it was in the 1950's. Heavens, I just watched a video about strange actions of people, one of which was falling in love with and marrying a TREE ! I shudder to think of how marriage will be viewed by society 50 years from now. But the question then is why did Joseph Smith get women to sign something saying he wasn't a polygamist?
strappinglad Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 48 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Who is Brian Hales? Perhaps a good starting point for further research.
Avatar4321 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 6 hours ago, Walden said: I don't think that Joseph Smith necessarily gets a bad wrap for practicing polygamy; in my experience, the bad wrap is from the failure by the church to acknowledge or discuss Smith's practice of polygamy. The polygamy practiced by Brigham Young and later prophets was discussed and openly taught in church classes, while Joseph Smith's polygamy was kept more under wraps. Either way, the thought of men nearing 60-years old taking multiple teen brides is sickening. Which is pure nonsense as Josephs plural marriages have been publicly acknowledged by the Church since polygamy was announced.
Avatar4321 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 4 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: That seems like an easy way to erase the dark history of the church while ignoring the victims. How are people who voluntarily enter into relationships victims?
Avatar4321 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Negative credibility is the church lying about Joseph Smiths polygamy for years before the current essays. What about credibility there? How did the church lie about anything? Heck, the Church has had all of Josephs marriages on family search for decades. How do we lie about things we publicize? 1
Avatar4321 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said: First hand experience. Every sunday school, young men, seminary, and institute teacher I had growing up all said Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. Why would they all say the same thing? Sorry that doesn't sound at all believable. Mostly because I've grown up in the Church and I've seen the exact opposite. 2
Calm Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 4 hours ago, sdc999 said: Indeed they are...... So you have a question about mormonism, don't trust that the answer you receive from a bishop or a missionary is correct? So how far up the line should one go to presumably receive accurate answers where the source can be trusted with their knowledge? God. 2
Calm Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: That seems like an easy way to erase the dark history of the church while ignoring the victims. You are the one ignoring the women when you won't let them speak for themselves and instead use those who abuse their words to turn them into saying something they do not...does it feel good to try and erase these powerful, magnificient faithful women? To change them into weak victims who never had a chance to say no, they were such milksops in your mythos. Did you ever care enough to read her own writings or is the twisted stuff too interesting, too easy for you? Edited December 16, 2015 by Calm 3
Calm Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 4 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Do you have amnesia from before the essay came out? No church manual or book ever mentioned Joseph Smith practiced and Joseph Smith got people to sign something saying he didn't practice it. That would be a cover up and a cover up is a lie. Are you taking this claim from someone else or just making this stuff up. Have you read the Church History in fulness of times manual? Mentioned his first wife was Louisa Beamen. The previous manual had even more. They didn't do great, I am hoping the next version will be fantastic. "Joseph Smith got people to sign something saying he didn't practice it" CFR...and a reference from you this time, what is the original source of the claim.
Calm Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 4 hours ago, sdc999 said: In addition. If a bishop is just 'human', why would anyone be encouraged to sit and be counseled by someone who doesn't possess knowledge on a particular subject? You want a guy that's just 'human' to sit and counsel a couple about marriage; Really? Financial matters? Sexual matters? Or, is it that when he accidentally gets something right, he is a man of God acting as such but when he goofs, oops, no accountability, he's just a 'human'. Because humans needs humans. You act like it is a horrible state that we might attempt to form s community and then seek out God with each other. I would rather have a human who loves and cares and wants to do right by both God anf Man and means to do his best...and spends a lot of time seeking God. 1
sdc999 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 2 hours ago, Calm said: Because humans needs humans. You act like it is a horrible state that we might attempt to form s community and then seek out God with each other. I would rather have a human who loves and cares and wants to do right by both God anf Man and means to do his best...and spends a lot of time seeking God. No, it's not a horrible state but when there is a serious problem that requires more than just someone who loves and cares. I think that line becomes blurred within the church. I have seen the bishop treated as a cure-all and I believe that gives false hope and could lead to a dangerous outcome. Hopefully, you wouldn't settle on a human who loves and cares when you have a really sick loved one; I would think you would want someone with training - a doctor perhaps? In the aforementioned examples that I gave, professionals in those areas are a much better choice than "pray more and it'll work out". I have a great friend who is a psychologist who deals in marriage counseling. He has talked about near disastrous cases that he has dealt with from couples that have relied on ecclesiastical leaders. Not just LDS couples but from all religions. This Dr. is a big time Christian and loves his own pastor dearly but says there are limits that are often crossed. I believe a bishop has his place and there are some really great ones. But with his lack of training, he is better suited as a manager of the facility and a director of human resources and should really look at his own limits. The ones who figure this out tend to be great bishops and I have had the privilege to have known a few. But if you started a thread on "bad bishops", I'm sure you would have a great example of what I have previously insinuated.
sdc999 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: How are people who voluntarily enter into relationships victims? There are people in abusive relationships everywhere. THEY ARE FREE TO LEAVE. Most stay because they see no way out. Since they are voluntarily there, I guess they're not victims. Never thought of it that way.
