NY Times- It?????s Official: Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives

[_Quasimodo]

Well you see, once this angel appeared to Tobin (maybe it was an alien or an alien angel who knows) right when he was in the middle of his very own Fanny Alger affair but instead of demanding that he plow the field, as it were, instead Tobin was told by his celestial visitor to cease and desist. Sort of an angelic interruptus if you will.

So perhaps it is just jealousy on Tobin's part.

Now you are just being a jackass. Back to ignore.

If I'm reading this correctly, Fence Sitter has been put on ignore twice by Tobin. A worthy accomplishment.

This entitles Fence Sitter to wear an Oak leaf Cluster with his honored Tobinignore decoration.

Good work, Fence Sitter!

[_fetchface]

...seems like a rather odd conclusion to reach...

I think that the odd conclusion to reach would be that God would have some compelling interest in a bunch of church leaders having dozens of wives. Or that he would order the genocide of the Canaanites. Or that obedience (rather than kindness) would be the first law of heaven. Or any number of other Mormon things.

This whole quibble about whether the angel with a sword appeared or not seems akin to arguing whether Santa's belt buckle is made of silver or gold.

[_Quasimodo]

...seems like a rather odd conclusion to reach...

I think that the odd conclusion to reach would be that God would have some compelling interest in a bunch of church leaders having dozens of wives. Or that he would order the genocide of the Canaanites. Or that obedience (rather than kindness) would be the first law of heaven. Or any number of other Mormon things.

This whole quibble about whether the angel with a sword appeared or not seems akin to arguing whether Santa's belt buckle is made of silver or gold.

I agree that any argument about what Joseph Smith claimed is a fruitless exercise in mythologies. However, Christmas is coming up and it might be wise to avoid offending Santa.

Coal in your stocking?

[Guest]

...seems like a rather odd conclusion to reach...

I think that the odd conclusion to reach would be that God would have some compelling interest in a bunch of church leaders having dozens of wives. Or that he would order the genocide of the Canaanites. Or that obedience (rather than kindness) would be the first law of heaven. Or any number of other Mormon things.

This whole quibble about whether the angel with a sword appeared or not seems akin to arguing whether Santa's belt buckle is made of silver or gold.

That has nothing to do with it. It is my view that God is superior to us in every way, so what we deem as best or moral or right may not be necessarily so. For example, depending on the circumstance, a morally superior being may dictate that murdering someone or slaughtering an entire nation may be what is necessary. In fact, we do this ourselves to a lesser extent. We deem murdering people during war as being justified and a moral action because it is done supposedly in defense of your country. And since God is likely as far from us on the evolutionary scale as we are from ants, I doubt it is of any lasting significance to God how many of us kill each other. God likely views our world much as we would view an anthill and I've yet to see anyone get terribly worked up when an anthill get flooded.

Given that outlook, polygamy may just be a breeding and social program for his favorite ants. I really don't see anything special about it other than that.

[_sock puppet]

[ As Hales notes, the problem with these accounts is they are declared decades later and rely on likely faulty or embellished accounts.

So those are the reasons I think these accounts are likely high embellished and the story itself is an urban legend.

Hales notes no such thing.

Here is Hales conclusion found on page 61,

In any case, it would not be surprising to learn that an angel, or even several angels, were involved with Joseph's 1841 decision to enter into his second plural marriage.

Calling Tobin out on something he's posted? How do you select just one of his posts to do this?

[_Fence Sitter]

This whole quibble about whether the angel with a sword appeared or not seems akin to arguing whether Santa's belt buckle is made of silver or gold.

Most here would agree that the story is nonsense start to finish. The question wasn't so much of who actually believe it happened, it was one of origins. Tobin's started out by saying the flaming sword issue was an urban legend that did not originate with Joseph Smith but was made up well after the fact. In other words he was defending Joseph Smith. I disagreed with that and pointed him to Hales essay.

Here we are now several goal post moves later with Tobin tying to act like he and Hales have agreed all along and that now the only issue is the appearance of an angel, not one with a drawn or flaming sword and nothing about who started the angel story. He is now defending a completely different position.

Usually about this time, when someone has shown him the error of his ways, he says they are unable to understand and claims to put them on ignore while throwing out meaningless insults.

[_sock puppet]

I wonder why Mormon god wanted JSJr to have sex with more women than just wife, Emma?

It seems pretty obvious why Mormon god would not want Tobin to possibly replicate any of his genes. What doesn't make sense is why Mormon god would insist that JSJr have extra sex, and then not preserve much righteous seed in the process.

[_consiglieri]

For some reason, Joseph Smith's claim he was compelled to practice plural marriage by threats of destruction from a sword-wielding angel remind me of this scene . . .

[_Fence Sitter]

Calling Tobin out on something he's posted? How do you select just one of his posts to do this?

Good point. It's not like it is rocket surgery.

[Guest]

This whole quibble about whether the angel with a sword appeared or not seems akin to arguing whether Santa's belt buckle is made of silver or gold.

Most here would agree that the story is nonsense start to finish. The question wasn't so much of who actually believe it happened, it was one of origins. Tobin's started out by saying the flaming sword issue was an urban legend that did not originate with Joseph Smith but was made up well after the fact. In other words he was defending Joseph Smith. I disagreed with that and pointed him to Hales essay.

Here we are now several goal post moves later with Tobin tying to act like he and Hales have agreed all along and that now the only issue is the appearance of an angel, not one with a drawn or flaming sword and nothing about who started the angel story. He is now defending a completely different position.

Usually about this time, when someone has shown him the error of his ways, he says they are unable to understand and claims to put them on ignore while throwing out meaningless insults.

You forget I called you out for misrepresenting what Hales states, even though all the reasons I state I object to the story are actually found in his article. Yes, we reach different conclusions, but for very good reasons. Seeing that you couldn't compete on the facts or upon the argument at hand, you instead brought up things having nothing to with Hales or the story because you are a complete and utter jackass.