Forget Joseph Smith, what about Lorenzo Snow's polygamy?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, sdc999 said:

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.   

I have seen plenty of doctors being treated as ultimate sources of wisdom and worse, being expected to be treated that way and because of their faith, patients have taken wrong medication, not pushed for treatments that could improve their lives rather than leave them half drugged zombies andin one case, it almost resulted in the death of a child because even though the parents pushed, the doctor refused to make sure he had the right diagnosis with a simple test.

People need to rely on spiritual leaders for spiritual guidance but push and search for the Spirit themselves.  Same when they seek out help from doctors, use them as medical resources but educate oneself or there is a big chance things will go wrong.  The knowledge that there is another one can always go to talk to about one's problems simply because they choose to be there for you and not because they are paid for it, even if they aren't perfect, can be a balm for people with troubled hearts.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

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 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. 

Never said he did.  It was most likely made up by an antimormon, Webb, because no one reports it save her and she claims it was taught from the pulpit.

So of what value is a made up quote in demonstrating the reality of how women were treated?

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

At 57 year old man marring a 18 year old girl is not of god.  That is for sure.  This is was what Warren Jeffs, David Corresh, and others have done.  

Where is the scriptures does it give a age limit on this?  Does God really care about age?  Just because it might gross you out does not mean for eternal beings that its a big deal.

[carbon dioxide]

Three points

1.  The scriptures allow for polygamy from time to time

2.  The scriptures do not give a fixed age limit on how young someone can be to be married.

3.  The scriptures do not set a limit on the age differences between the married couple.

With these facts in mind, if you have a problem with Lorenzo Snow or Joseph Smith on these issues, your problem stems from your modern day upbringing and what you find personally objectionable.  The scriptures however can't be used to support the issues you have against it.  There is nothing to suggest that God had a problem with it.  I am sure both Joseph and Lorenzo would have worried more about what God thought about it than what people might think of it 100 plus years later.  I am sure most people today are not too concerned about what people 100 years from now would complain about the lifestyle we are living today.   Say 150 years from now people will believe that eating meat is gross and not civilized.  I don't care if they judge me as being a savage.  I am still going to eat my Burger King whopper and I will not apologize about it.   I don't think a 40 or 50 year old marrying a 16 or 18 year old was that objectionable in the 19th century.  It still is not today in most cases.  Plenty of young women today are willing to be with rich men 40 years older.  You might not like it but I don't think the old rich guy and his young woman really care what others think,

Edited December 16, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[VideoGameJunkie]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Never said he did.  It was most likely made up by an antimormon, Webb, because no one reports it save her and she claims it was taught from the pulpit.

So of what value is a made up quote in demonstrating the reality of how women were treated?

How can you prove he never said it? You seem so 100 percent sure it's a made up quote so how can we believe anything from the past that was claimed to be said is true unless we were present to hear them say it with our own ears. Needing that kind of proof opens the doors to doubting a lot of historical quotes.

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Three points

1.  The scriptures allow for polygamy from time to time

2.  The scriptures do not give a fixed age limit on how young someone can be to be married.

3.  The scriptures do not set a limit on the age differences between the married couple.

With these facts in mind, if you have a problem with Lorenzo Snow or Joseph Smith on these issues, your problem stems from your modern day upbringing and what you find personally objectionable.  The scriptures however can't be used to support the issues you have against it.  There is nothing to suggest that God had a problem with it.  I am sure both Joseph and Lorenzo would have worried more about what God thought about it than what people might think of it 100 plus years later.  I am sure most people today are not too concerned about what people 100 years would complain about the lifestyle they are living today.   Say 150 years from now people will believe that eating meat is gross and not civilized.  I don't care if they judge me as being a savage.  I am still going to eat my Burger King whopper and I will not apologize about it.

Good to know. If I'm still single by the age of 57 I'll start hitting on laurels in hopes to find an eternal companion since God never said it was wrong.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

How can you prove he never said it?

We cannot prove negatives, How about you giving us why you believe he said it and we can discuss if your reasons are valid.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Danzo

[carbon dioxide]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Good to know. If I'm still single by the age of 57 I'll start hitting on laurels in hopes to find an eternal companion since God never said it was wrong.

Your problem might not be with God but getting one of the laurels to like you. 

[Russell C McGregor]

15 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

How can you prove he never said it? You seem so 100 percent sure it's a made up quote so how can we believe anything from the past that was claimed to be said is true unless we were present to hear them say it with our own ears. Needing that kind of proof opens the doors to doubting a lot of historical quotes.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative.

However, there is nothing even remotely resembling such a notion to be found in Heber's reliably recorded utterances. Granted that the Journal of Discourses is not an exhaustive record of everything uttered from the Tabernacle pulpit, it is nonetheless an extensive and representative one. If that claimed statement reflects what Heber really thought, he should have said something like it more than once. In view of which, it would be decidedly odd that all of those statements somehow avoided being recorded in the JoD.

