A couple of thoughts on polygamy

Post by **_Blixa** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:49 pm

Well I'm not a TBM, but I have a couple comments: firstly that I need to read Compton.

It strikes me that here too Joseph Smith's ideas are an odd mix of the opportunistic and sincere. By "sincere" I mean that you can discern some interesting ideas about remaking human relationships in a freer (well for some) and more liberalizing fashion. The idea of pre-ordained mates is both constricting and romantic, too... Had his ideas not been bound up in a patriarchal (in the political not religious sense) framework, their potential for humanely expanding human realtions would be more obvious and, to me at least, sympathetic. At the very same time, I think these same ideas are emerging from an extremely opportunistic set of circumstances in Joseph Smith's personal life...

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:57 pm

I've said it before and I'll say it again (putting on my Juliann cap) we only have a problem with these activities because of "presentism."

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:27 pm

[quote="liz3564”]
[…]

Any TBM's care to comment?[/quote]

Although many (if not most) may not consider me a TBM, I certainly try to be one (sometimes).

in my opinion, there are some things that shouldn’t be defended. Brigham’s comments (and potentially Joseph’s) here are one of those things that shouldn’t be defended. If for some oddball bizzaro-world reason, Joseph and Brigham were teaching something that was correct, I’ll let G-d be the one to defend it, as I don’t suppose His ego is so fragile that He requires my help.

If I had to put on an apologetics cap, I would say that he was confused as to the real teaching that women are empowered to trade up if they want to. ;-)

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:32 pm

Steuss wrote:If I had to put on an apologetics cap, I would say that he was confused as to the real teaching that women are empowered to trade up if they want to. ;-)

Dr. Stuess....you are...officially...my FAVORITE apologist!

;)

Post by **_KimberlyAnn** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:37 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote:If I had to put on an apologetics cap, I would say that he was confused as to the real teaching that women are empowered to trade up if they want to. ;-)

That couldn't possibly be true! Have you read the Old Testament? God hates women!

KA

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:40 pm

KimberlyAnn wrote:
Doctor Steuss wrote:If I had to put on an apologetics cap, I would say that he was confused as to the real teaching that women are empowered to trade up if they want to. ;-)

That couldn't possibly be true! Have you read the Old Testament? God hates women!

KA

Unfortunately, the Urim and Thummin operate at their optimal performance for those with 20/20 vision, and G-d seemed to call a lot of old men to be prophets.

Post by **_MishMagnet** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:29 pm

KimberlyAnn wrote:That couldn't possibly be true! Have you read the Old Testament? God hates women!

KA

Yeah, but I'm sure they were really BAD women.

Post by **_MishMagnet** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:30 pm

Sweet - we made a Stuesswich.

Post by **_KimberlyAnn** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:32 pm

MishMagnet wrote:Sweet - we made a Stuesswich.

Mmmm...he's really Studdly, too, Mishie! ;) (Stu+Cuddly = Studdly)

KA

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:34 pm

KimberlyAnn wrote:
MishMagnet wrote:Sweet - we made a Stuesswich.

Mmmm...he's really Studdly, too, Mishie! ;) (Stu+Cuddly = Studdly)

KA

Now available in Steuss light.

Same great taste... less filling.