Obviously, we can't compare him to someone like Warren Jeffs, even if they did similar things for similar reasons (claiming the same power and authority).
Why can't we compare them?
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk - Tom Waits
Jesse Pinkman wrote:Also, although he was married to them, he allowed them to remain living with their "first" husbands. This was a huge contrast from the Brigham Young era of polygamy, where, if Brigham chose to marry a woman who was married to someone else, she was no longer allowed to live with that other husband.
Keep in mind that Joseph was trying very hard to keep polygamy secret from Emma, the church and general public. He couldn't do that with them living with him. BY on the other hand was not trying to keep it secret and came out publicly after arriving in the Salt Lake valley.
Exactly.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Jesse Pinkman wrote:Obviously, it's impossible to read someone else's mind. However, after you are friends with someone for a while, you can gain a sense, most of the time, on where their genuine belief system lies. At least, that has been my experience.
I believe that you're correct that you can generally gauge on where someone's belief lies based on their outward and admitted views. But even when you or I are close to someone it is still not possible to access their subconscious mind because not even the owner is fully aware of what's going on at that level. Yet, the subconscious still has an affect on behavior.
Count me in as one who believes that Pahoran's mind is aware of 'cracks in the foundation'. I also believe the same of DCP (you know him personally, too, if I remember correctly). Both exhibit anxious behaviors that seem to indicate a subconscious cognitive dissonance that they are trying to compensate for.
I accept that you'll probably consider me an arse for stating that opinion above. No offense is intended; this is just my observation and YMMV.
No, I don't think that you are an arse for stating your opinion. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. You presented it in a very nice way, so no worries.
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?
"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MDB.
Music is my drug of choice.
"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MDB _________________
Jesse Pinkman wrote:Also, although he was married to them, he allowed them to remain living with their "first" husbands. This was a huge contrast from the Brigham Young era of polygamy, where, if Brigham chose to marry a woman who was married to someone else, she was no longer allowed to live with that other husband.
Keep in mind that Joseph was trying very hard to keep polygamy secret from Emma, the church and general public. He couldn't do that with them living with him. BY on the other hand was not trying to keep it secret and came out publicly after arriving in the Salt Lake valley.
Exactly my point...and I think Cinepro's as well. It grows very tiresome hearing the defense of a strawman argument regarding whether or not Joseph had sex with his polygamous wives when the issue that bothers most believers is the secrecy from Emma, and his reasoning for marrying other faithful LDS priesthood holders' wives in the first place.
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?
"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MDB.
Music is my drug of choice.
"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MDB _________________
In the end, I don't really care whether early Mormons actually believed that God commanded polygamy or not. I don't. I think it is a terrible marital arrangement that actually exacerbates societal problems. Older men coercively denying younger women and younger men the opportunity to form healthy relationships of their own choosing is how things turned out not infrequently, both in the life of Joseph Smith and also in the lives of his followers.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
canpakes wrote:Pahoran complains of Colvin's lack of 'intellectual horsepower' while aptly displaying his own critical deficit in that regard, given that he would apparently blindly follow anything that a simple man (Smith) would have claimed was a command from God.
Irony at its best.
Unless you're willing to cut JSJr slack for every one of his misdeeds, Pahoran and his likes condescend that you have not given JSJr and his situation serious thought. Actually, it is the defenders that need to give it serious thought, instead of just giving JSJr a pass on everything. The shallow thinking is more prevalent on the believing side of the fence. And Pahoran is Exhibit #1 for proof of this.
Jesse Pinkman wrote:Also, although he was married to them, he allowed them to remain living with their "first" husbands. This was a huge contrast from the Brigham Young era of polygamy, where, if Brigham chose to marry a woman who was married to someone else, she was no longer allowed to live with that other husband.
Keep in mind that Joseph was trying very hard to keep polygamy secret from Emma, the church and general public. He couldn't do that with them living with him. BY on the other hand was not trying to keep it secret and came out publicly after arriving in the Salt Lake valley.
That's why I find it so ironic that TBMs run to throw the more honest BY under the bus and prop up the sneaky, dishonest JSJr. Sort of seems ass backwards for religious people to hoist dishonesty over honesty--but then, Mormonism is pretty twisted in numerous ways.
Jesse Pinkman wrote: No, I don't think that you are an arse for stating your opinion. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. You presented it in a very nice way, so no worries.
Thanks, JP - I'm sure that I come across as acerbic or judgmental at times to some folks, but then again, I possess very little social skill or grace, so that's not unexpected. : )
Jesse Pinkman wrote:It grows very tiresome hearing the defense of a strawman argument regarding whether or not Joseph had sex with his polygamous wives when the issue that bothers most believers is the secrecy from Emma, and his reasoning for marrying other faithful LDS priesthood holders' wives in the first place.
Excellent point. Member care not as to whether Joseph had sex with any and all of his polygamous wives, after all, they are not the one's into apostate sanctimony or the 19th Century teenage love of the Virginia reel. However, once these members understand that communiques to Emma were routinely rejected by the Big Guy, with the return stamp indicating "for your eyes only", they will relent. Same with the wives of those without all the Priesthood Keys. Where there is a will to understand, there is a way.
You make a good spokesperson for Russell. Tell him to save you some of those Koala steaks.
Based on the exhortation to "follow the prophet" one assumes it's okay for us men folk to have secret liaisons eternal sealings with other women providing we keep it a secret from the current spouse?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)