Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[carbon dioxide]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course it does not address that because that is not the issue.

Children of hetero couples do not have the central conflict of being taught one thing in the home by seeing it every day, and another in church.  THAT is the conflict.

The conflict results when a homosexual couple desires their children to be taught that homosexuality is wrong while they practice it at home

The fault is with the homosexual couple who would send their children to a place where the poor children are forced into trying to resolve conflicting lessons at such an early age.

I personally feel that if I was gay, I would view sending my children to the LDS church to be tantamount to child abuse.   What kind of parenting is that???

Were I gay I would have NOTHING to do with such a church!

CAN anyone here actually cite an example of such a child who is actually coming to church with gay parents?

Children of a unmarried hetero couple do have a conflict by seeing their parents live in a sinful lifestyle at home while being taught their parents are living in sin a Church.  I don't think a gay couple sending their children to an LDS church are desiring that their children be taught that homosexuality is wrong.  Perhaps they are just desiring the children to be taught the gospel and decide for themselves what is right or wrong.   What is clear to me is that for every child of a gay couple that this might affect, there are many times as many children of unmarried heterosexual couples who are living in sin but the children are allowed to be baptized.  The policy address a very rare thing that will ever happen in the church but ignores a more common situation in does occur.   I am not against the policy as much as it needs to be more consistent and standardized.  Lets not pretend that the married gay couple are in living in a much greater sinful state than the heterosexual couple that is shacking up together without being married.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

 So many families have been torn apart. 

By whom?

Is it the responsibility of the church to teach children or their parents?

Families are only torn apart when there is conflict between two sets of beliefs.   Teach your children consistently that homosexuality is not a sin, don't send them to a church that DOES teach that, and poof- no conflict, no family torn apart!

What seems to be the problem that you would want your children taught that your lifestyle is sinful?   Why would you do that?  You can't find a church that teaches otherwise?

How may times do we have to do this?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Children of a unmarried hetero couple do have a conflict by seeing their parents live in a sinful lifestyle at home while being taught their parents are living in sin a Church.  I don't think a gay couple sending their children to an LDS church are desiring that their children be taught that homosexuality is wrong.  Perhaps they are just desiring the children to be taught the gospel and decide for themselves what is right or wrong.   What is clear to me is that for every child of a gay couple that this might affect, there are many times as many children of unmarried heterosexual couples who are living in sin but the children are allowed to be baptized.  The policy address a very rare thing that will ever happen in the church but ignores a more common situation in does occur.   I am not against the policy as much as it needs to be more consistent and standardized.  Lets not pretend that the married gay couple are in living in a much greater sinful state than the heterosexual couple that is shacking up together without being married.

Fair enough I agree

So the church should have a policy to not allow children of heterosexual couples who are unmarried to get baptized either

But the fact is that that rule de facto DOES ALREADY exist!

1- A child may not be baptized without his parents permission until she is 18

2- unmarried heterosexual couples may not be baptized until they get married.  We see this all the time where I live.

SUCH PARENTS do not believe in the church by definition and would not encourage their children to join a church they did not believe in- BEFORE they were old enough to make their own decision.

So that pretty much leaves a teenager who's parents live together without being married who meets friends who bring him into the church and would like to be baptized as possible candidates to whom such a policy might apply.

I can't imagine many in this category if any.

But if a child of a homosexual couple who was a teenager, understanding the church's stance on homosexuality wanted to join the church on their own, after a very careful interview with the Mission President, I would support allowing that

But that is essentially what already happens in the policy with 18 year olds

But I would never agree with 8 year olds who were parents of a heterosexual couple unmarried, being baptized 

WHAT Parent, practically, would allow that?   Why would you do that as a parent?

What chance does that child have of remaining active without support in the home with family home evening, daily prayer, etc??

Not going to happen.

A policy has to be defined, even if it covers a null set, and that null set is all I see in this case.  Perhaps the policy should be re-defined to cover a slightly different empty set, but an empty set is an empty set.

Edited December 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[provoman]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course it does not address that because that is not the issue.

Children of hetero couples do not have the central conflict of being taught one thing in the home by seeing it every day, and another in church.  THAT is the conflict.

