There is plenty of evidence, including pro-LDS sources, for Joseph have polyandrous wives. There is also evidence that Joseph married the wives of men who were then on Church missions.
If so, then why did it take you so long to state it?
Because it had no relation to my question to you, which you evaded for several posts. Now that you answered my question (or at least I think you did), I answered yours.
Now are you going to answer the Bible question or not?
I already did (see my post on the third page where I said I was "fine" with your statement that the Bible sanctioned polygamy at least in the case of King David).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
This is another yellow journaltastical claim by someone who is hostile to John C. Bennett. John C. Bennett neither cohabitated with his plural wives, nor had any children with them. So there is no evidence that he had sex with them.
Also, there is a lot of presentism in this unfounded accusation. Census data from the 1800's show that it was normal in John C. Bennett's time for men to marry grown women.
But you agree that Bennett's version of plural marriage was different than Joseph Smith's right? This is why RT's trying to establish a basis on at least one or a few of the women Joseph Smith is sealed to having sex with him doesn't work because even Darth J can justify it.
Have you checked Bennett's children, bcspace? Do you have any evidence of cohabitation?
bcspace wrote:I'll give it my best shot after Rollo answers mine:
How about acknowledging that plural marriage in at least one Biblical case (I'm thinking David) is God authorized?
I already did. See my post on page 3 of this thread that I posted at 1:21 p.m.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
bcspace wrote:But you agree that Bennett's version of plural marriage was different than Joseph Smith's right? This is why RT's trying to establish a basis on at least one or a few of the women Joseph Smith is sealed to having sex with him doesn't work because even Darth J can justify it.
How doesn't it work? As I've established, and you've agreed, under both "versions" each man had sex with women to whom he was not legally and lawfully wedded.
Last edited by Yahoo [Bot] on Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
If so, then why did it take you so long to state it?
Because it had no relation to my question to you, which you evaded for several posts. Now that you answered my question (or at least I think you did), I answered yours.
I've not answered your question yet here.
Now are you going to answer the Bible question or not?
I already did (see my post on the third page where I said I was "fine" with your statement that the Bible sanctioned polygamy at least in the case of King David).
You weren't as specific which is why I asked a follow up question. But seeing as how we are making progress, let's keep going.
If the "Bible" (God) sanctioned plural marriage, then is it unreasonable to think that plural marriage might be sanctioned at other times?
bcspace wrote:You weren't as specific which is why I asked a follow up question. But seeing as how we are making progress, let's keep going.
If the "Bible" (God) sanctioned plural marriage, then is it unreasonable to think that plural marriage might be sanctioned at other times?
No, it's not unreasonable, but, as someone above pointed out, I see a real difference between "sanction" and "command." I also note that the prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon didn't seem to think that King David's polygamy was "sanctioned" by God.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
But you agree that Bennett's version of plural marriage was different than Joseph Smith's right? This is why RT's trying to establish a basis on at least one or a few of the women Joseph Smith is sealed to having sex with him doesn't work because even Darth J can justify it.
How doesn't it work?
In Darth J's convoluted logic it can't work because according to him both Joseph Smith and Bennett can be justified by lack of cohabitation and lack of children. The problem for Bennett is that there is actual corresponding evidence of sexual impropriety whereas in Joseph Smith's case, there is none.
As I've established, and you've agreed, under both "versions" each man had sex with women to whom he was not legally and lawfully wedded.
So when it comes to Bennett we believe what he says about himself but reject his accusations against Joseph Smith.
Since he isn't a reliable witness, I am afraid we are left looking for actual evidence that he had sex with his girlfriends.
Where are the children?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
