God tells another prophet to f*** his female followers

[_solomarineris]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/06/sect.leader.arrest/index.html

Yet again we see an example of a charismatic religious movement founder who tells his flock that God has commanded him to have sex with his followers, and they willingly give it up to him. Only, in this case, his God-sanctioned boinking of teenaged girls occured in a day and age where the state simply isn't having any of it.

How many more examples do we need? We've seen this over and over and over and over throughout history. Religious alpha males so often end up being commanded, through them as his mouthpiece, by God, to have sex with their followers.

What's mind-boggling about all of this is that the faithful LDS just won't see it. If they respond at all, it will be to claim that this is in fact a divinely-appointed pattern, it's just that all those false prophets out there, ie: all the ones not named Joseph Smith, are performing a "counterfeit" of this divinely-appointed pattern, as Satan's way of discrediting the practice, so that people will be deceived away from the true church.

Uhuh.

[_ludwigm]

One can not go in unto (Genesis 29:23) every girl/woman of the world, but men must make an effort.

[_Imapiratewasher]

Jesus did a man.

[_Mercury]

Jesus did a man.

Its funny how the New Testament could be considered Homoerotic outside of a religious context.

[_bcspace]

Yet again we see an example of a charismatic religious movement founder who tells his flock that God has commanded him to have sex with his followers, and they willingly give it up to him.

What's mind-boggling about all of this is that the faithful LDS just won't see it.

CFR

[_beastie]

Call for references for what?? That God told Joseph Smith to have sex with his followers???? You must be kidding! Try the Book of Mormon, which explicitly explains that the entire purpose of plural marriage is to "raise up seed". You can't do that without, you know, having sex.

This is also why apologists who insist Joseph Smith didn't have sex with his plural wives are in serious denial. Joseph Smith was told the whole purpose of plural marriage was to raise up seed, and he was threatened by an angel to do so, and we're supposed to believe he didn't have sex with his plural wives??? Sheesh.

[_Chap]

Call for references for what?? That God told Joseph Smith to have sex with his followers???? You must be kidding! Try the Book of Mormon, which explicitly explains that the entire purpose of plural marriage is to "raise up seed". You can't do that without, you know, having sex.

This is also why apologists who insist Joseph Smith didn't have sex with his plural wives are in serious denial. Joseph Smith was told the whole purpose of plural marriage was to raise up seed, and he was threatened by an angel to do so, and we're supposed to believe he didn't have sex with his plural wives??? Sheesh.

And this from Doctrines and Covenants:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Clearly you cannot commit adultery unless you have sex. So the fact that the LDS deity is represented here as feeling it necessary to assure mankind through the prophet that plural marriage does not entail adultery "for they belong to him" makes it clear that plural marriage involved sex as a matter of course.

Oh yes, and of course these plural wives "are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth".

Who was the first LDS apologist to make the bizarre suggestion that there was doubt about the presence of sexual relations in Joseph Smith's plural marriages?

[_beastie]

Who was the first LDS apologist to make the bizarre suggestion that there was doubt about the presence of sexual relations in Joseph Smith's plural marriages?

Who the heck knows, but it's a stupid argument that immediately became extremely popular among desperate believers. One can see its dull fruits over at MAD.

Of course, stupidity has never been a disqualifier for apologetic arguments.

[_Chap]

Who was the first LDS apologist to make the bizarre suggestion that there was doubt about the presence of sexual relations in Joseph Smith's plural marriages?

Who the heck knows, but it's a stupid argument that immediately became extremely popular among desperate believers. One can see its dull fruits over at MAD.

Of course, stupidity has never been a disqualifier for apologetic arguments.

It is precisely because it is such a far-fetched and implausible argument that I should like to know what were the (surely very trying) circumstances that first led someone to use it.

Of course we notice that someone like bcspace does not actually say "Joseph Smith did not have sex with his plural wives". Instead, he sees that someone has referred to sexual relations in the context of Smith's plural marriages, and then puts in a 'Call for References'; it is a way of suggesting that significant doubt exists without asserting that as a fact.

This is about the same as the final scene in a detective novel, when the villain is accused by the detective, and snarls back, not a denial, but "You're gonna have to prove that"!

So just to clear matters up: bcspace, which do you think is more probable:

1. Joseph Smith had sexual relations with at least some of his plural wives.

2. Joseph Smith had sex with no-one except Emma.

[_Chap]

Who was the first LDS apologist to make the bizarre suggestion that there was doubt about the presence of sexual relations in Joseph Smith's plural marriages?

Who the heck knows, but it's a stupid argument that immediately became extremely popular among desperate believers. One can see its dull fruits over at MAD.

Of course, stupidity has never been a disqualifier for apologetic arguments.

It is precisely because it is such a far-fetched and implausible argument that I should like to know what were the (surely very trying) circumstances that first led someone to use it.

Of course we notice that someone like bcspace does not actually say "Joseph Smith did not have sex with his plural wives". Instead, he sees that someone has referred to sexual relations in the context of Smith's plural marriages, and then puts in a 'Call for References'; it is a way of suggesting that significant doubt exists without asserting that as a fact.

This is about the same as the final scene in a detective novel, when the villain is accused by the detective, and snarls back, not a denial, but "You're gonna have to prove that"!

So just to clear matters up: bcspace, which do you think is more probable:

1. Joseph Smith had sexual relations with at least some of his plural wives.

2. Joseph Smith had sex with no-one except Emma.

Cricket chirping for some time here ....

What's wrong, bcspace, are you 'taking the Fifth' on this one? Why won't you say which option you prefer?