Mormons should be more worried about going to Hell than Atheists

[MG 2.0]

there may have been no sexuality.

According to your quote, "there may have been no sexuality." It is just speculation. The guy doesn't know for sure.

What I want to know is your opinion. Is it possible Joseph Smith did have a sexual relationship with Helen Mar and/or Nancy Winchester? A simple yes or no. I am not saying Joseph Smith did it, all I want is a straight answer from you.

And my straight answer is that we can only go with what history gives us.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the information shows a similar result as to Helen Mar. References would be appreciated.

Regards,
MG

Nope, Brigham Young did have sexual relationships with Clarissa Caroline Decker. Do your homework. We don't have to speculate on this one.

Her story is an interesting one, isn’t it? Tight connections between the early families that came into the church. Clarissa came out west with Brigham, didn’t like what she saw at first, along with her mother, but they made the best out of a harsh environment and she ended up having 5 children. So yes, she and Brigham had sexual relations and apparently got along pretty well.

She says that she couldn’t ever remember a time when she didn’t know Brigham Young.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

That’s what happens when God is taken out of the picture by nonbelievers.

No, it's what happens when your arguments suck.

God is still very much in the picture, as far as I'm concerned. She's just not the type of God who would do the kinds of things you suggest she'd do.
.

+10!!!!

[MG 2.0]

No, it's what happens when your arguments suck.

God is still very much in the picture, as far as I'm concerned. She's just not the type of God who would do the kinds of things you suggest she'd do.
.

+10!!!!

-10!!!!!

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

+10!!!!

-10!!!!!

Regards,
MG

By the way, I thought your comment at the beginning of your ‘prophets’ video was spot on.

Everything changes. We should be flexible.

Wise words.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

No, it's what happens when your arguments suck.

God is still very much in the picture, as far as I'm concerned. She's just not the type of God who would do the kinds of things you suggest she'd do.
.

+10!!!!

Yes, Morley’s response is still probably the best response possible. There’s never going to be a straight answer given, and the “assignments” given to deflect are ludicrous. But, it does show clearly how impossibly difficult it must be to be an all-in Mormon who is obligated to somehow defend this stuff. Some of the defenses are so embarrassing they would cause anyone to blush.

[honorentheos]

Wow. Didn't realize MG was on the board with the same bad arguments as always.

Hey, MG. No scientific discipline supports there having been Nephites. The Book of Abraham doesn't actually contain the words of Abraham written by his own hand on papyrus. There wasn't an actual person who is the mythical Abraham. Nor was there an Adam or else over a century of medical and other advances that you, yourself, enjoy brought about through our understanding of evolution are wrong. Which they aren't. The Bible is a compilation of stories manipulated by groups at different times to use to have power over people in the name of some god or other, though you think they are the same Mormon creator God you demand be accepted as a given because...because. There was no Noah, no great flood, no Tower of Babel. King David is a mythical person, probably based on a real person but who really knows. No Moses, no Samuel, no Joshua. James, the brother of Jesus, was the true heir to the historical Jesus' teachings but what became the Catholic church wiped that from history to bolster their claim to authority through the person of Peter which any actual restoration might have maybe got right rather than continuing with the same old 19th c. beliefs around ol' Joseph Smith who wasn't restoring anything ancient but just expanding on the controversies around him with an attempt at pseudepigrapha so awful some Mormons actually think it is rational to say it is a work from around the 16th c. And speaking of Joseph Smith...

Joseph Smith lied to his wife, Emma, about what was going on. Oh, and he stole her away from her family to elope because that's how God wants his prophet to behave...

Given the totality of the evidence, which I barely touched on, that he was lying about all the stuff that would otherwise require all of those other things to be wrong so he can be some sort of special something speaking for this other cosmic special something, you can keep on believing he didn't use his power and influence to gratify his sexual urges. It's dumb, but you have the right to be dumb about it. So carry on, old man. Carry on.

[doubtingthomas]

And my straight answer is that we can only go with what history gives us.

Does history rule out the possibility that Joseph Smith did have sexual relationships with Helen Mar and/or Nancy Winchester? Yes or no answer please.

And we can only go with what history gives us when it is convenient, right? You probably don't apply the same standard to the First Vision story, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and many of the claims made by the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints.

So yes, she and Brigham had sexual relations and apparently got along pretty well.

So are you saying Brigham Young couldn't wait and had to marry her when she was 15 or 16?

[IHAQ]

One assumes the people like Hales who defend the practice of plural marriage to single and married women by people in Church Leadership would be happy to support the practice if it were to be reinstated. I’m sure Brian would be fine with Uchtdorf being sealed to Laura Hales, and that MG2.0 would not quibble should Oaks decide he wants to be sealed to Mrs MG2.0. I mean the practice was honourable, right? So what would be the problem? What about their teenage daughters being given to a General Authority? Still okay?

