Two more bite the dust!

[_Some Schmo]

msnobody,

Mormonism for trusting in Christ alone

Mormonism and trusting in Christ are the same thing.

This is true... they're both a measure of insanity.

[_Some Schmo]

After having read this entire thread, all I can say is that for the Mormon church, with apologists like charity, who needs critics?

Thanks for the laughs, charity.

[_charity]

the road to hana: You are asserting that Joseph Smith had non-sexual "marriages." Why then would they be described as a marriage, and where has the principle of plural marriage ever been taught or advanced as non-sexual?

charity: Why questions are never useful unless you can ask the people involved.

truth dancer: How you turn this into the idea that if women aren't married to each other it is OK for a man have multiple wives and still pretend you are abiding by the law, 'one man and one wife', is beyond me. Whether a man had one or many wives is EXACTLY the issue. One man and one woman. NOT one man and many women. However you want to twist it Charity, in polygamy one man had multiple wives, not one.

charity: I never said anything about women being sealed to each other or not. And of course, in plural marraige there is one husband and more than one wife. What I said was that the plural wives did not participate in the marriage of their husband to other wives. Each wife had a husband. She shared him with at least one other.

turht dancer: What nonsense Charity. I'm guessing you have read the New Testament... seems Jesus Christ himself made it clear one man was to have ONE wife. NOT MULTIPLE wives.

charity: Hang on to your seat TD. There are many reasons to think that Jesus HImself had plural wives. This is not a formally stated doctrine in the Church, but it is reasonable, given the New Testament and the cultural practices of the time.

truth dancer: Dance, contort, pretend, interpret, make believe, conjecture, imagine, whatever.

charity: You are completely ignoring the Old Testament, and the culture of the New Testament, where plural marriage was practiced.

truth dancer: But, I have the sense you REALLY need to believe some alternative idea so I'll leave it at that.

charity: Sorry, dancer. Your need to deny the reality of plural marriage, a practice allowed and even commanded by God at different times in the history of the word among God's children, is what is scary. I won't challenge you any more on this issue.

Runtu: The thing about Josephine is that she looks an awful lot like Joseph. I wish I had a photo of Windsor Lyon to compare her to.

charity: That is what Fawn Brodie said about Oliver Buell and why she was convinced he was Joseph's offspring. Only DNA proved that wrong.

charity to Pokatator: When you started insulting my morals and calling me names, I could see you felt you had lost the argument. There is no reason to respond futher to your posts on this topic.

harmony: Actually, marriage is and always has been heavily mired with governmental oversight, due to the inheritance aspect. The passing of land and wealth has been under governmental oversight since man gave up hunting and started farming. Religion grabbed onto the idea, and created the brilliant idea of marriage as a religious rite, but back when man first moved out of the hunter-gatherer stage and into the agricultural stage, marriage was only for the rich and only to preserve the inheritance for the next generation.

charity: Actually, marriage started in the Garden of Eden. But go on with your secular humanist view of life.

runtu: Why is it not your business. You believe the man was a prophet. Don;t you think what he did has some bearing on whether he was or not?

charity: It is God's business how His prophet carries out His commands. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do not believe he did anything dishonest or immoral. I think people who think he did, don't know the whole story. I am willing to wait for the truth to come out.

runtu: The shame of Mormonism is that it convinces otherwise rational people that they do not have to think about certain things. Logic, integrity, morality, intelligence--these are things that simply don't apply to certain aspects of the true church.

charity: Your version of history is wrong. The shame of the critics, anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons is that they get proud and arrogant, think they know things they don't really know, and then judge other people for having a different understanding of the facts.

Trevor: This is exactly how Brigham Young felt about Joseph's personal behavior. To him it simply did not matter.

charity: That is absolutely not true. There is a partial quote floating around that is used to prove what you said. The only problem is it was quoted out of context, and the full statement goes on to say, "Joseph was the most honest, moral man I have ever known."

It is a well known anti-Mormon strategy. I hope you have made that statement in ignorance, Trevor, then you will not be held accountable for it. But there is an individual on another board who uses the part quote in his sig line. And he has read the full quote because he and I have discussed the full statement by Brigham Young. So when he uses the part quote, he knows that he is deliberately given a false impression. Don't stand too close to him. You don't want to be an innocent bystander when he is struck down for lying.
.



Some Schmo: Thanks for the laughs, charity.

charity: Laugh while you can.

[_Runtu]

Runtu: The thing about Josephine is that she looks an awful lot like Joseph. I wish I had a photo of Windsor Lyon to compare her to.

charity: That is what Fawn Brodie said about Oliver Buell and why she was convinced he was Joseph's offspring. Only DNA proved that wrong.

But as I said, the difference is that we have good reason to believe Josephine was Joseph's daughter; we didn't have good reason to believe Oliver was. Of all the possibilities, you must admit that this is the strongest. And I'll ask again, why are you so intent on disproving that he had children? It wouldn't make any difference, would it?

runtu: Why is it not your business. You believe the man was a prophet. Don;t you think what he did has some bearing on whether he was or not?

charity: It is God's business how His prophet carries out His commands. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do not believe he did anything dishonest or immoral. I think people who think he did, don't know the whole story. I am willing to wait for the truth to come out.

