Droopy wrote:No, it doesn't. That he was or was not a prophet of God is dependent solely upon your reception of a personal witness from God upon the matter.
I think you mean something more like one's believing he was or was not a prophet of God is dependent solely upon their reception of a personal witness from God upon the matter.
Chap wrote:On another thread, we read: <Snip the rest>
I realise that some of you imagine that addressing a thread to me somehow creates an obligation for me to engage the arguments put forward therein.
In the plenitude of your arrogance, you are mistaken.
In 1½ pages, this thread has already degenerated into locker-room guffaws.
So if I were to engage in a serious discussion, I would be the only one. I am not going to dignify this salacious garbage by pretending that anyone is genuinely interested in engaging the evidence.
So, regarding the title: the answer is no.
Regards, Pahoran
What a pity. Now we shall never know why Pahoran felt, in the teeth of the evidence cited in this thread, that the notion that Joseph Smith quite probably had sex with the 14 year old girl that he was married to merely reflects, as Pahoran put it:
the casual assumptions of those who like to project their own nascent pedophile fantasies upon him.
And any third party reading this thread is left to conclude that Pahoran simply can't find any arguments supporting his claim that have not already been dismembered in front of his eyes.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:On another thread, we read: <Snip the rest>
I realise that some of you imagine that addressing a thread to me somehow creates an obligation for me to engage the arguments put forward therein.
In the plenitude of your arrogance, you are mistaken.
In 1½ pages, this thread has already degenerated into locker-room guffaws.
So if I were to engage in a serious discussion, I would be the only one. I am not going to dignify this salacious garbage by pretending that anyone is genuinely interested in engaging the evidence.
So, regarding the title: the answer is no.
Regards, Pahoran
I'm a believer. I'm not here to mock or engage in cynical behavior. I want to hear your reasoning. I may or may not agree but I'd like to hear.
In 1843 Apostle Heber C. Kimball had an important talk with his only daughter, fourteen-year-old Helen Mar. She wrote: “Without any preliminaries [my Father] asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives...The first impulse was anger...my sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure; for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, ‘No I wouldn’t!’...This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him...Then he commenced talking seriously and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth. [This] had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake.”
Then father “asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph...[and] left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours...I was sceptical-one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions.” Unknown to Helen Mar, Heber and Joseph had already discussed the prospect of Helen Mar becoming one of Joseph’s wives. Heber now sought her agreement. Helen recalls, “Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter”
Chap wrote:OK, so we have dealt with two reasons for supposing that Smith did not have sex with Helen Mar Kimball, a girl to whom he was married:
1. Because she was living with her parents (I mean, don't laugh! They married the girl to the Prophet!)
2. Because she is not known to have given birth to a child by him.
And of course as Mormon apologists have argued (see above) the mere fact that she was fourteen need not have been any barrier in the time and place in which Smith lived.
Is there any other reason to suppose that he would not have had sex with this particular woman he was married to?
Good point. On one hand they say that getting married at 14 was common in that day yet they still want to say that Joseph Smith did not have sex with a 14 year old girl. They would be better served to just own it. Just say "Yes Joseph Smith married all of those women and had sex with them all."
Yup. I find it genuinely puzzling that anyone could feel that it makes sense to argue otherwise. Which is one reason for starting this thread.
My puzzlement remains unresolved so far.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
In 1843 Apostle Heber C. Kimball had an important talk with his only daughter, fourteen-year-old Helen Mar. She wrote: “Without any preliminaries [my Father] asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives...
If any father tells his daughter that he is to become one of the 'other wives' of a man, is it remotely conceivable that he expects to be understood as suggesting that the relationship will not be a normal sexual one? Her shocked reaction, as recorded by herself, suggests that he made no such disclaimer, and that she understood her father's words in the obvious sense.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:What a pity. Now we shall never know why Pahoran felt, in the teeth of the evidence cited in this thread, that the notion that Joseph Smith quite probably had sex with the 14 year old girl that he was married to merely reflects, as Pahoran put it:
the casual assumptions of those who like to project their own nascent pedophile fantasies upon him.