Furthermore, the provenance of the purported quote is highly suspect. It was given to the world by Mrs Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning, among a whole lot of other garbled material that had a loudly and proudly announced agenda to expose Mormonism and Mormon polygamy as "diabolical," nefarious and generally evil. Which is to say, it was a propaganda piece. And it's not particularly scrupulous; wherever its facts can be tested, they have a tendency to fall down.

Furthermore, Mrs Denning's autobiography was ghost-written by one J. H. Beadle, the same anti-Mormon hack who ghost-wrote for her friend Mrs Fanny Stenhouse and Bill Hickman. IOW, he was a professional rabble-rouser.

And his technique seems to have worked on you.

So, between the lack of anything resembling corroboration from authentic sources, and the suspect nature of the source itself, we come down to the conclusion that the so-called "quote" is merely a cowardly, back-handed attack on someone who is no longer around to defend himself.

Still, I suppose one man's cowardice is another man's courage; or, put another way, attacking someone who is defenceless is as brave as it's possible for some people to get.

So I guess what you choose to do with this "quote" is entirely up to you.

And the conclusions we draw from what you do are entirely up to us.

 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

How can you prove he never said it? You seem so 100 percent sure it's a made up quote so how can we believe anything from the past that was claimed to be said is true unless we were present to hear them say it with our own ears. Needing that kind of proof opens the doors to doubting a lot of historical quotes.

And if that was the type of evidence I was requiring, you would have a point.  That you have not investigated that source so that you are making the assumption that this is the type of evidence I require is troubling, especially given my willingness in the past to accept negative criticisms that have decent evidence supporting them.  You seem overly eager to condemn without taking the time to find out what you are actually condemning.  You have misunderstood my claims here.  If you can do it for something as immediate and simple as this point, perhaps you should consider you might be misunderstanding what went on in the past.  You should consider that this is not the right way to approach claims, either for an individual you are in a discussion with, internet claims, or attacks against past figures, no matter who they are.

As to my actual position:  I am not 100% sure, but I would say relatively certain and this is based on how historical sources are judged.   Supposedly this took place in a very public setting, before a congregation and yet it is reported by only one person.  I can't remember if she even claims to have been there when it was said.  The individual is known to have lied about other things though some of the stuff she reports is accurate.  My judgment of her claims for the most part depends therefore on whether or not a claim is supported by another independent source.  In this case, it isn't.  If new evidence appears that has someone else independently referencing the comment, I will readily take that into account and consider the quote to be much more likely to have been made.

You won't even take the time to read a woman's own words (Helen Mar Kimball) to ensure you are correctly understanding her positions and you are criticizing me for being careless in my acceptance or rejecting of evidence?  You have completely ignored my posting history if you think the only evidence I will accept is from FairMormon.  I won't accept work from there unless I see that my colleagues have gone to original sources, use proper historical methods for judging quality of sources and their interpretation is acceptable.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Calm

[TheSkepticChristian]

59 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

 Needing that kind of proof opens the doors to doubting a lot of historical quotes.

 of course we should doubt History. Historian Bart Ehrman said, 

Quote

Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past. We can’t really know the past because the past is done with. We think we know that past in some instances because we have such good evidence for what happened in the past, but in other cases we don’t know, and in some cases we just have to throw up our hands in despair. It is relatively certain that Bill Clinton won the election in 1996. It may be somewhat less clear who won the election next time. It’s pretty clear that Shakespeare wrote his plays, but there’s considerable debate. Why? It was hundreds of years ago, and scholars come up with alternative opinions. It’s probable that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but we don’t have a lot of eyewitness testimony. Historians try to establish levels of probability of what happened in the past. Some things are absolutely certain, some are probable, some are possible, some are “maybe,” some are “probably not.” What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past? Well, the best kind of evidence, of course, consists of contemporary accounts; people who were close to the time of the events themselves. Ultimately, if you don’t have a source that goes back to the time period itself, then you don’t have a reliable source. There are only two sources of information for past events: either stories that actually happened based on, ultimately, eyewitness accounts or stories that have been made up. Those are the only two kinds of stories you have from the past – either things that happened or things that were made up. To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another

Both apologists and critics need to follow that advice. 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Your problem might not be with God but getting one of the laurels to like you. 

Claiming revelation, and warning them of eternal damnation if they don't comply, seems to have assisted in the process. Maybe VGJ could try that?

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

Claiming revelation, and warning them of eternal damnation if they don't comply, seems to have assisted in the process. Maybe VGJ could try that?

I already do have laurels that like me but I turn them down because they're minors and try to stick with girls closer to my age.

[VideoGameJunkie]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And if that was the type of evidence I was requiring, you would have a point.  That you have not investigated that source so that you are making the assumption that this is the type of evidence I require is troubling, especially given my willingness in the past to accept negative criticisms that have decent evidence supporting them.  You seem overly eager to condemn without taking the time to find out what you are actually condemning.  You have misunderstood my claims here.  If you can do it for something as immediate and simple as this point, perhaps you should consider you might be misunderstanding what went on in the past.  You should consider that this is not the right way to approach claims, either for an individual you are in a discussion with, internet claims, or attacks against past figures, no matter who they are.