Imagine that MG2.0’s Stake President comes round one evening with two requirements:
1. That he allow his wife to be sealed to Dieter Uchtdorf
2. That he allow his, say, 15 year old daughter, to be married to Gerald Causse

Would MG2.0 give willingly because he knows there’s nothing untoward with these suggestions? Of course not (I assume), but he’s fine when it’s someone else’s wife and daughter. I hope MG2.0 continues to defend the Church, he does far more damage to it than a critic ever could.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

One assumes the people like Hales who defend the practice of plural marriage to single and married women by people in Church Leadership would be happy to support the practice if it were to be reinstated. I’m sure Brian would be fine with Uchtdorf being sealed to Laura Hales, and that MG2.0 would not quibble should Oaks decide he wants to be sealed to Mrs MG2.0. I mean the practice was honourable, right? So what would be the problem? What about their teenage daughters being given to a General Authority? Still okay?

Imagine that MG2.0’s Stake President comes round one evening with two requirements:
1. That he allow his wife to be sealed to Dieter Uchtdorf
2. That he allow his, say, 15 year old daughter, to be married to Gerald Causse

Would MG2.0 give willingly because he knows there’s nothing untoward with these suggestions? Of course not (I assume), but he’s fine when it’s someone else’s wife and daughter. I hope MG2.0 continues to defend the Church, he does far more damage to it than a critic ever could.

Of course he would. He doesn’t think polygamy as practiced by Mormons is wrong. He likes to play his game by casting doubt on whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with any of his plural wives, but he conveniently ignores the question of, “ How did BY, HCK, and others who were practicing polygamy get the idea that they were to have sex with these girls?”

In the data I have collected over many years, I have found that a significant number of girls aged 11 to 16 were married in Utah to men at least a decade older than they were; some men were even in their 60s when they married these girls. These girls were giving birth to children within a year or so of marriage, proving that these marriages to child brides included sex.

MG would do this. That’s who he is. He would “obey” the brethren, take a child bride, and have sex with her for ‘dynastic’ reasons. He would, of course, ‘wrestle’ with the decision, ‘study it out’, pray about it, and then miracles of miracles get an answer from God that it’s His will. That’s what these “nuanced” thinkers do; they larp that they’re “thinking outside the box” and then they just fall in line.

It’s disgusting, and now we know why the feds had to show up with an army to get these assholes to stop damned children. MG just gave us a peek at their brains and how they justify this stuff.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Wow. Didn't realize MG was on the board with the same bad arguments as always.

Hey, MG. No scientific discipline supports there having been Nephites. The Book of Abraham doesn't actually contain the words of Abraham written by his own hand on papyrus. There wasn't an actual person who is the mythical Abraham. Nor was there an Adam or else over a century of medical and other advances that you, yourself, enjoy brought about through our understanding of evolution are wrong. Which they aren't. The Bible is a compilation of stories manipulated by groups at different times to use to have power over people in the name of some god or other, though you think they are the same Mormon creator God you demand be accepted as a given because...because. There was no Noah, no great flood, no Tower of Babel. King David is a mythical person, probably based on a real person but who really knows. No Moses, no Samuel, no Joshua. James, the brother of Jesus, was the true heir to the historical Jesus' teachings but what became the Catholic church wiped that from history to bolster their claim to authority through the person of Peter which any actual restoration might have maybe got right rather than continuing with the same old 19th c. beliefs around ol' Joseph Smith who wasn't restoring anything ancient but just expanding on the controversies around him with an attempt at pseudepigrapha so awful some Mormons actually think it is rational to say it is a work from around the 16th c. And speaking of Joseph Smith...

Joseph Smith lied to his wife, Emma, about what was going on. Oh, and he stole her away from her family to elope because that's how God wants his prophet to behave...

Given the totality of the evidence, which I barely touched on, that he was lying about all the stuff that would otherwise require all of those other things to be wrong so he can be some sort of special something speaking for this other cosmic special something, you can keep on believing he didn't use his power and influence to gratify his sexual urges. It's dumb, but you have the right to be dumb about it. So carry on, old man. Carry on.

Hey honor, its an honor to have you join in and give your perspective, or should I say sound bites, on an array of stories and characters from the ancient historical record, such as we have it. Your post modern views are widely accepted and considered to be ‘true’ insofar as we are lacking in firm incontrovertible evidence of many things. As a post religious person I’m sure that the beliefs and practices of the CofJCofLDS are ‘interesting’ inherited artifacts from the practices and beliefs of others that have come before. And nothing more. This is your mantra, this is your belief.

And I don’t and won’t mock you for it.

You, along with many others like you on this board, have come to a place where you believe Joseph Smith was either a pious fraud or a con man…or something in between. There are bits and pieces of incomplete pieces from the historical record that you can use in your created narrative to support your beliefs. And nowadays you have a larger and larger group of folks marching to the same tune. Believers are mocked for being “dumb” or unable/unwilling to either look at or recognize the ‘truth’ as you see it.

I will consider the fact that you called me an “old man” a compliment rather than a perjoritive.

Anyway, it’s always nice to meet and/or reacquaint myself with those that through their own study and grasp of the historical record and findings from scientific inquiry have been able to come to a knowledge of the truth, as they see it. This world is large enough for competing ideologies and beliefs about what makes things tick.

Nice to have your perspective. Thanks for chiming in.

Regards,
MG