And any third party reading this thread is left to conclude that Pahoran simply can't find any arguments supporting his claim that have not already been dismembered in front of his eyes.
Nice attempt at manipulation. Unfortunately, all it does is demonstrate that I was right from the get-go: you are not interested in discussing this matter in good faith, and you were faking it when you pretended that you were.
As you perfectly well know, my claim has not been "dismembered." It hasn't even been addressed.
If you and your idle buddies want to make up your little minds having seen only one side of the argument, and pretend that it represents all the evidence there is, then it is apparent that no amount of evidence or argumentation would make an impact anyway.
In June 1844, Heber was away from home on a mission and wrote to Helen: “MY DEAR DAUGHTER-...be obedient to the counsel you have given to you...If you should be tempted, or having feelings in your heart, tell them to no one but your father and mother; if you do, you will be betrayed and exposed...You are blessed, but you know it not. You have done that which will be for your everlasting good for this world and that which is to come. I will admit there is not much pleasure in this world...Be true to the covenants that you have made...Be a good girl;...your affectionate father.”
And why was a dynastic, pro forma marriage-in-name-only so depressing to her, until she gained a "testimony" of polygamy?
Helen’s father would eventually marry thirty-nine wives. She wrote, “I had, in hours of temptation when seeing the trials of my mother, felt to rebel. I hated polygamy in my heart.” Helen later fell victim to a prolonged illness: “For three months I lay a portion of the time like one dead...I tasted of the punishment which is prepared for those who reject any of the principles of this Gospel.” Eventually she was converted to polygamy and recovered from her illness, “I fasted for one week, and every day I gained until I had won the victory...I learned that plural marriage is a celestial principle, and saw... the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord’s annointed”.
By the way, has anyone found the basis in LDS canon for a dynastic, pro forma plural marriage with no temporal aspect to it?
Chap wrote:What a pity. Now we shall never know why Pahoran felt, in the teeth of the evidence cited in this thread, that the notion that Joseph Smith quite probably had sex with the 14 year old girl that he was married to merely reflects, as Pahoran put it:
the casual assumptions of those who like to project their own nascent pedophile fantasies upon him.
And any third party reading this thread is left to conclude that Pahoran simply can't find any arguments supporting his claim that have not already been dismembered in front of his eyes.
Pahoran wrote:Nice attempt at manipulation. Unfortunately, all it does is demonstrate that I was right from the get-go: you are not interested in discussing this matter in good faith, and you were faking it when you pretended that you were.
As you perfectly well know, my claim has not been "dismembered." It hasn't even been addressed.
If you and your idle buddies want to make up your little minds having seen only one side of the argument, and pretend that it represents all the evidence there is, then it is apparent that no amount of evidence or argumentation would make an impact anyway.
Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran makes a claim.
In this thread I point out, with evidence, that his claim is not a reasonable one.
All he offers in return is silly sneering.
He just doesn't have a case. If anyone here thinks differently, I'd be genuinely interested in being given some hint of what that case might be.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
In 1843 Apostle Heber C. Kimball had an important talk with his only daughter, fourteen-year-old Helen Mar. She wrote: “Without any preliminaries [my Father] asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives...
If any father tells his daughter that he is to become one of the 'other wives' of a man, is it remotely conceivable that he expects to be understood as suggesting that the relationship will not be a normal sexual one? Her shocked reaction, as recorded by herself, suggests that he made no such disclaimer, and that she understood her father's words in the obvious sense.
See, that's the funny thing about this. Marriage is a presumptively sexual relationship--the Church says so in its condemnation of legally-recognized same-sex marriage. It is common human experience that this is what marriage is. It is unreasonable to presume otherwise. And no defenders of the faith balk at the idea of sexuality in Mormon polygamous marriages in the case of anyone except Joseph Smith.
Reasonable presumptions based on the weight of common human experience are part of the equation here. The correct question is, why shouldn't anyone believe that Joseph Smith had sex with Helen Mar Kimball?