When I first heard that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy I pulled over in my car and wept. Or maybe that was when I heard about ending the priesthood ban. Can't remember exactly. But it was one of those.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostI can certainly understand (and relate to) being disturbed by encountering the unsavory details associated with the origins of polygamy. But that's a different issue than BY vs JS originating the practice. Both are prophets, right? I hear stories all the time of people being shocked to discover that polygamy originated with JS, independent of these other factors. I still don't get that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ERCougar View PostI was a horrible person.
It's not so much that they haven't heard of the issues, as much as they don't realize just how credible/valid the issues are, I'd guess. I listened to an interview of a McConkie, very orthodox and knowledgeable guy, who recently completed a study companion to the D&C. He said he was shocked at how little the GAs knew about these issues, because they just don't have the time or the desire to investigate them. They have plenty on their plate already. The church is reportedly addressing this with periodic briefings on different issues with them.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Comment
-
The Church's biggest problem here is that these issues go to the Church's credibility (and also Joseph Smith's credibility as a prophet).
No one would ever argue that Warren Jeffs' behavior makes him less credible.
Many Mormons try to justify or defend Joseph Smith's behavior although there is no excuse.
The other approach is to accept Joseph Smith as a horribly imperfect prophet. Then the question is how imperfect is a prophet allowed to be? Where would you draw the line? Two hundred years generates a distance that makes it easier for people to rationalize, excuse, or come to terms with his behavior.
But imagine a 21st century prophet behaving that way.
My parents kept me very well educated regarding these issues even from a young age, so I have never been surprised by them. I have also never really felt compelled to spend a lot of time praying about the truthfulness of the Church or reading scripture. I care about the Church as an institution but don't really regard it as what it claims to be.
As far as Joseph Smight's legacy, I'd never say that bad behavior invalidates the work of Martin Luther King Jr or JFK. But the thought of a church founded by Joseph Smith routinely disciplining (and even excommunicating) people for sexual sin is just laughable.
So how much worse is Warren Jeffs?That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens
http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paperback Writer View PostFar from it. Others have better information but JS did not produce a lot of progeny even considering Emma. Many years ago, the RLDS used this as evidence that JS did not practice polygamy - where are the children? My understanding is that his non-Emma progeny are very, very few.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoCalCoug View PostBy the way, another explanation I've heard is that girls in those times married younger. That's bullshit. While there doesn't appear to be census information going back to the 1840's, in 1890, the average age for a woman in the U.S. to marry for the first time was 22.τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν
Comment
-
Originally posted by All-American View Post22 looks pretty close to the average age of the women on that list."The mind is not a boomerang. If you throw it too far it will not come back." ~ Tom McGuane
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoonerCoug View PostThe Church's biggest problem here is that these issues go to the Church's credibility (and also Joseph Smith's credibility as a prophet).
No one would ever argue that Warren Jeffs' behavior makes him less credible.
Many Mormons try to justify or defend Joseph Smith's behavior although there is no excuse.
The other approach is to accept Joseph Smith as a horribly imperfect prophet. Then the question is how imperfect is a prophet allowed to be? Where would you draw the line? Two hundred years generates a distance that makes it easier for people to rationalize, excuse, or come to terms with his behavior.
But imagine a 21st century prophet behaving that way.
My parents kept me very well educated regarding these issues even from a young age, so I have never been surprised by them. I have also never really felt compelled to spend a lot of time praying about the truthfulness of the Church or reading scripture. I care about the Church as an institution but don't really regard it as what it claims to be.
As far as Joseph Smight's legacy, I'd never say that bad behavior invalidates the work of Martin Luther King Jr or JFK. But the thought of a church founded by Joseph Smith routinely disciplining (and even excommunicating) people for sexual sin is just laughable.
So how much worse is Warren Jeffs?Last edited by Uncle Ted; 07-25-2013, 05:03 AM."If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
"Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by woot View PostSo how is that explained? Did JS have slow swimmers? Perhaps he modeled his business time after Onan? Maybe he was marrying pubescent girls so he could talk to them about their emotions."If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
"Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by woot View PostSo how is that explained? Did JS have slow swimmers? Perhaps he modeled his business time after Onan? Maybe he was marrying pubescent girls so he could talk to them about their emotions.
Honestly, the whole sleeping around with other wives part is silly to me. My issue is just with the marriages in general. It seems odd that some LDS will try to discount the whole thing by saying that they were spiritual wives and he didn't sleep with them. I can only imagine the reaction I'd get if I came home one night to MJ and told her I had married someone else but that she shouldn't worry because I'm not going to sleep with them.
Polygamy is effed up and it's effed up that we still believe in it. I think even Turley says in that Swedish meeting that we still believe in it but don't practice it on earth now but we do practice it in the temple.
Also, it was interesting to hear Turley say that JS marrying a 14 year old in 1840 is the same as someone marrying a 21 year old today. Sounds like he's still using some outdated talking points in making his apologetic argument."Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View Post
Also, it was interesting to hear Turley say that JS marrying a 14 year old in 1840 is the same as someone marrying a 21 year old today. Sounds like he's still using some outdated talking points in making his apologetic argument.
Comment
-
Originally posted by woot View PostSo how is that explained? Did JS have slow swimmers? Perhaps he modeled his business time after Onan? Maybe he was marrying pubescent girls so he could talk to them about their emotions.That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens
http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoonerCoug View PostLambskin condoms? Did they exist back then? Did JS practice safe sex?Awesomeness now has a name. Let me introduce myself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moliere View PostAlso, it was interesting to hear Turley say that JS marrying a 14 year old in 1840 is the same as someone marrying a 21 year old today. Sounds like he's still using some outdated talking points in making his apologetic argument.
But let's not overlook Brigham Young. He married a heck of a lot of women (some as young as 15 or 16 when he was in his 40's), had a crap load of children with them, divorced a good number of them, and still managed to get a great university named after himself. And unlike the Saudis BY wasn't sitting on a huge amount of oil reserves and so he wasn't able to pay out lavish dowries to the fathers for their daughter's hand in marriage. But rather, maybe, gave the family a "revelation" that he was commanded to do so and/or a promise that their daughter would have an eternal life in the highest kingdom, etc, etc. Who cares about those large dowries when it comes to the eternal perspective? Besides having a Brigham Young as a relative by marriage may have saved the family from being assigned to move to Idaho, Arizona, or some other of hell hole of a place to live. A little insurance like that might have been worth a daughter back then.Last edited by Uncle Ted; 07-25-2013, 07:16 AM."If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
"Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pheidippides View PostCondoms did exist I think. You also have the allegations that Bennett was performing abortions for JS. But the source was Bennett himself, and Bennett was a known scoundrel and charlatan. He's the one source I almost always look at with extreme skepticismDyslexics are teople poo...
Comment
Comment