Two more bite the dust!

[_Chap]

msnobody,

Mormonism for trusting in Christ alone

Mormonism and trusting in Christ are the same thing.

You forgot the "alone", Gaz. That's the operative word.

Trusting in Christ means accepting his servants. You can't even have faith in Christ without hearing about him through the testimony of his servants. Folowing Christ means partaking in the covenants he has asked you to make with him, and to do that you have to make those covenants through his authorized priesthood bearers, who stand in for him by proxy in serving you.

Shall I go on?

No thank you. You see, the problem is that you represent only one rather small and frankly marginal group amongst the many, many groups who have claimed to be 'his servants' over the last two thousand years, and who have in consequence demanded that everybody should accept their authority, and (often) hand over considerable amounts of money for the privilege of doing so.

Now I have to get on with cooking the dinner. Do you have some literature you can leave, and a number I can call if I am interested? Have a nice day. [Closes door politely but firmly]. Nothing honey, just a another Mormon missionary. I feel sorry for those guys, so I always speak to them nicely, though I try to be honest too. Poor kids.

[_ludwigm]

...
the road to hana: marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman. Including Joseph Smith's marriages?

charity: yep. Each sealing was one man to one woman. There were other sealings of the same man to another woman. But each individual sealing/marriage was a man to a woman.
...

Gentlemen of the Jury! The defendant is not a serial killer. He committed all the nineteen murder individually, after each other, even not the same day.

[_truth dancer]

charity: yep. Each sealing was one man to one woman. There were other sealings of the same man to another woman. But each individual sealing/marriage was a man to a woman.

I'm not sure if you are serious or not.. I'm hoping not but thinking yes. :-)

LOL!

This has to be the silliest thing I have ever heard on an LDS message board.

I tell my child to only have one cookie... she has ten. "Ohh but I only had one at a time."

The law says I can only have one social security card. I have four. Ohhh but they are individual cards and I signed up for them on different dates.

A man uses a coupon for one free candy bar and tries to get ten free. He replies to the clerk...."well, this is one, and this is one, and this is one, and this is one."

The rules of a game say each player gets one turn at a time, one player repeatedly throws the dice. "Just because I throw the dice over and over doesn't mean I am taking more than one turn."

The sign says the speed limit is 50 MPH... I'm going 100. I tell the police officer... "Ohhh I am going the speed limit. I'm going fifty miles and hour, and another fifty miles an hour".

Lets be real for one second. One man and one wife means..... one man has one wife. NOT one man has multiple wives, or one man has many wives, or one man has a whole bunch of wives, or one man has MORE than one wife.

I really don't think this is so difficult to understand.

I mean seriously this is REALLY nonsensical. I'm thinking you may want to figure out another way to justify/rationalize/deny what was going on because this silliness is just really over the top laughable.

LOL~

~dancer~

[cacheman]

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

charity: It only adds to the truths of the situation dispelling claimed truths. Did you read that DNA testing just recently ruled out a person as the offspring of George Gipp? The reason given for doing it was just to set the record straight.

So, why the high-fiving "bite the dust!" tone? It almost sounded like you were excited to have them proven wrong. You and I both agree that Joseph had sexual relations with most of his wives, so the possibility of offspring is there. Indeed, the stated reason for plural marriage was to raise a righteous posterity. So, why is it so wonderful to believe he didn't have any children by his polygamous unions? I'm genuinely puzzled.

In case you're interested, I did a little reading on Clarissa Reed Hancock. Apparently, she worked as a servant in the Smith home, and Joseph taught her about polygamy. Levi Hancock wanted to marry her, but according to her son Mosiah (yes, the one who is now proven not to be Joseph's son), she was disappointed that Joseph didn't take her as a polygamous wife because she got along so well with Emma. But she did play a role in Joseph's practice of polygamy. When Levi asked Joseph permission to take Clarissa as his bride, Joseph said he could as long as Levi got Fanny Alger (his niece) to marry Joseph.

[_guy sajer]

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

charity: It only adds to the truths of the situation dispelling claimed truths. Did you read that DNA testing just recently ruled out a person as the offspring of George Gipp? The reason given for doing it was just to set the record straight.

So, why the high-fiving "bite the dust!" tone? It almost sounded like you were excited to have them proven wrong. You and I both agree that Joseph had sexual relations with most of his wives, so the possibility of offspring is there. Indeed, the stated reason for plural marriage was to raise a righteous posterity. So, why is it so wonderful to believe he didn't have any children by his polygamous unions? I'm genuinely puzzled.

