Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_charity]

Charity,

To make it clear, as the originator of this thread, I do not hate Joseph Smith. I have been a member of the Church for over 40 years. My point in creating this thread was to better understand some of the discrepancies that are apparent in Mormon history. I have had previous private conversations with you, so you are aware that the subject of plural marriage is something that I have struggled with for some time. This thread is a sincere attempt to gain some answers and insight.

Apparently, Bob Crockett seems to think that all I am trying to do is run some sort of smear campaign, but I assure you, that is not the case.

Since it appears that Bob is going to ignore my question, I'll pose the same question to you. What are your thoughts on the series of events surrounding Oliver Cowdrey's excommunication? Do the sources that Jason and I have posted check out in comparison to what you are familiar with, or is there another source which I could refer to?

Bob, if you are still reading this thread, I hope that you reconsider, and also give your insight.

Thanks.

Elizabeth

I think we don't know all we need to know to say, "Well, this is the way it was, and this happened, and so we can definitatley concluide that. . . ."


I THINK that Fanny Alger was the first plural wife.

I THINK Oliver maybe tried to get involved in plural marriage when he wasn't supposed to.

I THINK Oliver got mad when he got called on it.

I THINK Oliver lashed out at Joseph in retaliation.


I wish we knew everything in sequence about when revelations were received. But we don't.

I know some of the advice to people who have "issues" are told to put their concerns on the shelf for when we have more informatin.

This isn't even an issue for me to shelve.

Joseph Smith was a prophet.
We know that God has commanded plural marriage at times in the past.
Many, many people besides Joseph were given spiritual confirmation of the doctrine of plural marriage.
Brigham Young testified that Joseph was the most moral man he knew.

So, anyone who wants to think that plural marriage was not of God, has to do much more than kick Joseph Smith around.

[_harmony]

I think we don't know all we need to know to say, "Well, this is the way it was, and this happened, and so we can definitatley concluide that. . . ."


I THINK that Fanny Alger was the first plural wife.

How can this be so, since the Fanny affair was in 1832-33, and the sealing power was restored in 1835?

Joseph Smith was a prophet.
We know that God has commanded plural marriage at times in the past.

Uh, no. We know prophets have said God commanded it, but we have nothing that proves that.

Many, many people besides Joseph were given spiritual confirmation of the doctrine of plural marriage.

Many billions of people think the Pope is the head of the true church, too. So what? That doesn't make them right either.

Brigham Young testified that Joseph was the most moral man he knew.

That's like saying Hitler admired Mussolini. So what? They were in it together, of course he's going to say that.

So, anyone who wants to think that plural marriage was not of God, has to do much more than kick Joseph Smith around.

Actually, you've presented nothing that proves plural marriage was of God. Asserting it does not make it so.

[_truth dancer]

I care about Joseph Smith's opinions and forgiveness about as much as I care about Attila the Hun, Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard.

Charity: We all know you hate Joseph Smith.

EXCUSE ME... WILL YOU PLEASE STOP THIS RIDICULOUS TACTIC OF YOURS. I have repeatedly asked you to stop this nonsense.

I do not hate Joseph Smith. Not at all. I have never said anything which would suggest that I do. I am critical of his behavior as I am all men who engage in similar behavior. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH HATE. You continue to read things into posts that are NOT THERE.

IF there is some sort of God in heaven I feel quite sure God would honor those who cared about others, who spoke out against cruel and hurtful behavior, who didn't give a free pass to those who used God as an excuse to engage in despicable behavior.

Of course I could be wrong... maybe God is the tyrant some believe him to be.

~dancer~

Charity: I am sure you are quite right that God will give credit to all those who care about others, who speak out against cruel and hurtful behavior, and who didn't give a free pass to those who used God as an excuse to engage in despicable beahvior.

He will also hold those accountable for the sin of dishonoring His chosen servants, for defaming and blaspheming His Son, and for influencing His more vulnerable children out of the faith He wants them to have.

TD: Personally, I think if there is such a being as the LDS man/God, he would be very happy to have people stand up for what they believe is true and holy, speak out against what is hurtful and cruel even if various religious/cult groups disagree.