As to my actual position:  I am not 100% sure, but I would say relatively certain and this is based on how historical sources are judged.   Supposedly this took place in a very public setting, before a congregation and yet it is reported by only one person.  I can't remember if she even claims to have been there when it was said.  The individual is known to have lied about other things though some of the stuff she reports is accurate.  My judgment of her claims for the most part depends therefore on whether or not a claim is supported by another independent source.  In this case, it isn't.  If new evidence appears that has someone else independently referencing the comment, I will readily take that into account and consider the quote to be much more likely to have been made.

You won't even take the time to read a woman's own words (Helen Mar Kimball) to ensure you are correctly understanding her positions and you are criticizing me for being careless in my acceptance or rejecting of evidence?  You have completely ignored my posting history if you think the only evidence I will accept is from FairMormon.  I won't accept work from there unless I see that my colleagues have gone to original sources, use proper historical methods for judging quality of sources and their interpretation is acceptable.

It might not be FAIR but it seems for you to believe history it has to be from some apologetic source.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I just thought of the perfect pickup lines too. I'll say an angel with a drawn sword threatened my life and that I can promise the girls the exaltation of them and their families and say they might be damned if they disagree. That seemed to work in the past alright.

Do NOT post another thread without adequate references. You are about to go on Limited if you keep up the baiting.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, VideoGameJunkie said:

I just thought of the perfect pickup lines too. I'll say an angel with a drawn sword threatened my life and that I can promise the girls the exaltation of them and their families and say they might be damned if they disagree. That seemed to work in the past alright.

I would be careful how much mockery you heap on the Lords anointed prophet (assuming you still believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet).

Joseph did NOTHING wrong.  Period.  Calling good evil and evil good is a dangerous road to take if keeping a testimony matters to you.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Average doesn't prove anything.

If the average age is 22 (as google claims) that just means many were older and many were younger and it averages out to 22.

A better questions is "what percent of 19th century marriages were under 18?  Under 16?  And what percent of age differences between spouses was more than a decade?

The Nauvoo temple records contain numerous marriages of people under 16 - some to spouses their own age, some to spouses older.  People aged within 0-5 years of each other marrying between 18 and 25 is an arbitrary expectation, not a standard, even today.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

It might not be FAIR but it seems for you to believe history it has to be from some apologetic source.

Well, you haven't been paying attention then.

 

You continue to refuse to actually deal with what I say and instead attack a strawman.  Do you think this is an effective approach to discovering reality and having proper judgment?

 

Add-on: this thread is imo a typical examplewhere I direct you to read Helen's original words on a. Website that publishes journals without commentary.  If you had used the link and read what it had, you would have known better.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Calm

[BookofMormonLuvr]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I would be careful how much mockery you heap on the Lords anointed prophet (assuming you still believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet).

Joseph did NOTHING wrong.  Period.  Calling good evil and evil good is a dangerous road to take if keeping a testimony matters to you.

I happen to agree, which is why I do not believe that Joseph Smith warned 14-16 year-old girls of eternal damnation if they didn't agree to be his bride. I believe such accounts are lies, and those that invented them, and made those women go along with such slander, will be held in judgement. 

It is very odd to me that anyone would accept such accounts and justify them.

[VideoGameJunkie]

9 minutes ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

I happen to agree, which is why I do not believe that Joseph Smith warned 14-16 year-old girls of eternal damnation if they didn't agree to be his bride. I believe such accounts are lies, and those that invented them, and made those women go along with such slander, will be held in judgement. 

It is very odd to me that anyone would accept such accounts and justify them.

Then why did the church admit the angel with the sword in the essays? And where do all these stories come from?

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I would be careful how much mockery you heap on the Lords anointed prophet (assuming you still believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet).

Joseph did NOTHING wrong.  Period.  Calling good evil and evil good is a dangerous road to take if keeping a testimony matters to you.

Only part of me still believes he acted like a prophet of God.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Then why did the church admit the angel with the sword in the essays? And where do all these stories come from?

What would be the blow back if they said the stories were made up? What would that do to the foundation on which their claims of sole Priesthood authority rest, if it was revealed that BY, HCK, OP, etc... made things up or greatly embellished?

If you don't know about it, you should check out: "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" by Richard & Pamela Price to at least get an alternative view on things.

[Avatar4321]

13 hours ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

How "voluntary" is it when the spiritual authority over you says "If you don't, you will be damned." ?

I fail to see how that is all realistic to how it was practiced.

Besides I get told I'm damned for believing the Book of Mormon. That hasn't eliminated my choice in the whether to believe it or not

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

What would be the blow back if they said the stories were made up? What would that do to the foundation on which their claims of sole Priesthood authority rest, if it was revealed that BY, HCK, OP, etc... made things up or greatly embellished?

If you don't know about it, you should check out: "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" by Richard & Pamela Price to at least get an alternative view on things.

I wish I had your thought view as I'm someone who is easily persuaded.

[hagoth7]

5 hours ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

What would be the blow back if they said the stories were made up?

Perhaps this.

I might offer a more sober answer somewhat later.

Edited December 17, 2015 by hagoth7