Avatar4321 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 42 minutes ago, sdc999 said: There are people in abusive relationships everywhere. THEY ARE FREE TO LEAVE. Most stay because they see no way out. Since they are voluntarily there, I guess they're not victims. Never thought of it that way. Have you alleged any abuse? No. The alleged abuse is being married. Entering into a voluntary relationship in and of itself does not make someone a victim of abuse. If you are going to continue this discussion I'd appreciate it if you didn't create straw men to attack.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 11 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Have you alleged any abuse? No. The alleged abuse is being married. Entering into a voluntary relationship in and of itself does not make someone a victim of abuse. If you are going to continue this discussion I'd appreciate it if you didn't create straw men to attack. How "voluntary" is it when the spiritual authority over you says "If you don't, you will be damned." ? 1
stemelbow Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: None of Lorenzo Snow's marriages were to women younger than 16, and the age differences aside, that was not an unusual age for marriage in those days. You are shocked and see his lifestyle as "worse" than Joseph Smith, and suggest that women were being treated like cows then. In fact, the record of polygyny among the LDS in those times bespeaks an admirable sisterhood among the wives -- who came to be very independent and strong women, rather than the chattel you depict them. Any comparison with Warren Jeffs, who was raping both prepubescent boys and girls, is sick. Yet, when the famous crooner, Bing Crosby, married a very young woman late in life, and started a second family, he was only admired. People often adopt situational ethics and forget that yesteryear was a different world than today. Presentism reigns supreme. The cow reference reminds me of a Marcello Mastroianni movie in which he did refer to a particular woman as a "cow." It's not as if VGJ made up the reference to women being cows. They were compared to cows. No doubt many great women lived through polygamy. But that doesn't mean the practice itself was God-inspired nor that it was beneficial overall. After many great women have lived and not been a part of polygamy.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: None of Lorenzo Snow's marriages were to women younger than 16, and the age differences aside, that was not an unusual age for marriage in those days. CFR for the average age of marriage in the US during the 19th Century. Also, please define "unusual." I see this argument often but I don't believe it. Just because it became normal in 19th Century Utah because of polygamy doesn't mean it was a cultural norm of the time outside of Mormonism. 1
Tacenda Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Which is pure nonsense as Josephs plural marriages have been publicly acknowledged by the Church since polygamy was announced. Can you provide acknowledgement by the church since day one of his polyandry marriages, or give a reference? 2
Sleeper Cell Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 21 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Imagine we practiced polygamy today and imagine at your current age marrying 16 year olds and sleeping with them and having children with them. Would you feel a bit dirty, or would you feel justified knowing it's ok from the Lord? And notice as Snow's age kept going up the age of his wives kept being minors. One of my ancestors fought at Shiloh at age 15. Is it worse for a middle aged man to marry a 16 year old than for a middle aged man to give a 15 year old a rifle and send him into one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War? Or do you give Abraham Lincoln a pass? 3
Russell C McGregor Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 14 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Negative credibility is the church lying about Joseph Smiths polygamy for years before the current essays. What about credibility there? CALL FOR REFERENCES that the Church lied about Joseph Smith's polygamy. I agree that either you or the Church has lied. I have no reason to believe that the Church did.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 13 hours ago, Calm said: One can quote a made up quote from a hundred sources that don't take the time to check its credibility. A lie does not change to truth just because it is repeated over and over. QFT! Merely quoting something because someone else quoted it, without bothering to check for authenticity, is what passes for "research" in anti-Mormon circles. Everywhere else, it's called "gossip."
Russell C McGregor Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: It's not as if VGJ made up the reference to women being cows. They were compared to cows. No, he didn't make it up; he merely repeated a discredited bit of gossip that was fabricated by someone else.
Danzo Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 13 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Do you have amnesia from before the essay came out? No church manual or book ever mentioned Joseph Smith practiced and Joseph Smith got people to sign something saying he didn't practice it. That would be a cover up and a cover up is a lie. Try D& C 132, It came out a little bit before the essays 2
Russell C McGregor Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 Just now, Danzo said: Try D& C 132, It came out a little bit before the essays Just a little...
Danzo Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 12 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Google it I'm too lazy to look for my source Seems to be a big part of the problem. 3
Danzo Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Which is pure nonsense as Josephs plural marriages have been publicly acknowledged by the Church since polygamy was announced. Weren't there several very public court cases as well as the smoot hearings before congress where this was openly discussed? 2
Recommended Posts