Charity: I'm sure God will forgive you for those sins, but you have to repent first. Just a word to the wise.

TD: I feel quite certain YOU are influencing many of God's more vulnerable children out of the LDS faith more than any critic here. I suppose you can decide if God is happy or not about it. Perhaps you need to repent? Just a word to the wise.

(sigh)

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

We know that God has commanded plural marriage at times in the past.

Pleas show me where God has commanded plural marriage like the LDS Church practiced it. I think this is an error and fallacy many LDS commit. I have searched high and low and find no such command. Tolerated and allowed perhaps but no command.

Many, many people besides Joseph were given spiritual confirmation of the doctrine of plural marriage

Subjective and unverifiable.

Brigham Young testified that Joseph was the most moral man he knew.

So?

[_charity]

I care about Joseph Smith's opinions and forgiveness about as much as I care about Attila the Hun, Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard.

Charity: We all know you hate Joseph Smith.

EXCUSE ME... WILL YOU PLEASE STOP THIS RIDICULOUS TACTIC OF YOURS. I have repeatedly asked you to stop this nonsense.

We can all see how much your respect Joseph Smith as you link his name to Attila the Hun, Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard. Unless, of course, you want us to believe you hold those men in high regard?



I do not hate Joseph Smith. Not at all. I have never said anything which would suggest that I do. I am critical of his behavior as I am all men who engage in similar behavior. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH HATE. You continue to read things into posts that are NOT THERE.

You accuse him of things he did not do in order to defame him. But I suppose you could be doing that out of what??? Moderate dislike? Are we supposed to use a scale of 1 top 10, with 1 being "I only dislike him a little" to 10 being "I hate him worse than anyone else who has ever lived." Where do you fall in that Likert scale?

IF there is some sort of God in heaven I feel quite sure God would honor those who cared about others, who spoke out against cruel and hurtful behavior, who didn't give a free pass to those who used God as an excuse to engage in despicable behavior.

Of course I could be wrong... maybe God is the tyrant some believe him to be.

~dancer~

Charity: I am sure you are quite right that God will give credit to all those who care about others, who speak out against cruel and hurtful behavior, and who didn't give a free pass to those who used God as an excuse to engage in despicable beahvior.

He will also hold those accountable for the sin of dishonoring His chosen servants, for defaming and blaspheming His Son, and for influencing His more vulnerable children out of the faith He wants them to have.

TD: Personally, I think if there is such a being as the LDS man/God, he would be very happy to have people stand up for what they believe is true and holy, speak out against what is hurtful and cruel even if various religious/cult groups disagree. [/quote]

But you have to be right. Running toward the wrong goal with the football can look impressive, but it scores points for the other team.

TD: I feel quite certain YOU are influencing many of God's more vulnerable children out of the LDS faith more than any critic here. I suppose you can decide if God is happy or not about it. Perhaps you need to repent? Just a word to the wise.

(sigh)

~dancer~

And your feelings are based on just what, exactly? If I influence anyone to believe that God requires us to be obedient, to study and learn, and to stand up and defend those who cannot defend themselves agaisnt vicious and unwarranted attacks, then, yes, II am comfortable with that.

[_truth dancer]

With all due respect charity, you have a very odd way of linking unrelated things together, assuming things, and making stuff up.

We can all see how much your respect Joseph Smith as you link his name to Attila the Hun, Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard. Unless, of course, you want us to believe you hold those men in high regard?

I do not respect Joseph Smith but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH HATE. Please...

You accuse him of things he did not do in order to defame him.

No, I admit what he did.

But I suppose you could be doing that out of what??? Moderate dislike? Are we supposed to use a scale of 1 top 10, with 1 being "I only dislike him a little" to 10 being "I hate him worse than anyone else who has ever lived." Where do you fall in that Likert scale?

I feel totally neutral. I do not dislike him even a little, nor do I care for his behavior. I have compassion for him as a human being, and I think he was most likely struggling with some serious issues.

