Two more bite the dust!

[_the road to hana]

Charity appears to be the type of person that even if she were happily married to her husband, if the person she believed to be the prophet of God came to her and said that she was to become his wife, she'd comply. She'd let God sort out the details later. Apparently many of the women who "married" Joseph Smith were the same.

It is funny that so many of you who deny supernatural experiences believe in mind reading.

Who denied supernatural experience?

You have entirely neglected the repeated evidence of people, men and women, who sought out their own revelation from God before they acted on revelations which were told to them.

And where, exactly, did I do that?

If I had a revelation from God, even if it was a difficult one to follow, such as Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, I hope I would be strong enough to do as God commanded. That is the test.

I rest my case.

[_charity]

So you are in favor of same sex marriages?

There is no such thing as a same sex marriage, since marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman.

I don't think anyone should snoop into anyone else's private life. People can sin if they want to. They just have to take the consequences of the sin.

I also think that any group can put down their own rules. And then if you want to belong to the group you follow the rules. You can't say you want to belong but you think the rules are stupid. Go find a group that agrees with what you think.

[_the road to hana]

It is none of my business which of the sealings were dynastic and which were marriages.

What on earth is "dynastic" about any of Joseph Smith's sealings/marriages?

Marriages and marriage relations are between the people involved. I think everyone should just butt out of private lives.

The church as an institution has long had a vested interest in the state of marriage. Non-consummation is generally grounds for annulment. I'm unaware of any teaching in the LDS Church that marriages either can or should be non-consummated. It would be contrary to reason to assume that plural marriage as instituted by Joseph Smith or practiced by any early LDS Church leaders was intended to be anything but a marriage. Other terminology would have been used. And other instructions would have been given.

[_charity]

How is one to know if one is being deceived, though? The Lafferty brothers felt they were acting on God's command in committing two murders. Is there any point you would draw the line, Charity? At what point would you start to wonder if you weren't being deceived? You are alluding to killing your own child on God's orders in your post, are you not?

Every person has to answer to himself and God over the light he/she follows. And every person has to be willing to face the consequences for their own actions.

I haven't been through my own personal Abrahamic test yet. At least I don't think so. (I mean Abrahamic in the sense of being asked to make some kind of supreme sacrifice. Not in the literal test that Abraham had.) I think that maybe the magnitude of the test varies with the level of the individual. For Abraham, as strong as he was, it took something really big to see if he would obey. For some of the others of us, it would take a lot less because we aren't as strong. For someone else it might be giving up coffee.

[_Runtu]

The Buell find is not surprising. Someone I respect very much recently posted the following about Oliver Buell:

I have serious doubts that Oliver Buell was Joseph Smith's son. Let's review the timeline:

1. Joseph Smith was incarcerated in Liberty Jail from October 31, 1838 to April 16, 1839.
2. Presendia, along with her father, brother, Heber Kimball, and another man visited Joseph in jail in February, 1839, and again in March, this time accompanied by Frederick Williams.
3. On April 16, 1839, Joseph Smith escaped custody and fled to Illinois, arriving on April 22.
4. On April 18, Presendia traveled to Far West from her home in Fishing River, Missouri, to see her family off as they left for Illinois. She then returned to her home in Missouri. It was the last time she would see her mother.
5. Presendia and her husband did not visit Illinois (Quincy) until October or November of 1839.
6. Presendia gave birth to Oliver on January 31, 1840.
7. The Buells then moved to Lima, Illinois, that Fall.
8. Joseph took Presendia as a plural wife on December 11, 1841.

Unless you want to argue that Joseph and she had "conjugal visits" in jail before she married him, I find Joseph's paternity unlikely.

Presendia gave birth to another son, John Hiram Buell in November 1843. To quote Todd Compton, "It is unlikely, though not impossible, that Joseph Smith was the actual father.

So, we're faced with two options:

1. The statement that she wasn't sure of her son's paternity was erroneous.
2. The statement applied to John Hiram Buell, not Oliver.

The idea that Mosiah Hancock was Joseph's son is just out of left field, frankly. He was born in 1834, and his mother, Clarissa Hancock, is not a likely candidate as a plural wife of Joseph.

So, yeah, ruling out two unlikely candidates really bolsters the case that--well, what does it indicate?

[_the road to hana]

marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman.

Including Joseph Smith's marriages?

[_Pokatator]

So you are in favor of same sex marriages?

There is no such thing as a same sex marriage, since marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman.

I don't think anyone should snoop into anyone else's private life. People can sin if they want to. They just have to take the consequences of the sin.

I also think that any group can put down their own rules. And then if you want to belong to the group you follow the rules. You can't say you want to belong but you think the rules are stupid. Go find a group that agrees with what you think.

OK by that definition I sit corrected.

So then please apply your two statements:

I also think that any group can put down their own rules. And then if you want to belong to the group you follow the rules. You can't say you want to belong but you think the rules are stupid. Go find a group that agrees with what you think.

It is none of my business which of the sealings were dynastic and which were marriages. I would not be upset either direction. Marriages and marriage relations are between the people involved. I think everyone should just butt out of private lives.

to Warren Jeffs.

[_truth dancer]

You have entirely neglected the repeated evidence of people, men and women, who sought out their own revelation from God before they acted on revelations which were told to them.

Charity, this is where you completely misunderstand.

I'm pretty sure everyone here understands people claim to have spiritual experiences.

The problem is, people all over the world, and throughout history have claimed to hear God's voice, see Him, or otherwise receivie revelation, and believe they are commanded to engage in horrific activities.

The God said excuse is common. It is widespread. It is ubiquitous.

No one here denies there is not a world filled with people who claim to have spiritual experiences.

The problem is, with thousands upon thousands of people believing they are following God's will as they do horrible things, one would think anyone who believes they are receiving revelation from God would step back and ask themselves why they should belive their own person experience and NOT the experience of all the others.

One woman may believe God is telling her to kill her children, while the man down the street might think God is telling him to screw a fourteen year old babysitter. On man believes it is God's will that he fly an airplane into a building, while another believes God wants him to take his army and slaughter the children and babies of a whole community.

It just seems to me the whole God said excuse needs to be reevaluated.

I know YOU think YOU are one of the few who are TRULY in tune with the real God, but millions of people the world over are just as convinced their's is the true God.

I'm sure you are quite aware of how easily it is to create a spiritual experiences, convince people they are having a spiritual experience, or to convince them to buy into a particular idea... you don't need a PhD to understand that all spiritual experiences are not actually revelations or of some divine realm, (or from a Satanic realm).

~dancer~

[_CaliforniaKid]

There is no such thing as a same sex marriage, since marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman.

Charity hath spoken. Modify your dictionaries accordingly.

Really, Charity, usage defines meaning. If same-sex people start getting married, then the definition of marriage changes. That's the way languages work. Who are you to suggest that meaning defines usage? You can't turn the nature of things upside-down, I'm afraid. Nice try though.

[_harmony]

Every person has to answer to himself and God over the light he/she follows. And every person has to be willing to face the consequences for their own actions.

Indeed. And putting words into God's mouth to cover one's extramarital peccadillos has some pretty nasty consequences. Joseph was the only prophet God removed from the earth, before his time.

[edited to complete the thought]