That doesn't sound right

[_Some Schmo]

I find it amusing and disconcerting that many of us are uncomfortable letting members know truth.

If our loved ones and/or friends were involved in any other organization that required unbelievable amounts of time and money, and we discovered they were unaware of some significant truths or information that may cause them to rethink their participation, we would most certainly alert them.

This is a really good point, TD.

I remember being in the unenviable position of finding out the wife of one of my best friends was having an affair. Confronted with the question, "Should I tell him?" it seemed obvious that I should. I mean, if I were in his shoes, I'd certainly want to know.

So I told him, and it has forever changed our relationship. Immediately, this thing went up between us, despite the fact that he claims he is grateful to me for telling him.

Would I do it again? Damn straight I would. The thing is, perhaps our relationship would have been better off if I'd kept that information to myself, but could I really consider myself his friend? I'm just not into cheap, superficial relationships. And if I ever found out my wife was having an affair, a friend of mine knew and didn't tell me, they likely wouldn't be my friend for long.

I'm not saying that people should go out of their way to let every Mormon know what a crock their church is, but I do think one should feel this sort of obligation toward their friends.

Course, this guy is just a co-worker of yours, and given that relationship is far more tenuous, I wouldn't be purposely volunteering the information either.

It is, however, the "tough love" thing to do, in my opinion.

[_antishock8]

I don't see why anyone would feel the need to spare a Believer's feelings about their faith. Its fantasy, and a damagin one at that. We should be actively discouraging this kind of mindset, and not giving safe harbor to the kinds of ideologies that damage the human spirit.

My discomfort wasn't about sparing someone the truth. But there are better ways of sharing the truth than hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat.

Well. That's just it. You're not "hitting him over the head with a baseball bat". You're being honest and sincere. That's a good thing. You weren't being rude or shocking. If THEY react in a manner that make YOU feel uncomfortable then that's on them, but you didn't do anything bad. I'm not sure why you feel so insecure about sharing REAL events and REAL facts with Believers about their faith. This needs to be done, and it needs to be done confidently and unapologetically. When you attempt to appease them because you're worried about their sensibilities you only empower them. That's unneeded.

[_skippy the dead]

Well it would appear that John's thread has been deemed "personal" (WTF?) and naughty for discussing Joseph Smith's "sexual behavior" (can't have that!), and has been closed.

I think that although John used an event that occurred to him as a starting point for the discussion, it was not "personal." I think that the mods are looking for ways to further limit John's participation over there; perhaps he is too civil for their tastes.

I did want to comment on one of John's statements about polyandry. He said:

First of all, I understand that polyandry is a complicated issue. I do not believe and have never once said that "it was all about sex." It wasn't.

I'd add that it wasn't all about sex (although I suppose that sex was a prominent reason). It was also about power exerted by Joseph Smith over the husbands involved. What better way to keep followers in line than to have a constant threat about taking their wives for his own?

I do find it fascinating how members want to keep sex out of the equation, since it really does cast Joseph Smith in an extremely bad light if they were to admit sex was involved.

[_antishock8]

Oh my god. This is the reason why could never post on MA&D:

Speculation about the prophet's sexual behavior is unacceptable here. Thread closed.

John W: Please break your habit of starting personal threads in this folder.

Skylla

They've deified this man, Joseph Smith. What's next? Images of Joseph Smith will someday warrant death? Don't they understand how dangerous it is to make someone untouchable because their feelings will get hurt? Short-sighted a**holes. I will never waste my time at MA&D again. Ugh.

[_Some Schmo]

I'd add that it wasn't all about sex (although I suppose that sex was a prominent reason). It was also about power exerted by Joseph Smith over the husbands involved. What better way to keep followers in line than to have a constant threat about taking their wives for his own?

I do find it fascinating how members want to keep sex out of the equation, since it really does cast Joseph Smith in an extremely bad light if they were to admit sex was involved.

Did his followers know about his wife grabbing (which is to say, was it common knowledge)? I ask because I really don't know. If it was common knowledge, then I agree: excellent way to demonstrate his power.