But you have to be right. Running toward the wrong goal with the football can look impressive, but it scores points for the other team.

Not sure what this has to do with our conversation. I'm not interested in being impressive, scoring points, playing a game, influencing others, or making a goal.

And your feelings are based on just what, exactly? If I influence anyone to believe that God requires us to be obedient, to study and learn, and to stand up and defend those who cannot defend themselves agaisnt vicious and unwarranted attacks, then, yes, II am comfortable with that.

Over the years I have spoken with and discussed with a number of believers who discovered LDS message boards. It seems clear to me that some apologists demonstrate and actually exemplify the problems many struggle with in the church. I do not think critics negatively influence struggling members anywhere near so much as some apologists.

While I understand you believe you are defending the LDS church, I think others may see something else going on.


~dancer~

[_charity]

With all due respect charity, you have a very odd way of linking unrelated things together, assuming things, and making stuff up.

Your own words stand as a witness. We can all read.

We can all see how much your respect Joseph Smith as you link his name to Attila the Hun, Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard. Unless, of course, you want us to believe you hold those men in high regard?

I do not respect Joseph Smith but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH HATE. Please...

I spend no time at all on people I don't respect. I don't obsess over them, I don't continually discuss what they do, I don't try to convince anyone else to believe the way I do about them. It takes energy to think about a person. You don't do that that to someone who is neutral.

You accuse him of things he did not do in order to defame him.

No, I admit what he did.

The real truth is that there is no conclusive evidence of misconduct. There are charges based on a lack of evidence, on statements by people with axes to grind against him, on statements made 50 years after the facts of the case. There is nothing which would stand up in a court of law with rules of evidence in play. But you choose to believe the flimsy stuff. You don't even give him the benefit of the doubt.

I feel totally neutral. I do not dislike him even a little, nor do I care for his behavior. I have compassion for him as a human being, and I think he was most likely struggling with some serious issues.

Your actions say that you are not neutral, so you must be in a state of denial about that. And "serious issues?" Oh, yes, I would agree. He had lots of issues. Mobbers trying to kill him. One of his children dying because of it. His friends and those who knew him to be a prophet being raped, killed and chased from their lands and property. Jealous "friends" turning on him. Oh, yeah. Lots of issues. But I know you mean personality disorders. Some more of those flimsy claims you chose to believe in your "neutral state."

But you have to be right. Running toward the wrong goal with the football can look impressive, but it scores points for the other team.

Not sure what this has to do with our conversation. I'm not interested in being impressive, scoring points, playing a game, influencing others, or making a goal.

This was in reference to your statement: "IF there is some sort of God in heaven I feel quite sure God would honor those who cared about others, who spoke out against cruel and hurtful behavior, who didn't give a free pass to those who used God as an excuse to engage in despicable behavior."

Sorry you coudln't see the parallel. If you are being selecting in who you "care" for, if you are speaking out against behavior you see as cruel and hurtful when it isn't (you attitude about plural marriage, for instance), and if you are saying Joseph was guilty of "dispicalbe behavior" when he really wasn't, then you are doing things you think are good (running down the field carrying the football) but you are very mistaken (headed for the wrong goal) and instead of getting blessings you will get condemnation (scoring points against your own team instead of for them). I hope that cleared that up.

And your feelings are based on just what, exactly? If I influence anyone to believe that God requires us to be obedient, to study and learn, and to stand up and defend those who cannot defend themselves agaisnt vicious and unwarranted attacks, then, yes, II am comfortable with that.

Over the years I have spoken with and discussed with a number of believers who discovered LDS message boards. It seems clear to me that some apologists demonstrate and actually exemplify the problems many struggle with in the church. I do not think critics negatively influence struggling members anywhere near so much as some apologists.

While I understand you believe you are defending the LDS church, I think others may see something else going on.

I don't know what kind of mind reading you are doing. And what you think others are seeing as "something else going on." The only thing I can think of as an ulterior motive would be that you think I am really shaky and trying frantically to bolster my own faltering testimony. If that is you idea, you couldn't be more wrong. I find my participation in Church, in callings, in personal meditation and study to be deeply rewarding.

