Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Facial Hair & Leadership Positions


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Even more barfy is the praise in lieu of “no, I was incorrect in my directive.  You should not have followed directives without confirmation from God, nor should you ever.” 

To be clear - the man who said no open toes was not the man who praised the "obedience".  The praise came from my bishopric counselor. The other leader was his relative or friend in a different location.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rain said:

To be clear - the man who said no open toes was not the man who praised the "obedience".  The praise came from my bishopric counselor. The other leader was his relative or friend in a different location.

Did the one who said open toed clarify he really meant flip flops or did he just keep his mouth shut out of embarrassment and concern about backlash?  I can see some women being angry they wasted money if they had tossed the open toed shoes.  Shoes can be expensive, especially the kind you wear to church.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Show me evidence that it was normal behavior in frontier America to marry teenage girls to men who are 40 years older than the bride. It wasn’t normal then and it isn’t now. 

FYI

Not the norm but wide spread and accepted. 

Edited by blackstrap
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Did the one who said open toed clarify he really meant flip flops or did he just keep his mouth shut out of embarrassment and concern about backlash?  

I don't know. If I remember right, the counselor didn't say. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I can see some women being angry they wasted money if they had tossed the open toed shoes.  Shoes can be expensive, especially the kind you wear to church.

I agree! Which is why I can't figure out why some women got rid of them. You can wear them to other occasions.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Show me evidence that it was normal behavior in frontier America to marry teenage girls to men who are 40 years older than the bride. It wasn’t normal then and it isn’t now. 

The evidence you need is that which supports your presentism: the notions of "little" teen girls, "mangy beards", "dream of a honeymoon". Presentism is normal, don't you think?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't know. If I remember right, the counselor didn't say. 

I agree! Which is why I can't figure out why some women got rid of them. You can wear them to other occasions.

I wonder if those women miss interpreted open toed shoes as being evil or immodest in general? Rather than just not appropriate for church.

Edit to clarify, I don’t think they are inappropriate for church at all. I have three pairs that I wear all during the summer. I’m also good with wearing sandals, which are basically just flip-flops without the sound.

 

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

so marrying someone who is within 20 years if your own age is a demonstration of a lack of knowledge of the gospel? Give me a break.. these old goats are going after the 14 year old bevcayse they were perverts. How come in virtually every polygamist prophets cases their first marriage was to someone close to their age and subsequent wives even 20 yrs later were teenagers? What wasn’t their first wife 14? That would have looked reasonable compared to being fifty seven and handed a 14 year old. 

maybe they will have that kind of “maturity” if the church actually taught any of this. They are embarrassed by it and frankly I’d eat my hat if you could get a 14 year old in general conference to raise her hand and volunteer to marry let’s say.. elder holland since he is on the market now. 
 

one freakin wackjob super mom would put her daughters hand up to volunteer. 

Your brilliance just shines through.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if those women miss interpreted open toed shoes as being evil or immodest in general? Rather than just not appropriate for church.

Edit to clarify, I don’t think they are inappropriate for church at all. I have three pairs that I wear all during the summer. I’m also good with wearing sandals, which are basically just flip-flops without the sound.

 

They probably did misinterpret it.  People do.

I was actually wearing flip-flops back when we were told we shouldn't.  I have very wide, high-arched, high-instep, diabetic feet and sometimes have a horrible time finding shoes.  I had gone to every shoe store I could to get dress shoes.  The only thing I could find remotely close was very nice leather flip-flops that actually needed to be stretched.  I was so embarrassed to wear them after it came out that we shouldn't wear flip-flops! But what could I do?  I wore them till I was able to find an actual pair of dress shoes.

Later, I just didn't care anymore.  If I couldn't find dress shoes I just wore my walking/athletic shoes.  If people were going to judge me about shoes that didn't hurt my feet that was their problem.

I was very excited though about 6 months ago when I found my first pair of properly fitting dress shoes in decades!   

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Are you going to now turn this into a personal attack?
 

Defend your position about the maturity aspect of fourteen year olds marrying fifty-plus year old men. 

I was speaking about women and men IN THE SPIRIT WORLD being sealed to each other perhaps during the millennium, or however that "actually" works, where "age" is irrelevant and projecting that level of spiritual maturity on a given young woman who married a man for his extreme spirituality, and not his physical prowess.

In those days, many sealings between younger women and leaders were performed to unify families, with the families of leaders and because it was seen as an honor to be sealed to say Joseph Smith, even they were never intended to "sleep" together.  It has been shown, iirc, that there are NO genetic descendants of Joseph except through Emma, his first wife.

Sealings for "honor" were common as well.

Being a man myself, I understand your position, but I know that many sealings were done for spiritual reasons and not because the man was a "pervert", to use your term.

I did not intend a "personal attack", but I do not intend to carry this conversation forward.

I wish you well in your search for truth 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Are you going to now turn this into a personal attack?
 

Defend your position about the maturity aspect of fourteen year olds marrying fifty-plus year old men. 

No descendants from Joseph's polygamist wives per DNA

I just picked the first site that came up from google.

https://mormonr.org/qnas/VvSJBb/polygamy_joseph_smith_era?gclid=CjwKCAjwvrOpBhBdEiwAR58-3HK4ITgUa6PqboD1JZ85iHxU6Qp9HpCUS3mIavr3G1zxJ8fE-rDJfRoCN5gQAvD_BwE

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

It should be noted that there are areas of the world where owning shoes of any kind is a luxury.

Celestial thinking ???

I was really glad when they came out that no one should be denied being able to do the sacrament if they didn't have a white dress shirt.  I haven't noticed anything about flipflops since then so hopefully things like that are better now.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if those women miss interpreted open toed shoes as being evil or immodest in general? Rather than just not appropriate for church.

When is it appropriate to show toes in public? Are they trying to be walking pornography aiming to excite the lusts of men everywhere?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

The evidence is right here below.
 

It was not normal or common for those age spreads or even age spreads half as large. It isn’t presentism when the actions of men and women ( or little girls) was close to what it is now. Sure 14 and 25 year olds were getting married but they were not marrying men with any regularity who could be their great grandfather or great great grandfather for that matter. 

as for mangy beards well the pictures found everywhere speak for themselves. 
 

what are you asking about honeymoons and presentism?? Are you saying nobody went on  honeymoons back then? 
 

https://paa2008.populationassociation.org/papers/80695

Your normal and common presentism evidently biases your reaction to evidence (as you interpret it), including the evidence of your presentism.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Well the evidence shows that even back in Brigham and Lorenzo’s era, men who are forty years senior to teenage girls ( 14-15 in their cases) in a marriage was not a common case. In fact it was unusual. It isn’t presentism to point that out esp since marriage ages and age spread between men and women are little different than they are today when compared to Lorenzo and Brigham. 

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Your normal and common presentism evidently biases your reaction to evidence (as you interpret it), including the evidence of your presentism.

Maybe this discussion would be better in its own thread?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...