Critics, such as yourself, seem to be overly concerned and even fixated on penises. Why is that?
Regards,
MG
Because Joseph Smith used his so widely while telling others not to.
As I've mentioned to you on another thread...you have a very limited and restricted view of things. I think that the evidence may show...I've given you references earlier...that this wasn't Joseph's main focus. That is if it was even a focus at all in the sense that this is all he thought about and schemed day upon day to 'get his way'. It doesn't make sense when the evidence is looked at in total.
Because Joseph Smith used his so widely while telling others not to.
As I've mentioned to you on another thread...you have a very limited and restricted view of things. I think that the evidence may show...I've given you references earlier...that this wasn't Joseph's main focus. That is if it was even a focus at all in the sense that this is all he thought about and schemed day upon day to 'get his way'. It doesn't make sense when the evidence is looked at in total.
Regards,
MG
Oh, sex was just one of the key avenues he pursued to have power over others, not the only such avenue.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
As I've mentioned to you on another thread...you have a very limited and restricted view of things. I think that the evidence may show...I've given you references earlier...that this wasn't Joseph's main focus. That is if it was even a focus at all in the sense that this is all he thought about and schemed day upon day to 'get his way'. It doesn't make sense when the evidence is looked at in total.
Regards,
MG
Oh, sex was just one of the key avenues he pursued to have power over others, not the only such avenue.
I'll leave it at that. If you want to expound some more and others have an itch to respond, great.
Oh, sex was just one of the key avenues he pursued to have power over others, not the only such avenue.
I'll leave it at that. If you want to expound some more and others have an itch to respond, great.
Regards,
MG
As broadly as Joseph Smith used his member, I imagine that is what had an itch.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
As troubling as Joseph Smith's behavior was, I'm more disturbed by the God who engineered this. To make this an apologetic that works for the Church, one has to adopt a view of God that's kind of creepy. This God would have to be a deity who would force his prophet, against his will, to 'marry' babysitters, pubescent girls, and other men's wives. He would tell his prophet to lie about his trysts, to deceive his wife, and to trash the reputation of any woman who denied him. All this to reintroduce a practice that would only be around for a few generations before it was discontinued.
Because Joseph Smith used his so widely while telling others not to.
As I've mentioned to you on another thread...you have a very limited and restricted view of things. I think that the evidence may show...I've given you references earlier...that this wasn't Joseph's main focus. That is if it was even a focus at all in the sense that this is all he thought about and schemed day upon day to 'get his way'. It doesn't make sense when the evidence is looked at in total.
Regards,
MG
So, regardless of Joseph's focus, please consider the evidence in total, and answer my questions from my earlier post concerning the legality of the putative no-record marriage of Joseph and Fanny.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
As troubling as Joseph Smith's behavior was, I'm more disturbed by the God who engineered this. To make this an apologetic that works for the Church, one has to adopt a view of God that's kind of creepy. This God would have to be a deity who would force his prophet, against his will, to 'marry' babysitters, pubescent girls, and other men's wives. He would tell his prophet to lie about his trysts, to deceive his wife, and to trash the reputation of any woman who denied him. All this to reintroduce a practice that would only be around for a few generations before it was discontinued.
They handwave this off as the fog of war. The restoration was intentionally left vague to build faith. The proof is the sheer numbers of people that say the Book of Mormon changed their life.
I am puzzled why the question of legality is brought up. Since when were any Mormon polygamous marriages legal? My understanding LDS view was they were legitimate before God and ordained by God not local nonmormon courts.
I have reservations about the idea God would ordain such a thing but I am not a prophet. I must rely on basic principals of respect and care for others, personal responsibility and honesty.
I'm bringing up the question of legality because the defenders seem to be unwilling to admit that any of these "marriages" were actually illegal by the state and federal laws. Look at the lengths to which MG has gone to avoid simply conceding that, by civil law, Joseph and Fanny had an adulterous affair.
Right now sitting here I personally don't know the answer to this specific question, malkie. What I do know is that one of the premier researchers in Mormonism, Don Bradley, after all his research has concluded that Joseph and Fanny were married. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So whether or not it was legal in the sense of it being legal in the state of Illinois, I don't know. But seemingly in the eyes of those that were 'in the know', including Fanny's parents, it was right in the eyes of God and His church.
I would suggest that those interested in this topic and the specific question being asked in regards to 'marriage' or 'affair' that you take the time to listen to this interview with Don Bradley:
As troubling as Joseph Smith's behavior was, I'm more disturbed by the God who engineered this. To make this an apologetic that works for the Church, one has to adopt a view of God that's kind of creepy. This God would have to be a deity who would force his prophet, against his will, to 'marry' babysitters, pubescent girls, and other men's wives. He would tell his prophet to lie about his trysts, to deceive his wife, and to trash the reputation of any woman who denied him. All this to reintroduce a practice that would only be around for a few generations before it was discontinued.
They handwave this off as the fog of war. ...
Indeed, no matter how you slice it, this is one thing on which both believers and critics can agree: All this activity was very much ‘done in a corner’.
Now, I’m not without speculations on this matter; and while I personally believe that Joseph found the practice of this doctrine to be an exciting ‘People Experience’, I suppose the acid test would be to see how he would have reacted seeing himself with any one of his blushing brides up on the Jumbotron if Coldplay came to town. Would Joseph have fearlessly faced the camera? Or would he turn ‘yellow’?
I piled this hay
I piled this hay for you
Oh, what a thing to do
and it is all yellow
I'm bringing up the question of legality because the defenders seem to be unwilling to admit that any of these "marriages" were actually illegal by the state and federal laws. Look at the lengths to which MG has gone to avoid simply conceding that, by civil law, Joseph and Fanny had an adulterous affair.
Right now sitting here I personally don't know the answer to this specific question, malkie. What I do know is that one of the premier researchers in Mormonism, Don Bradley, after all his research has concluded that Joseph and Fanny were married. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So whether or not it was legal in the sense of it being legal in the state of Illinois, I don't know. But seemingly in the eyes of those that were 'in the know', including Fanny's parents, it was right in the eyes of God and His church.
I would suggest that those interested in this topic and the specific question being asked in regards to 'marriage' or 'affair' that you take the time to listen to this interview with Don Bradley:
Is there a transcript? I find videos and podcasts without transcripts difficult to extract relevant details from.
I cannot say that I'm very much interested in anyone 'in the know' opining on what was right in the eyes of God and His church. That is why I keep asking about records and legality, and why I introduced the hypothetical about the gentleman I met in Ohio.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