I am embarking on a new activity, a new Church service mission. Something has to go in terms of my time. I doubt I will be here much. I only came back to this thread because of liz's personal invitation.

So I guess you will have to convince someone else that you have lots of compassions for Joseph Smith, and really don't care anything one way or the other.

Thanks, liz. For the invitation. I think I have said all I care to on this thread.

[_truth dancer]

With all due respect charity, you have a very odd way of linking unrelated things together, assuming things, and making stuff up.

CHARITY: Your own words stand as a witness. We can all read.

TD: I have never ever stated or insinuated I HATED Joseph Smith. You have the strangest way of reading into things people state that are NOT THERE. Over and over people have tried to help you understand this trait of yours and yet you seem to not understand the problem.

We can all see how much your respect Joseph Smith as you link his name to Attila the Hun, Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard. Unless, of course, you want us to believe you hold those men in high regard?

I do not respect Joseph Smith but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH HATE. Please...

Charity: I spend no time at all on people I don't respect. I don't obsess over them, I don't continually discuss what they do, I don't try to convince anyone else to believe the way I do about them. It takes energy to think about a person. You don't do that that to someone who is neutral.

TD: You have a very odd way of assuming others are like you. I have NO dislike for Joseph Smith whatsoever. He was a human being and as such I have compassion for him. I do not think he was a good man, nor do I respect him but this has nothing to do with HATE. Because YOU may hate people you disrespect does not mean others do.

You accuse him of things he did not do in order to defame him.

No, I admit what he did.

Charity: The real truth is that there is no conclusive evidence of misconduct. There are charges based on a lack of evidence, on statements by people with axes to grind against him, on statements made 50 years after the facts of the case. There is nothing which would stand up in a court of law with rules of evidence in play. But you choose to believe the flimsy stuff. You don't even give him the benefit of the doubt.

TD: Say what you will... I think it is more likely YOU choose to ignore reality. So be it.

I feel totally neutral. I do not dislike him even a little, nor do I care for his behavior. I have compassion for him as a human being, and I think he was most likely struggling with some serious issues.

Your actions say that you are not neutral, so you must be in a state of denial about that. And "serious issues?" Oh, yes, I would agree. He had lots of issues. Mobbers trying to kill him. One of his children dying because of it. His friends and those who knew him to be a prophet being raped, killed and chased from their lands and property. Jealous "friends" turning on him. Oh, yeah. Lots of issues. But I know you mean personality disorders. Some more of those flimsy claims you chose to believe in your "neutral state."

TD: Nonsense. Because YOU may hate people you do not respect does NOT mean others do. AGAIN... discussing someones behaviors, issues, ideas, and beliefs has nothing to do with hating them. I find it odd that you do not understand this.

But you have to be right. Running toward the wrong goal with the football can look impressive, but it scores points for the other team.

Not sure what this has to do with our conversation. I'm not interested in being impressive, scoring points, playing a game, influencing others, or making a goal.

This was in reference to your statement: "IF there is some sort of God in heaven I feel quite sure God would honor those who cared about others, who spoke out against cruel and hurtful behavior, who didn't give a free pass to those who used God as an excuse to engage in despicable behavior."

Charity: Sorry you coudln't see the parallel. If you are being selecting in who you "care" for, if you are speaking out against behavior you see as cruel and hurtful when it isn't (you attitude about plural marriage, for instance), and if you are saying Joseph was guilty of "dispicalbe behavior" when he really wasn't, then you are doing things you think are good (running down the field carrying the football) but you are very mistaken (headed for the wrong goal) and instead of getting blessings you will get condemnation (scoring points against your own team instead of for them). I hope that cleared that up.

TD: I got really tired of pretending the bad is good, and the good is bad... I feel quite certain if there is a God, this God is pleased when people listen to their conscience, personal light or inspiration, and stand up for what they believe is right, true, and holy. The peace I feel in my heart tells me, (right or wrong according to you), it is the holy way to live.

