Joseph Smith mega thread. We'll see

[_just me]

HAHA! The thread from the other side has been closed. Was that even 3 hours?

It happened within my three day prophesy. Truly I am a prophet of god. :D

Are you looking for extra wives? LOL

[_Buffalo]

HAHA! The thread from the other side has been closed. Was that even 3 hours?

Hestia

*
* Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark
* PipPipPip

* Group: Moderators
* Posts: 542
* Joined: 06-April 08

Posted 8 minutes ago
Automatic generated message


This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: appears to be going downhill already

Kind regards,
Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff

"Downhill" means unpleasant facts about Joseph's behavior are being discussed openly. That's a big no-no over at MAD. They should just add that to the rules - no thread about Joseph's polygamy ever lasts long, no matter how well-behaved people are.

[_Buffalo]

Are you looking for extra wives? LOL

I'm not THAT kind of prophet. I'm the other kind - as in, I'm looking for extra money. :D

[_schreech]

Thanks Will S. errrr I mean Schreech. We'll have to wait and see what happens I guess.

Lol - the fact that you would actually compare me, a vocal exmo, to a staunch defender of the LDS church is hilarious....and yet you continue to defend WS and all things LDS....like i said, you seem to be somewhat confused....

[_stemelbow]

Stem, would it bother you if Smith had sex with every single one of his "wives?"

Of course. It bothers me to some extent to know Joseph Smith married other men's wives alone, without knowing, conclusively, if sex was involved or not.

Is polygamy inherently immoral, or unethical, whichever term you prefer?

[_Buffalo]

Stem, would it bother you if Smith had sex with every single one of his "wives?"

Of course. It bothers me to some extent to know Joseph Smith married other men's wives alone, without knowing, conclusively, if sex was involved or not.

Is polygamy inherently immoral, or unethical, whichever term you prefer?

It's inherently unethical when it's not 100% transparent and when high pressure, grooming from childhood and coercion are used as tools to get women into it. How would you feel if someone "married" your wife while you were out of town? How would you feel if someone, even the prophet, pressured your daughter to marry him, threatening her with destruction if she refused?

[_stemelbow]

It's inherently unethical when it's not 100% transparent and when high pressure, grooming from childhood and coercion are used as tools to get women into it.

And if it's 100% transparent (whatever that means) and no high pressure, grooming from childhood and coercion are used as tools to get women into it?

How would you feel if someone "married" your wife while you were out of town?

Welcome to the family, chum. I don't know. I mean, it'd be hilarious in a way. What would that mean?

"Hey I married your wife whilst you were gone"
"huh? Legally, or just n your head?"
"we went down tot he church and did it"
"And she accepted?"
"I told her if she didn't she'd go to hell."
"She bought that?"
"Well she went and prayed and thought it was true."
"Well, I'll be..."

I'd be speechless.

How would you feel if someone, even the prophet, pressured your daughter to marry him, threatening her with destruction if she refused?

Prophet 90ish
My daughter - infant.

"what are you doing with my daughter, prophet?"
"we're going down to the temple house to get sealed."
"to each other?"
"yep."
"Can I come?"
"by all means, we need a witness."
"what do you do when she can't say 'yes'?"
"uh..."

Its been speculated that Joseph Smith had a very different view of sealings then what we see them as today. It seems often the case was that all were to be sealed to the prophet in some way. Someway each person was to have linked to the prophet. I don't know how that was to work, or how well-organized it was, but I could accept that sealing has more meaning to it, or even a different meaning to it, then marriage. I can hope, can't I?

[_just me]

Stem, would it bother you if Smith had sex with every single one of his "wives?"

Of course. It bothers me to some extent to know Joseph Smith married other men's wives alone, without knowing, conclusively, if sex was involved or not.

Is polygamy inherently immoral, or unethical, whichever term you prefer?

