beastie wrote:I don't recall Pahoran denying that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his wives.
But, speaking of the reaction of apologists to the libel and slander, If I recall correctly, Pahoran was the sole person to speculate that perhaps Martha Brotherton really was a prostitute.
That's not pretty smart at all. Pahoran is intelligent, no doubt, but he allows his bias to run amuck.
I didn't realize he had said that. Doesn't really surprise me, though.
Runtu wrote:Edit: You really don't see 1 and 2 as being manipulative? 2 reminds me of the Oral Roberts thing from several years ago: "If you don't send me enough money, God is going to kill me." And making your entire family's exaltation dependent on accepting the "marriage" proposal seems just a tad coercive to me. We are talking about a 14 year old, after all.
Well, the first 2 are borderline. Of course if it was a lie then it certainly was manipulative. However, to be fair, I don't think it any more manipulative than the usual stuff I hear about needing to go to the temple or I won't see my family again or the general spiel about keeping the commandments or I'll be sorry in the next world. 2 is a bit too much Old Testament obey or be stoned stuff, but some of that's even in the New Testament (Ananias and Saphria? in Acts lying to Peter). Thus I can see the possibility of justifying 1 and 2 at least if I can justify the Bible. 3 I simply cannot justify.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:Well, the first 2 are borderline. Of course if it was a lie then it certainly was manipulative. However, to be fair, I don't think it any more manipulative than the usual stuff I hear about needing to go to the temple or I won't see my family again or the general spiel about keeping the commandments or I'll be sorry in the next world. 2 is a bit too much Old Testament obey or be stoned stuff, but some of that's even in the New Testament (Ananias and Saphria? in Acts lying to Peter). Thus I can see the possibility of justifying 1 and 2 at least if I can justify the Bible. 3 I simply cannot justify.
I've always wondered why God would send an angel with a flaming sword to threaten Joseph over polygamy. Joseph gave away the 116 pages and got not much more than a stern tongue-lashing, but somehow wedding teenagers and other men's wives warrants a death threat?
Runtu wrote:I've always wondered why God would send an angel with a flaming sword to threaten Joseph over polygamy. Joseph gave away the 116 pages and got not much more than a stern tongue-lashing, but somehow wedding teenagers and other men's wives warrants a death threat?
Maybe from an eternal perspective it turns out that eternal marriage is more important than 116 pages where a back-up plan was already in place? Maybe Joseph Smith was threatened with death for the 116 pages and we never learned about it ("no man knows my history" and I ain't talkin' Broadie). Maybe Joseph Smith had delayed too long with polygamy and so his second offense received a more severe warning? Greater resistance requires a stronger warning?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:Maybe from an eternal perspective it turns out that eternal marriage is more important than 116 pages where a back-up plan was already in place? Maybe Joseph Smith was threatened with death for the 116 pages and we never learned about it ("no man knows my history" and I ain't talkin' Broadie). Maybe Joseph Smith had delayed too long with polygamy and so his second offense received a more severe warning? Greater resistance requires a stronger warning?
How long did he delay? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Joseph resisted. He may well have "jumped the gun" with Fanny Alger, as his relationship with her predates any known revelation on the matter.
asbestosman wrote:Well, the first 2 are borderline. Of course if it was a lie then it certainly was manipulative. However, to be fair, I don't think it any more manipulative than the usual stuff I hear about needing to go to the temple or I won't see my family again or the general spiel about keeping the commandments or I'll be sorry in the next world. 2 is a bit too much Old Testament obey or be stoned stuff, but some of that's even in the New Testament (Ananias and Saphria? in Acts lying to Peter). Thus I can see the possibility of justifying 1 and 2 at least if I can justify the Bible. 3 I simply cannot justify.
I've always wondered why God would send an angel with a flaming sword to threaten Joseph over polygamy. Joseph gave away the 116 pages and got not much more than a stern tongue-lashing, but somehow wedding teenagers and other men's wives warrants a death threat?
Yeah, I kind of have a beef with this too.
Why didn't God just command Nephi to slay Laban to begin with? Why go through all the effort to try and honestly obtain the plates? After all, God knew that Laban would have to be slain eventually. But He didn't. He commanded Nephi to try and obtain them morally first. When all other avenues had failed, then He sent Nephi in to slay him and steal the plates.
So, why wouldn't God try and get Joseph Smith to get this most holy practice approved by the government and community, or have him move out west first, or whatever it took so that he didn't have to lie about it? Why go right for the "practice it or you will be destroyed" card? Doesn't seem very God-like to me.
Scottie wrote:Yeah, I kind of have a beef with this too.
Why didn't God just command Nephi to slay Laban to begin with? Why go through all the effort to try and honestly obtain the plates? After all, God knew that Laban would have to be slain eventually. But He didn't. He commanded Nephi to try and obtain them morally first. When all other avenues had failed, then He sent Nephi in to slay him and steal the plates.
So, why wouldn't God try and get Joseph Smith to get this most holy practice approved by the government and community, or have him move out west first, or whatever it took so that he didn't have to lie about it? Why go right for the "practice it or you will be destroyed" card? Doesn't seem very God-like to me.
What I find fascinating is that you really have to make a lot of rationalizations and denials of evidence to make this all work as revelation from God. If, on the other hand, if it was not from God, you don't have to rationalize anything; it all makes perfect sense. Sometimes I think that's how the God of Mormonism operates: make it look obviously like something a fraudulent prophet would do just to throw people off.
Scottie wrote:Yeah, I kind of have a beef with this too.
Why didn't God just command Nephi to slay Laban to begin with? Why go through all the effort to try and honestly obtain the plates? After all, God knew that Laban would have to be slain eventually. But He didn't. He commanded Nephi to try and obtain them morally first. When all other avenues had failed, then He sent Nephi in to slay him and steal the plates.
So, why wouldn't God try and get Joseph Smith to get this most holy practice approved by the government and community, or have him move out west first, or whatever it took so that he didn't have to lie about it? Why go right for the "practice it or you will be destroyed" card? Doesn't seem very God-like to me.
What I find fascinating is that you really have to make a lot of rationalizations and denials of evidence to make this all work as revelation from God. If, on the other hand, if it was not from God, you don't have to rationalize anything; it all makes perfect sense. Sometimes I think that's how the God of Mormonism operates: make it look obviously like something a fraudulent prophet would do just to throw people off.
A simple comparison of the shelves that believers have (as in, "I have to put that issue on the shelf until God explains it to me later") and the ones that exmormons have is instructive. I really like being able to live my life without that big shelf I used to have.