The conflict results when a homosexual couple desires their children to be taught that homosexuality is wrong while they practice it at home

The fault is with the homosexual couple who would send their children to a place where the poor children are forced into trying to resolve conflicting lessons at such an early age.

I personally feel that if I was gay, I would view sending my children to the LDS church to be tantamount to child abuse.   What kind of parenting is that???

Were I gay I would have NOTHING to do with such a church!

CAN anyone here actually cite an example of such a child who is actually coming to church with gay parents?

Are you saying that the LDS Church does not teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong?

 

[mfbukowski]

I can see the headlines now!

Quote

 

THOUSANDS OF 8 YEAR OLDS PROTEST AT CHURCH HEADQUARTERS DEMANDING BAPTISM

The LDS church was besieged today by at least 2 thousand 8 year olds, who were children of gay couples, carrying signs and baseball bats demanding baptism into the LDS church.  They chanted slogans like "What do we want?  BAPTISM!  When do we want it? NOW!"

A spokesperson for the group said "But they told us we would have milk and cookies for us if we walked for an hour but now it's been longer than that and no cookies!  What is baptism anyway?"  The children also threatened to "tear their families apart" if they did not get their way.  Some were seen stomping their feet, crying, and pounding the pavement with their fists while screaming.

One of the parents of the group said "I have never seen my daughter so upset in my life- she is very even-tempered at home.   We told her we didn't agree with the church on this point, but all she wants is baptism- it's tearing our family apart!   We just want to be left in peace to live the way we think is right, but our children just keep demanding baptism!"

Police with tasers and rubber bullets arrived at the scene but thankfully most of the protesters decided it was time for a nap, and so they were easily subdued with blankeys the police had brilliantly brought with them.

 

 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The quote he already made backs up his position- did you read it?????

PERSONAL REVELATION is the basis of this church- who with any brain would believe the crazy stories about angels and plates if they did not have a testimony??  Not me!  And I have been a member in good standing for nearly 40 years with many leadership callings.

Do you want citations that testimony is prior to and more important than what some alleged "prophet" says?  How are you supposed to know who IS  a prophet without a testimony??   How about Jim Jones as a prophet?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

How about David Koresh?   How long a list do you want??  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

It only stands to reason that if a principle violates one's conscience, he ought not to be compelled by force to carry it out.  Lincoln freed the slaves- did you get the memo?

We still have the right to vote with our feet.

In this church orthopraxis is the ruling principle- if you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview in good conscience you are a member in good standing of the church.  You don't have to believe that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago or any of the alleged history whatsoever.

No his quote did not address it, and nothing you posted addresses it either.  I am waiting for someone to post the "except when I disagree with the king, ruler, magistrate" clause of Article of Faith 12. No one has posted that "except when" clause.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

Are you saying that the LDS Church does not teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong?

 

HUH?

Of course we teach that.  What's your point?   Did you read my post at all?

I said:

Quote

 

But if a child of a homosexual couple who was a teenager, understanding the church's stance on homosexuality wanted to join the church on their own, after a very careful interview with the Mission President, I would support allowing that

 

If a kid is of the age of consent- even if under 18 as proven to a bishop and sp, I would support that child being baptized

But because his parents wanted him to be baptized?   No way!

But that is essentially the policy now as it is.  Kids under 18, with their parents permission can get baptized- assuming they are mature enough to make that decision on their own

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

No his quote did not address it, and nothing you posted addresses it either.  I am waiting for someone to post the "except when I disagree with the king, ruler, magistrate" clause of Article of Faith 12. No one has posted that "except when" clause.

Of course it addresses it.

There are many statements made by GA's etc and that is not the issue here anyway.   I am not going to do your homework for you.  It is a position held by most LDS writers today and well substantiated   Here read this http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

Merry Christmas

Edited December 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Fair enough I agree

So the church should have a policy to not allow children of heterosexual couples who are unmarried to get baptized either

But the fact is that that rule de facto DOES ALREADY exist!

1- A child may not be baptized without his parents permission until she is 18

2- unmarried heterosexual couples may not be baptized until they get married.  We see this all the time where I live.