That wasn't me, actually. That he was dishonest is plain for everyone to see. The immoral part is probably in the eye of the beholder.

runtu: The shame of Mormonism is that it convinces otherwise rational people that they do not have to think about certain things. Logic, integrity, morality, intelligence--these are things that simply don't apply to certain aspects of the true church.

charity: Your version of history is wrong. The shame of the critics, anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons is that they get proud and arrogant, think they know things they don't really know, and then judge other people for having a different understanding of the facts.

This is really irritating, you know? I have seen time and time again believing Mormons refuse to look critically at certain of their beliefs. Most recently, David Bokovoy said that he would never ever question the truth that the church is what it claims to be. That's what I was talking about. But you sit in your chair and accuse me of being arrogant, proud, and judgmental. Where do you get off saying that? Maybe I've been wrong about you, after all.

[_Pokatator]

Charity

I never called you any names.

I did say, "Charity you seem to have the morals of a Jack Rabbit."

Just to set the record straight.

Pokatator

PS You seem to always get out tough spots in this same manner.

[_skippy the dead]

the road to hana: You are asserting that Joseph Smith had non-sexual "marriages." Why then would they be described as a marriage, and where has the principle of plural marriage ever been taught or advanced as non-sexual?

charity: Why questions are never useful unless you can ask the people involved.

truth dancer: How you turn this into the idea that if women aren't married to each other it is OK for a man have multiple wives and still pretend you are abiding by the law, 'one man and one wife', is beyond me. Whether a man had one or many wives is EXACTLY the issue. One man and one woman. NOT one man and many women. However you want to twist it Charity, in polygamy one man had multiple wives, not one.

charity: I never said anything about women being sealed to each other or not. And of course, in plural marraige there is one husband and more than one wife. What I said was that the plural wives did not participate in the marriage of their husband to other wives. Each wife had a husband. She shared him with at least one other.

turht dancer: What nonsense Charity. I'm guessing you have read the New Testament... seems Jesus Christ himself made it clear one man was to have ONE wife. NOT MULTIPLE wives.

charity: Hang on to your seat TD. There are many reasons to think that Jesus HImself had plural wives. This is not a formally stated doctrine in the Church, but it is reasonable, given the New Testament and the cultural practices of the time.

truth dancer: Dance, contort, pretend, interpret, make believe, conjecture, imagine, whatever.

charity: You are completely ignoring the Old Testament, and the culture of the New Testament, where plural marriage was practiced.

truth dancer: But, I have the sense you REALLY need to believe some alternative idea so I'll leave it at that.

charity: Sorry, dancer. Your need to deny the reality of plural marriage, a practice allowed and even commanded by God at different times in the history of the word among God's children, is what is scary. I won't challenge you any more on this issue.

Runtu: The thing about Josephine is that she looks an awful lot like Joseph. I wish I had a photo of Windsor Lyon to compare her to.

charity: That is what Fawn Brodie said about Oliver Buell and why she was convinced he was Joseph's offspring. Only DNA proved that wrong.

charity to Pokatator: When you started insulting my morals and calling me names, I could see you felt you had lost the argument. There is no reason to respond futher to your posts on this topic.

harmony: Actually, marriage is and always has been heavily mired with governmental oversight, due to the inheritance aspect. The passing of land and wealth has been under governmental oversight since man gave up hunting and started farming. Religion grabbed onto the idea, and created the brilliant idea of marriage as a religious rite, but back when man first moved out of the hunter-gatherer stage and into the agricultural stage, marriage was only for the rich and only to preserve the inheritance for the next generation.

charity: Actually, marriage started in the Garden of Eden. But go on with your secular humanist view of life.

runtu: Why is it not your business. You believe the man was a prophet. Don;t you think what he did has some bearing on whether he was or not?

charity: It is God's business how His prophet carries out His commands. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do not believe he did anything dishonest or immoral. I think people who think he did, don't know the whole story. I am willing to wait for the truth to come out.

runtu: The shame of Mormonism is that it convinces otherwise rational people that they do not have to think about certain things. Logic, integrity, morality, intelligence--these are things that simply don't apply to certain aspects of the true church.

charity: Your version of history is wrong. The shame of the critics, anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons is that they get proud and arrogant, think they know things they don't really know, and then judge other people for having a different understanding of the facts.

Trevor: This is exactly how Brigham Young felt about Joseph's personal behavior. To him it simply did not matter.

charity: That is absolutely not true. There is a partial quote floating around that is used to prove what you said. The only problem is it was quoted out of context, and the full statement goes on to say, "Joseph was the most honest, moral man I have ever known."

It is a well known anti-Mormon strategy. I hope you have made that statement in ignorance, Trevor, then you will not be held accountable for it. But there is an individual on another board who uses the part quote in his sig line. And he has read the full quote because he and I have discussed the full statement by Brigham Young. So when he uses the part quote, he knows that he is deliberately given a false impression. Don't stand too close to him. You don't want to be an innocent bystander when he is struck down for lying.
.



