The unbelieving Fifth Column

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Post by _Lucretia MacEvil »

Coggins7 wrote:
by the way, your avatar gives me the creeps. What the hell is that?



Thou art a Dweeb.

That's Kuo Choi, a Peking Opera graduate, Kung Fu master, and major Shaw Brothers star in Hong Kong films from the mid-seventies to mid-eighties. He was the lead star of the "Venoms" team that made a series of popular martial arts films during that period.

The hairstyle and make-up are Sung/Ming dynasty mixed with traditional Peking Oprah stage amendments (like the eyebrows).

Dolt.


He still creeps me out, but hobbies are so very good for you, thereapeutic really, so you just kung fu yourself, okay?
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Old Testament Polygamy is nothing like LDS polygamy. It was tolerated by God due to cultural issues.


And this claim derives preciely from what facts or evidence?



By reading what the Bible says and studying the culture. Try it out.


It was not commanded nor ever given in any way as an ordinance for eternal life or entrance into the highest kingdom.

And you know this precisely how?



There is nothing in the Bible that suggests in anyway it was. Can you find me a source that says it was?

And it is pretty clear the New Testament rule was one wife. It is also interesting the Jacob 2 gives a blanket condemnation for David and Solomon's polygamy while D&C 132 says it was all ok except for Bathsheba. Compare the two passages. They seem a direct contradiction. No time to cut and paste them right now.

No General Authority of which I'm aware has ever interpreted Jacob 2:30 in any other manner except as a caveat to the general prohibition on plural marriage without divine sanction. When the keys of Presidency are passed along to you, we'll talk. Until then, excuse me if I doubt your authority to contravene the Lords anointed servants in our day.


Nice dodge. Can you reconciled the conflict I noted? It has troubled me for some time, even when I was more of an uber Mormon like you.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Coggins7 wrote:Loran

Ask any reputable LDS historian on this. They all agree that Joseph and Fanny were sexually involved and that fanny was his first plural wife. Why do you think a number of years ago the intro to D&C 132 says Joseph Smith knew the doctrine as early as 1831.



Except for the utter lack of documentary evidence, even from Fanny herself or her family.

Take this to someone who will fall for it Jason.



Coggins. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.


You are simply wrong on this. Bury your head in the sand if it helps you maintain your belief.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Yes, except Jacob 2:30, in which a caveat is added in which if the Lord commands, or sanctions plural marriage, it becomes a righteous practice. Your strained biblical exegesis on the subject only makes clear how difficult wriggling out of the plain implication of the text really is.


Loran, rather than replying with all the name calling nasty nonsense would you please respond to the actual statements?

Where in the scriptures does it say polygamy becomes a righteous practice? Where does it say it is NOT an abomination?
Regardless of whether or not God wants to raise up seed and allows polygamy, (which interpretation, in my opinion is NOT what the scriptures say), I do not see any scriptures at all even remotely suggesting polygamy is NOT an abomination.

God states clearly (if you believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God), that polygamy breaks the hearts of his daughters and is an abomination. Because God may need to raise up seed doesn't mean it is not an abomination... it just means he allows the abomination, allows the hearts of his daughters to be broken.

With all due respect, I truly think it is you who is twisting scripture to say what it does not say.

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Coggins7 wrote:Loran

Ask any reputable LDS historian on this. They all agree that Joseph and Fanny were sexually involved and that fanny was his first plural wife. Why do you think a number of years ago the intro to D&C 132 says Joseph Smith knew the doctrine as early as 1831.



Except for the utter lack of documentary evidence, even from Fanny herself or her family.

Take this to someone who will fall for it Jason.


I take it you don't consider Mosiah Hancock's account documentary evidence.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Runtu wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:Loran

Ask any reputable LDS historian on this. They all agree that Joseph and Fanny were sexually involved and that fanny was his first plural wife. Why do you think a number of years ago the intro to D&C 132 says Joseph Smith knew the doctrine as early as 1831.



Except for the utter lack of documentary evidence, even from Fanny herself or her family.

Take this to someone who will fall for it Jason.


I take it you don't consider Mosiah Hancock's account documentary evidence.


Why would he Runtu. It would shake his world. Fact don't matter to Coggy.
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Post by _Brackite »

Runtu wrote:
Hey, Loran, believe it or not, I used to be like you. I read NRO daily (even had a running email conversation with Rich Lowry) and FrontPage (I used to really like David Horowitz); and need I remind you I know who Paul Shanklin is. I'm still pretty conservative (ask Blixa. LOL). But here's the thing, Loran. You second Crockett's disdainful description of me and call that an archetype. If you're going to spew BS like that, expect to get something in return.

You know what's a dead giveaway with you? your vocabulary dropping. You use "ontology" and "solipsism" more than anyone I know. It's as if you have to use the vocabulary because you're not confident in your intelligence. For what it's worth, you strike me as being very intelligent but educated largely by the Internet. Drop the belligerence and the name-calling, and we might have something to talk about.




Hi There Runtu,

I still do really very much like Rich Lowry and David Horowitz. They are both very Smart and Great Conservative Commentators.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Brackite wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Hey, Loran, believe it or not, I used to be like you. I read NRO daily (even had a running email conversation with Rich Lowry) and FrontPage (I used to really like David Horowitz); and need I remind you I know who Paul Shanklin is. I'm still pretty conservative (ask Blixa. LOL). But here's the thing, Loran. You second Crockett's disdainful description of me and call that an archetype. If you're going to spew BS like that, expect to get something in return.

You know what's a dead giveaway with you? your vocabulary dropping. You use "ontology" and "solipsism" more than anyone I know. It's as if you have to use the vocabulary because you're not confident in your intelligence. For what it's worth, you strike me as being very intelligent but educated largely by the Internet. Drop the belligerence and the name-calling, and we might have something to talk about.


Hi There Runtu,

I still do really like Rich Lowry and David Horowitz. They are both Smart and Great Conservative Commentators.


I am not saying that I now have "seen the light" and thus don't like these guys. I like Rich Lowry quite a bit (and Kathryn Lopez and VDH and Larry Miller et al.). I have to admit I've soured a little on Horowitz, probably because he's so consistently polemical. And Paul Shanklin strikes me as rather juvenile.

I guess I'm still sorting out some political changes in my life, but when I look at the issues, I still lean pretty conservative. But to Cogs, I'm a lefty. But then isn't everyone? LOL
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

family search lists Joseph Smith as a husband of Fanny Alger.

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/ ... esults.asp

Fanny Alger Pedigree
Female Family

Event(s):
Birth:
30 SEP 1816 Rehoboth, Bristol, Massachusetts
Christening:
Death:
Burial:

Parents:
Father: Samuel Alger Family
Mother: Clarissa Hancock

Marriages:
Spouse: Joseph JR Smith Family
Marriage:
1835 Kirtland, , , Ohio
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Those lousy dirtbags in the Family History Department. I think they're part of the Fifth Column.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
Post Reply