SUCH PARENTS do not believe in the church by definition and would not encourage their children to join a church they did not believe in- BEFORE they were old enough to make their own decision.

So that pretty much leaves a teenager who's parents live together without being married who meets friends who bring him into the church and would like to be baptized as possible candidates to whom such a policy might apply.

I can't imagine many in this category if any.

But if a child of a homosexual couple who was a teenager, understanding the church's stance on homosexuality wanted to join the church on their own, after a very careful interview with the Mission President, I would support allowing that

But that is essentially what already happens in the policy with 18 year olds

But I would never agree with 8 year olds who were parents of a heterosexual couple unmarried, being baptized 

WHAT Parent, practically, would allow that?   Why would you do that as a parent?

What chance does that child have of remaining active without support in the home with family home evening, daily prayer, etc??

Not going to happen.

A policy has to be defined, even if it covers a null set, and that null set is all I see in this case.  Perhaps the policy should be re-defined to cover a slightly different empty set, but an empty set is an empty set.

You never served a mission did you?  Or if you did, was it a place that has very few baptisms?  On my mission, we baptized anyone who was willing to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and was worthy of baptism.  That was the criteria.  As far as I know, that was still the criteria until just recently.  We didn't decide whether a person should be baptized by calculating the odds of whether they will go inactive.  There were lots of youth that were baptized without their parents being involved in the church.  Some went on to serve missions and marry in the temple.  Some went inactive.  But then some born into the church with active parents also left the church.

When a child was underage, we were required to get permission of the parents whether they were a part member family, a non member family.  There were quite a few instances when the parents were not married.  That was not a reason to prevent a child entrance into the church.  It was a time when the church asked every member to be a missionary.  I remember one good sister would pick up a car full of neighborhood kids and take them to primary each week.  Of course we tried to teach the rest of the family.  Sometimes the whole family would join the church.  Sometimes the parents didn't want anything to do with the church themselves, but were perfectly fine allowing their children to attend the church of their choice.  In a few instances, it was not even possible for the parents to marry.  I remember one family who had 5 children. The parents of the 5 kids were never married because one of them had been married before and the former spouse would not grant a divorce.  Not everywhere is there no fault divorce.  As Zone Leader, I was the one that did the baptismal interview for some of these children.  Do you think I should have denied them baptism?  Because at that time, I was instructed that, all over the age of 8 who desired to be a part of the church and were worthy was allowed to partake of those blessings. There were no walls.  It was a time when the church was less divisive.

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by california boy

[provoman]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course it addresses it.

There are many statements made by GA's etc and that is not the issue here anyway.   I am not going to do your homework for you.  It is a position held by most LDS writers today and well substantiated   Here read this http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

Merry Christmas

The CFR, though not directed at you, still stands. Some LDS are all to willing to say the 12th Article of Faith is not binding; I am waiting for the statements from the living prophets and apostles who say as much.

[provoman]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

HUH?

Of course we teach that.  What's your point?   Did you read my post at all?

 

 

•  A child of unwed hetero sexual parents and said parents live together and share the same bed, will be taught in Church that unwed sexual intercourse violates the Law Of Chastity.
• A child of a ssm couple will be taught that the relationship of his/her ss parent is wrong.  
• Therefore, each child will be taught in Church what their parents are doing is wrong.

Edited December 24, 2016 by provoman

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

But I would never agree with 8 year olds who were parents of a heterosexual couple unmarried, being baptized 

WHAT Parent, practically, would allow that?   Why would you do that as a parent?

What chance does that child have of remaining active without support in the home with family home evening, daily prayer, etc??

My dad told me when I wonder if my friend getting baptized was the right thing (she asked him to baptize her) after she fell quickly into inactivity once she moved away from us that she was a step ahead by being baptized.  I am not sure if he saw the ordinances as a checklist or that somehow even if she wasn't living her covenants, the baptism/confirmation would help her.  I don't personally see it that way, I think one has to be accepting of what the covenant means for it to be active.  I think the blessings coming from being a good person who is not involved in the LDS community are the same whether or not one is baptized.  And I think it is possible, though I am not certain, that if one makes the covenant then unless one lives up to what knowledge one has at that time and later if added to, one may end up worst off for not living that covenant as one understood and accepted (more relevant for adults as kids getting baptized because of family may have little understanding beyond 'it will make grandma happy' or 'it is what my family does').  However, I would not be surprised if for many, especially inactive that may not have a clear understanding of covenant making and keeping, to look on baptism as something done to one and for one and not by one and therefore they may see it as worthwhile to have even if there is no intent to live a covenant life.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You keep saying that, but it's merely your opinion unless you'd like to provide a CFR from the church that explains the difference between covenants.