And your feelings are based on just what, exactly? If I influence anyone to believe that God requires us to be obedient, to study and learn, and to stand up and defend those who cannot defend themselves agaisnt vicious and unwarranted attacks, then, yes, II am comfortable with that.

Over the years I have spoken with and discussed with a number of believers who discovered LDS message boards. It seems clear to me that some apologists demonstrate and actually exemplify the problems many struggle with in the church. I do not think critics negatively influence struggling members anywhere near so much as some apologists.

While I understand you believe you are defending the LDS church, I think others may see something else going on.

Charity: I don't know what kind of mind reading you are doing. And what you think others are seeing as "something else going on." The only thing I can think of as an ulterior motive would be that you think I am really shaky and trying frantically to bolster my own faltering testimony. If that is you idea, you couldn't be more wrong. I find my participation in Church, in callings, in personal meditation and study to be deeply rewarding.

TD: No.. not at all. I'm not mind reading anyone. I relating the essence of various conversations I have had with those struggling to believe who have discovered LDS message boards. I do not think you have an ulterior motive and have not said anything at all to insinuate this. I do believe you think you are a defender of your church.

I'm suggesting that some apologists boldly exemplify the very problems many believers have with the church, and in so doing do enormous damage to the faith of those struggling members.

Charity: So I guess you will have to convince someone else that you have lots of compassions for Joseph Smith, and really don't care anything one way or the other.

TD: I do not have to convince anyone of anything. I do not care in the least what anyone thinks about my view of Joseph Smith. I only responded to the question about Joseph Smith because YOU asked.


~dancer~

Sorry this thread got derailed Liz... :-) If not the insight or answers you were hoping for, I hope you at least got a glimpse of how some apologists answer your questions.

[_charity]

Liz, maybe this will get some back on track. TD has stated that she knows that plural marriage was bad, despicable, Joseph was not a prophet and thus those revealed doctrines were not really revelation, etc.

The history of plural marriage in Christianity is a long one. The first recorded instance is Abraham, who had two wives simulataneously. Then his grandson Jacob had 4 wives. David was given wives by the prophet Nathan. In the time of Jesus plural marriage was still an accepted practice. It was not universally practiced, but it was accepted.

I fail to see why anyone would deny the latter day revelation on plural marriage as being an affront to Christian principles.

[Guest]

TD: I have never ever stated or insinuated I HATED Joseph Smith. You have the strangest way of reading into things people state that are NOT THERE. Over and over people have tried to help you understand this trait of yours and yet you seem to not understand the problem.

What you do not understand is that it is not only in words that people display their attitudes. People can be very transparent in what they believe and think, and yet not know that they are revealing it.

There is a little communications theory called the Johari window. It is a 2 x 2 which shows the 4 options.

1. There is something about myself I know that other don't know.
2. There is something about myself that I know and others know.
3. There is something about myself that I don't know, but others do.
4. There is something about myself that I don't know, and nobody else does either.

#4 can give us some problems, but we are most like to have problems with #3. I think this is where you are. You think you are neutral about Joseph Smith, but I think you are not knowing how you feel about Joseph Smith. And the logic that brings me to that conlcusion is that you do seem to bring up his name in unsavory conversations. This is not a neutral position.

YOU may hate people you disrespect does not mean others do.[/b]

I don't hate peole I don't respect. I don't think about them and talk about them all the time. I don't go on message boards where their name is likely to come up. I don't post negative information about them. I simply do not give them any of my emotional energy. And I think the fact that you says you have more invested than a "neutral" feeling.

TD: I got really tired of pretending the bad is good, and the good is bad... I feel quite certain if there is a God, this God is pleased when people listen to their conscience, personal light or inspiration, and stand up for what they believe is right, true, and holy. The peace I feel in my heart tells me, (right or wrong according to you), it is the holy way to live.

Holy means it is God's way. We are both betting our lives that we are right, and we each are following God's way.

I'm suggesting that some apologists boldly exemplify the very problems many believers have with the church, and in so doing do enormous damage to the faith of those struggling members.[/b]

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you give me a simpler explanation for my simple mind, please?