I have to say, however, that kind of demonstration of power doesn't really cast him in a much better light than his suspected sexual adventures do... unless you're a Mormon, I guess, and certain forms of sex (ie anything but married missionary position sex) are next to murder.

[_skippy the dead]

I'd add that it wasn't all about sex (although I suppose that sex was a prominent reason). It was also about power exerted by Joseph Smith over the husbands involved. What better way to keep followers in line than to have a constant threat about taking their wives for his own?

I do find it fascinating how members want to keep sex out of the equation, since it really does cast Joseph Smith in an extremely bad light if they were to admit sex was involved.

Did his followers know about his wife grabbing (which is to say, was it common knowledge)? I ask because I really don't know. If it was common knowledge, then I agree: excellent way to demonstrate his power.

I have to say, however, that kind of demonstration of power doesn't really cast him in a much better light than his suspected sexual adventures do... unless you're a Mormon, I guess, and certain forms of sex (ie anything but married missionary position sex) are next to murder.

I haven't conducted any significant research into this area, but based on human nature, I would suppose that the men would discuss matters amongst themselves, including the fact that the prophet had asked for a wife. Perhaps John knows?

I didn't expect the power issue to cast Joseph Smith in a better light; rather the opposite. This is a man who found a way to indulge sexual appetites and increase power with one "doctrine." Quite brilliant, really. I would expect LDS to be opposed to either reasoning.

[_Some Schmo]

I didn't expect the power issue to cast Joseph Smith in a better light; rather the opposite. This is a man who found a way to indulge sexual appetites and increase power with one "doctrine." Quite brilliant, really. I would expect LDS to be opposed to either reasoning.

Most definitely. I would too. I just think that most Mormons have a bigger hair up their butts concering sexuality than they do abuses of power. The amount of air time sexuality gets at church is significantly higher than that of corruption due to power, and it completely stands to reason. The last thing church leaders what to point out is that it's bad for leaders to abuse their power. They wouldn't want the sheep thinking about poor leadership all that much.

[_Runtu]

After all the denial and attacks on me over there, they closed the thread, chastising me for "speculating" on the sexual behavior of Joseph Smith. And they added something about my having a habit of starting personal threads.

[_ozemc]

What was the quote, I believe it was from Brigham Young, that a higher authority figure in the Prieshood had the right to lay claim on another mans wife?

Anyone got that reference?

The Second Way in which a wife can be seperated from her husband, while he continues to be faithful to his God and his preisthood, I have not revealed, except to a few persons in this Church; and a few have received it from Joseph the prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the preisthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is ... there is no need for a bill of divorcement ... To recapitulate. First if a man forfiets his covenants with a wife, or wives, becoming unfaithful to his God, and his preisthood, that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second. If a woman claimes protection at the hands of a man, possessing more power in the preisthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife he can do so without a bill of divorcement.

Heh. I'm a high priest, so does that mean your wife can trade up for me? :)

According to this board, you're a god! :-)

[_Yoda]

I didn't expect the power issue to cast Joseph Smith in a better light; rather the opposite. This is a man who found a way to indulge sexual appetites and increase power with one "doctrine." Quite brilliant, really. I would expect LDS to be opposed to either reasoning.

Most definitely. I would too. I just think that most Mormons have a bigger hair up their butts concering sexuality than they do abuses of power. The amount of air time sexuality gets at church is significantly higher than that of corruption due to power, and it completely stands to reason. The last thing church leaders what to point out is that it's bad for leaders to abuse their power. They wouldn't want the sheep thinking about poor leadership all that much.

Actually, I don't really see the LDS Church emphasizing sexuality as a sin anymore than other hard line Christian denominations do.

Adultery is considered a sin for everyone who believes in the Ten Commandments. So is sex before marriage.

I don't think this is really a big shocker to anyone who attends Church.

I think the difference comes in with the frequency that Mormons attend Church. The Mormon faith is more of a culture than a religion in a lot of aspects. I'm in my 40's, and grew up in the Church. It was not uncommon for me to be at some type of church related activity 2-3 times per week, sometimes more. When I was in High School, then you had seminary. Basically, you were involved in Church every single day at that point.