Also, I'd disagree with the way you qualify the covenant making of SSM. If they aren't getting married in the temple or by priesthood authority I don't see how they are making any kind of church related covenant.

In any case, have a merry Christmas!

The LDS concept of secular or civil marriage as an oath and covenant is covered in D&C 132:7 and 15. This section also describes the difference between covenants (some end with death and some are eternal). So there you’ve been given a reference showing that the Church explains the difference between covenants, and hopefully now you do see how people do indeed make covenants outside the temple and priesthood authority (did you actually say that?).

I hope a reference for the difference between breaking a covenant and entering a covenant (whether the Lord’s or the devil’s) isn’t necessary, but I’ll point you the Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon for all of these. …I still can’t believe you don’t see that people don’t make covenants outside the temple and priesthood authority…

Three of the items listed as apostasy in Handbook 1 involve a member who engages opposing covenants by following an apostate sect (by engaging in polygamy), joining another church (yes, other churches have covenants), or entering ssm (yes, this is considered a covenant not of the Church). One item involves public opposition to the Church, which ssm literally entails as a civilly recorded covenant. Ssm is clearly not Church doctrine, and the other policy item addresses the persistence in teaching this covenant after being corrected by proper Church authority.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Hummm.  I don't think it is me that has the understanding problem.  I am in complete agreement with what other posters are telling you.  They are making my point in the exact same way.  

The read my replies to them and ask any questions that differ from theirs.

[readstoomuch]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You never served a mission did you?  Or if you did, was it a place that has very few baptisms?  On my mission, we baptized anyone who was willing to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and was worthy of baptism.  That was the criteria.  As far as I know, that was still the criteria until just recently.  We didn't decide whether a person should be baptized by calculating the odds of whether they will go inactive.  There were lots of youth that were baptized without their parents being involved in the church.  Some went on to serve missions and marry in the temple.  Some went inactive.  But then some born into the church with active parents also left the church.

When a child was underage, we were required to get permission of the parents whether they were a part member family, a non member family.  There were quite a few instances when the parents were not married.  That was not a reason to prevent a child entrance into the church.  It was a time when the church asked every member to be a missionary.  I remember one good sister would pick up a car full of neighborhood kids and take them to primary each week.  Of course we tried to teach the rest of the family.  Sometimes the whole family would join the church.  Sometimes the parents didn't want anything to do with the church themselves, but were perfectly fine allowing their children to attend the church of their choice.  In a few instances, it was not even possible for the parents to marry.  I remember one family who had 5 children. The parents of the 5 kids were never married because one of them had been married before and the former spouse would not grant a divorce.  Not everywhere is there no fault divorce.  As Zone Leader, I was the one that did the baptismal interview for some of these children.  Do you think I should have denied them baptism?  Because at that time, I was instructed that, all over the age of 8 who desired to be a part of the church and were worthy was allowed to partake of those blessings. There were no walls.  It was a time when the church was less divisive.

 

In my mission 35 years ago couples had to be married for them to be baptized.  Their children weren`t baptized with them as a family unless the parents were married.  Children under 18 had to have permission from their parents if only the child was being baptized.  

I turned down a number of people for baptism.  It was usually until they could work on some issues or with the missionaries (sometimes taught again).  They were usually baptized, but after some time.  I was never told to baptize anybody that wasn`t ready.  I know it depends on the mission that someone was in.  I also knew that it was up to me and I was to represent the Lord and His Church. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

In my mission 35 years ago couples had to be married for them to be baptized.  Their children weren`t baptized with them as a family unless the parents were married.  Children under 18 had to have permission from their parents if only the child was being baptized.  