I actually don't have a problem with polyamory, per se. I do believe that it would be very difficult to practice polygamy without it being sexist given the history of humans. That part does cause me a lot of concern. However, I have no problem with responsible adults choosing to have multiple sexual/life partners of whatever orientation. When I was a believing member I fully anticipated living polygamy at some future date and honestly had no problem with it. I still don't really have any problems with it as long as I get some extra husbands. *wink* I do think it is a big threat to long term relationships, but there are pros and cons to both. I no longer see divorce as a horrible thing.

That said, I have a BIG problem with how Joseph practiced his polygamy. It was abusive using the standard definition of that word.

I cannot believe in a god who would command or be a part of the abuse of women or men. That was the sticking point for me. I am sure you do not envision a god that would be abusive, either. However, the god that is described in many LDS scriptures fits the definition of as abuser.

Thank you for your honesty that it bothers you that Joseph Smith married other mens wives. What is funny to me is that so many people, believer and critic alike, are not as bothered that women were marrying another womans husband. It just goes to show that women are still viewed in some way as the property of their husband. That was certainly true in scripture times.

Adultery was defined as putting strange seed in another mans bloodline. In other words, a man could only have adultery if he had sex with a MARRIED woman. Sex with singles and prostitutes was actually totally fine, so long as they weren't temple prostitutes.

D&C 132 allows for concubines. I am not sure about you, but I feel very disgusted by that. A concubine was often a slave that really had no choice to marry or not. Even if she was free, she was not afforded the same legal rights as a wife. We even see in scripture examples how poorly children of lesser wives could be treated. Does that sound like a loving god? it doesn't to me.
We have paternity testing today, but that wasn't available back then. How easy to get out of paying to support your own children by claiming you never slept with a woman. There was no legal marriage to protect her and her children, after all.

There are so many problems with the way Joseph and the early saints practiced polygamy that my mind can't even begin to imagie it coming from a loving god.

[_just me]

Its been speculated that Joseph Smith had a very different view of sealings then what we see them as today. It seems often the case was that all were to be sealed to the prophet in some way. Someway each person was to have linked to the prophet. I don't know how that was to work, or how well-organized it was, but I could accept that sealing has more meaning to it, or even a different meaning to it, then marriage. I can hope, can't I?

Do you believe that Joseph was wrong in his view of sealings and that the modern church is right or do you not see a conflict?

[_stemelbow]

Just me, I don't' know how I missed it, but this whole time I assumed you were a man. No wonder I like you so much.

Anyway, this is how I see sealings:

Families are important ont he face of it for LDS. But deeper, its not just families wherein the import lies. Families ehre are just the beginning. Sealings are nothing more than God's indelible go ahead on "binding" people for eternity. It goes along the lines of ritual that only has meaning if truly sanctioned by God. you see, families are "sealed for eternity". But it doesn't stop there. Not only am I sealed to my wife, but she is sealed to her mother and father. Not only are they sealed to each other, but her mother is sealed to my wife's grandmother. Not only am I sealed to my mother and father, but they both are sealed to their parents. And it only goes on from there. Eventually, in this sense the whole of the world will be sealed. I don't know if I get quite the reason why sealings, as the mundane (seeming) act are a necessity. But without them there is less meaning to it all, perhaps. Without the "work" of genealogy, us the living have less meaning in terms of sealing and binding eternally.

Now, i don't know if Joseph Smith thought this way or not. I don't know if his views were more refined or not. I don't now if his views were more shallow. I don't' know. I guess it could be that he completely flubbed on the whole matter. That he was to start the sealing process. That the sealing process was to extend from family to family, across the board. I don't know this. But, i also don't know the goings on behind closed doors. I suspect he took some liberties. I suspect its quite possible things got out of hand, with this polygamy thing. And that could possibly mean he is a fallen prophet or not a prophet at all. But I don't really know. So I kinda stick with my gut at this point. I love the idea of bound eternally to many millions outside my family. Bound, not in anyway other than in love and unity. If it at all be possible that this is true, I'm all for it. So I go with my gut.

And I recognize I could be all wrong on this. I also recognize that there are plenty of reasons why people would suspect I'm wrong. I can't help that, though. At least I haven't been able to help that.