In case you're interested, I did a little reading on Clarissa Reed Hancock. Apparently, she worked as a servant in the Smith home, and Joseph taught her about polygamy. Levi Hancock wanted to marry her, but according to her son Mosiah (yes, the one who is now proven not to be Joseph's son), she was disappointed that he didn't take her as a polygamous wife because she got along so well with Emma. But she did play a role in Joseph's practice of polygamy. When Levi asked Joseph permission to take Clarissa as his bride, Joseph said he could as long as Levi got Fanny Alger (his niece) to marry Joseph.

Isn't that precious. Bargaining and trading for wives as if they were commodities.

Higher order of marriage, indeed.

[_Runtu]

Isn't that precious. Bargaining and trading for wives as if they were commodities.

Higher order of marriage, indeed.

Now, now, guy. You're just guilty of "presentism" here. Why, it was perfectly acceptable to use women as human Pokemon cards back in the 19th century.

[_Chap]

Isn't that precious. Bargaining and trading for wives as if they were commodities.

Higher order of marriage, indeed.

Now, now, guy. You're just guilty of "presentism" here. Why, it was perfectly acceptable to use women as human Pokemon cards back in the 19th century.

No, not Pokemon (sooo anachronistic for the period!). Surely it's 'Happy Families'?

"I've got Busty Betty, the Missionary's Moll - and I'll swap her for Sexy Susy the Bishop's By-blow."

Winner is the one who gets the most nubile ladies in his hand ... (or 'bed' as it is technically known in this version of the game).

[_Blixa]

Isn't that precious. Bargaining and trading for wives as if they were commodities.

Higher order of marriage, indeed.

Now, now, guy. You're just guilty of "presentism" here. Why, it was perfectly acceptable to use women as human Pokemon cards back in the 19th century.

No, not Pokemon (sooo anachronistic for the period!). Surely it's 'Happy Families'?

"I've got Busty Betty, the Missionary's Moll - and I'll swap her for Sexy Susy the Bishop's By-blow."

Winner is the one who gets the most nubile ladies in his hand ... (or 'bed' as it is technically known in this version of the game).

heh heh. You dated yourself if that reference, Chap. Methinks we must be age cohorts...

[_Pokatator]

the road to hana: marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman. Including Joseph Smith's marriages?

charity: yep. Each sealing was one man to one woman. There were other sealings of the same man to another woman. But each individual sealing/marriage was a man to a woman.

Charity I guess I have grown tired of your neener neeners which is what your OP really was. I have also grown tired of your play with definitions and word engineering. I have also grown tired of someone who can't spell correcting everyone else's spelling.

I will go slow here just for you, your exact words are: "marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman". Let's do your normal definition and word engineering tactics on this phrase.

Marriage is by definition:
a unioin - "a" unioin, one unioin, not more than one unioin, not several unioins
of a man - "a" man, one man, not more than one man, not several men
and a woman - "a" woman, one woman, not more than one woman, not several women

Dear Joseph broke all points of the definition you provided.
He had more than one unioin.
He knowingly allowed several of his wives to have more than one unioin and more than one man.
And of course, he had many wives.

Charity, when did the definition of "marriage" change?

I think that Truth Dancer's post is spot on, your defense of of Joseph and your word engineering of the definition you provided is nothing more than childish.

I don't think that even Warren Jeffs allowed his wives to have more than one man. He seems to have one up on Joseph. But really the only difference between Joseph and Warren is about 180 years. Nothing else.

Pokatator :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." and "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."

charity: Jeffs had to go along with the law of the land after it had been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, just as the LDS had to. Whether we like it or not, marriages are regulated by county and state and federal law. So, everyone ought to butt out of the private lives of married couples.

Warren Jeffs wasn't following the law of the land.

How come I knew your response even before I asked? Charity you are totally predictable. Porter already hit you with what I had in mind. Joseph and the church also broke the law.

Tag you're it.

[_the road to hana]

the road to hana: marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman. Including Joseph Smith's marriages?

charity: yep. Each sealing was one man to one woman. There were other sealings of the same man to another woman. But each individual sealing/marriage was a man to a woman.

The key word there, Charity, is "union." "Marriage," if in fact it is a marriage, is a "union." It is not a non-sexual arrangement of convenience. There would be no purpose in advancing "plural marriage" as a principle, practice or doctrine within a religious organization otherwise. Within one that claimed to be Christian and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, "union" in the sense of "one flesh" would be essential.