I turned down a number of people for baptism.  It was usually until they could work on some issues or with the missionaries (sometimes taught again).  They were usually baptized, but after some time.  I was never told to baptize anybody that wasn`t ready.  I know it depends on the mission that someone was in.  I also knew that it was up to me and I was to represent the Lord and His Church. 

Sounds like we had a similar experience.  Couples had to be married in order for THEM to be baptized.  Not everyone was ready for baptism.  Underaged children had to have both parents permission.  I certainly took my calling as a Zone Leader seriously in interviewing people for baptism.  But I never denied anyone baptism based solely on whether the parents were worthy of baptism or not.  It simply was not a factor in determining someone's worthiness.  A more inclusive time, that's  for sure.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, provoman said:

The CFR, though not directed at you, still stands. Some LDS are all to willing to say the 12th Article of Faith is not binding; I am waiting for the statements from the living prophets and apostles who say as much.

I think you are confused.

What does baptizing children have to do with obeying the law?  This issue has nothing to do with the 12th article of faith

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

In my mission 35 years ago couples had to be married for them to be baptized.  Their children weren`t baptized with them as a family unless the parents were married.  Children under 18 had to have permission from their parents if only the child was being baptized.  

I turned down a number of people for baptism.  It was usually until they could work on some issues or with the missionaries (sometimes taught again).  They were usually baptized, but after some time.  I was never told to baptize anybody that wasn`t ready.  I know it depends on the mission that someone was in.  I also knew that it was up to me and I was to represent the Lord and His Church. 

That is indeed the practice.

[provoman]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you are confused.

What does baptizing children have to do with obeying the law?  This issue has nothing to do with the 12th article of faith

I am not confused. However, discussing two different subject in the same thread can get confusing.

You responded to me about two different subjects

Subject 1: "As to following the law, LDS are expected to follow Constitutional, morally correct laws but if a law violates the Constitution, or violates our conscience, we do not need to obey." Carbon Dioxide made this claim for which I requested references.

Subject 2: The difference between children of a ssm couple prohibited from baptism v children born out of wedlock that lives with her unmarried heterosexual parents.

So the post about the 12 Article of Faith and LDS not having to follow the law, is a continuation of the discussion about LDS following the law.

 

[CV75]

21 hours ago, provoman said:

 

•  A child of unwed hetero sexual parents and said parents live together and share the same bed, will be taught in Church that unwed sexual intercourse violates the Law Of Chastity.
• A child of a ssm couple will be taught that the relationship of his/her ss parent is wrong.  
• Therefore, each child will be taught in Church what their parents are doing is wrong.

And let’s look at the other problem that the child may be too young to understand: apostasy as defined for administrative policy. The difference between the couple in the first bullet and the couple in the second bullet is that while they are both breaking a Church covenant by having relations outside of recognized marriage, the second couple has additionally entered a covenant that runs contrary to the Church’s counterpart (just as those who join another church or embrace the marital practices of an apostate sect).

Apostasy makes it impossible for the Church to assist the parents in teaching their children the gospel (as she teaches it) in the home. Sinning and excommunication don’t, as the Church still has some common ground to work with. Once the apostates create some common ground by seeking reinstatement, the relationship can change.

Someone raised in an apostate environment must disavow the relevant previous practices one way or another in order to join the Church. In the case of polygamy or ssm, the disavowal is more explicit than other covenants (such s joining another church) because the LDS new and everlasting covenant of marriage establishes the most fundamental unit of the Lord’s highest kingdom, the family.

Apostasy has generally included changing the ordinances and covenants (i.e. perverting the ways of the Lord) of the Lord, as in: Isaiah 24:5; 1 Nephi13:26, 27; Mosiah 12:26; Alma 31:10-11; Moroni 8:11-16 and others I found in a word search. Some good examples are: Moses 5:29, 49; Helaman 6:30.

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, california boy said:

You never served a mission did you?  Or if you did, was it a place that has very few baptisms?  On my mission, we baptized anyone who was willing to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and was worthy of baptism.  That was the criteria.  

And how many children of polygamous families did you teach and baptize?  Such children cannot be baptized without FP permission.  I believe that is the case even when they reach majority, but I may be mistaken

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

I am not confused. However, discussing two different subject in the same thread can get confusing.