Some Schmo: Thanks for the laughs, charity.

charity: Laugh while you can.

Taking a few moments to master the "quote" mechanism will be much easier than having to type your name and posters' names next to the cut-and-pasted text. It will definitely improve the readability of your posts.

[_truth dancer]

truth dancer: How you turn this into the idea that if women aren't married to each other it is OK for a man have multiple wives and still pretend you are abiding by the law, 'one man and one wife', is beyond me. Whether a man had one or many wives is EXACTLY the issue. One man and one woman. NOT one man and many women. However you want to twist it Charity, in polygamy one man had multiple wives, not one.

charity: I never said anything about women being sealed to each other or not. And of course, in plural marraige there is one husband and more than one wife. What I said was that the plural wives did not participate in the marriage of their husband to other wives. Each wife had a husband. She shared him with at least one other.

Yeah Charity, no matter how you twist it, in polygamy one man had multiple wives, not one wife as is the commandment. You seem to suggest if the women are not married to each other as well, (or in some sort of group marriage ritual), then you count one wife many times but don't add them together... or some such silliness! LOL! This really is nonsensical Charity.

turht dancer: What nonsense Charity. I'm guessing you have read the New Testament... seems Jesus Christ himself made it clear one man was to have ONE wife. NOT MULTIPLE wives.

charity: Hang on to your seat TD. There are many reasons to think that Jesus HImself had plural wives. This is not a formally stated doctrine in the Church, but it is reasonable, given the New Testament and the cultural practices of the time.

LOL... Ohh Charity. I've heard people make up all sorts of things about Jesus Christ and various other deities. Pretend, make believe, fairy tales, and myths have little to do with reality.

And, just a little reminder, because something was a practice in ancient civilizations does not mean it was directed, commanded, demanded of God. In case you didn't realize this! ;-)

I go with the idea that IF there is some sort of man/God being out there on some planet/star running the universe, he would not give us intuition, compassion, care, concern, love, kindness, and so forth and then demand we live in cruelty, disharmony with life, and revert back to some primitive animalistic mating system where men are sperm donors and women are possessions.

truth dancer: Dance, contort, pretend, interpret, make believe, conjecture, imagine, whatever.

charity: You are completely ignoring the Old Testament, and the culture of the New Testament, where plural marriage was practiced.

No... not ignoring. Just acknowledging that the Old Testament is not a very good guide for moral, decent, or healthy behavior by any stretch of the imagination. Did some rich and powerful men have harems in days of old... yep. So....? Again, behavior engaged in by ancient nomadic tribal men means little when it comes to what is decent, loving, kind, healthy, human behavior... not to mention behavior that has anything to do with an evolved human being, or behavior that is Godly or holy.

truth dancer: But, I have the sense you REALLY need to believe some alternative idea so I'll leave it at that.

charity: Sorry, dancer. Your need to deny the reality of plural marriage, a practice allowed and even commanded by God at different times in the history of the word among God's children, is what is scary. I won't challenge you any more on this issue.

I completely acknowledge that various animals have engaged in harem mating practices. In addition, throughout history various rich and powerful men have adopted this form of mating. Do I think there is some sort of man/being with a harem commanding/demanind men have a harem... no, of course not. Not even a chance. :-)

This has little to do with my point which is that however you twist it, one man and one woman means... one man and one women. EVEN if women are not married to each other in some sort of group marriage arrangement, if one man is married to multiple women, he has many wives.

I understand you will not get this point and that is OK... I'm just thinking you may be wise to come up with some other excuse cause this idea of yours is just over the top silly. :-)

~dancer~

[_harmony]

harmony: Actually, marriage is and always has been heavily mired with governmental oversight, due to the inheritance aspect. The passing of land and wealth has been under governmental oversight since man gave up hunting and started farming. Religion grabbed onto the idea, and created the brilliant idea of marriage as a religious rite, but back when man first moved out of the hunter-gatherer stage and into the agricultural stage, marriage was only for the rich and only to preserve the inheritance for the next generation.

charity: Actually, marriage started in the Garden of Eden. But go on with your secular humanist view of life.

In order for your statement to have value, charity, you must first establish that there actually was a physical place called the Garden of Eden. Then it would be helpful if you could establish that actual individuals named Adam and Eve actually existed. Only then can you posit anything about their marriage, in a discussion about the real world. We aren't talking myth here; we're talking reality.

I know you had to have studied anthropology in your quest for your masters. Did you close your eyes and ears and go "la la la la", when anyone mentioned societies that are over 12,000 years old? Surely you know about the development of agriculture, the accumlation of wealth, the development of class strata... surely?

I can document the hunter-gatherers. Can you document Adam?

I await your reply with great anticipation.

[_beastie]

charity: Laugh while you can.

Yes, for one day you will BURN IN HELL.

[_beastie]

charity to Pokatator: When you started insulting my morals and calling me names, I could see you felt you had lost the argument. There is no reason to respond futher to your posts on this topic.

In all seriousness, if you think your argument on this (and other) threads has been SO strong that it forces people to break and call you names, you are the one who is "living in a concocted world" of your own.