You responded to me about two different subjects

Subject 1: "As to following the law, LDS are expected to follow Constitutional, morally correct laws but if a law violates the Constitution, or violates our conscience, we do not need to obey." Carbon Dioxide made this claim for which I requested references.

Subject 2: The difference between children of a ssm couple prohibited from baptism v children born out of wedlock that lives with her unmarried heterosexual parents.

So the post about the 12 Article of Faith and LDS not having to follow the law, is a continuation of the discussion about LDS following the law.

 

Fine- two discussions, different topics

If YOU are not confused then, why did you address your reply to ME about the other topic?

You do not wish to reply to me?

On 12/24/2016 at 3:42 PM, provoman said:

The CFR, though not directed at you, still stands. Some LDS are all to willing to say the 12th Article of Faith is not binding; I am waiting for the statements from the living prophets and apostles who say as much.

Why tell me that the CFR not directed toward me still stands?

I couldn't care less about that other discussion.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

And how many children of polygamous families did you teach and baptize?  Such children cannot be baptized without FP permission.  I believe that is the case even when they reach majority, but I may be mistaken

Not sure why you directed this at me.  I think I have been pretty clear that I don't think Christ would bar any child from being baptized into His church no matter who their parents are or what sins they are committing.  We are all responsible for our own sins.  We are not responsible for other's sins, not even Adams.  

[california boy]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

And let’s look at the other problem that the child may be too young to understand: apostasy as defined for administrative policy. The difference between the couple in the first bullet and the couple in the second bullet is that while they are both breaking a Church covenant by having relations outside of recognized marriage, the second couple has additionally entered a covenant that runs contrary to the Church’s counterpart (just as those who join another church or embrace the marital practices of an apostate sect).

 

Apostasy makes it impossible for the Church to assist the parents in teaching their children the gospel (as she teaches it) in the home. Sinning and excommunication don’t, as the Church still has some common ground to work with. Once the apostates create some common ground by seeking reinstatement, the relationship can change.

 

Someone raised in an apostate environment must disavow the relevant previous practices one way or another in order to join the Church. In the case of polygamy or ssm, the disavowal is more explicit than other covenants (such s joining another church) because the LDS new and everlasting covenant of marriage establishes the most fundamental unit of the Lord’s highest kingdom, the family.

 

Apostasy has generally included changing the ordinances and covenants (i.e. perverting the ways of the Lord) of the Lord, as in: Isaiah 24:5; 1 Nephi13:26, 27; Mosiah 12:26; Alma 31:10-11; Moroni 8:11-16 and others I found in a word search. Some good examples are: Moses 5:29, 49; Helaman 6:30.

 

I have a friend that was a member of the church.  His wife divorced him for another man.  Actually her therapist.  She has left the Mormon church.  He has also left the church remarried and has now joined another church.  He has custody of their youngest child.  He left it totally up to her which church she wanted to join.  She goes to church with her father and his new wife sometimes.  She goes with her older sisters sometimes.  Guess what.  She joined the Mormon church.  No one had a problem with that.  She was baptized without incident even though her parent is an apostate.  Though actually no one in the church has ever bothered to label him that.  She didn't have to disavow her parents.  She didn't have to wait until she was 18.  

Looking for an explanation from you on how this all fits your little scenerio.

 

[canard78]

On 21/12/2016 at 5:33 PM, thesometimesaint said:

Prior to the Victorian Era marriage to 14 year old's was legal.

Except that's not what happened. Joseph Smith was already married to Emma. He then, in his mid-30s, convinced several teenage girls (and their families) to commit themselves to him for eternity. This may or may not have involved a physical relationship in life too. 

You can't excuse what he did on legal grounds because what he did was not legal. 

The only reasonable discussion is whether it was moral. The apologetic argument needs to only make case for morality. If God commanded it and Joseph was a prophet, then his action was moral and legality had little to do with it (other than that pesky article of faith).

The discussion is instead about whether there is compelling evidence that:

a) he was a prophet &

b) he acted as one when convincing Helen & others to "marry" him

If both are true then you have the moral grounds and legality can go fishing.