Fun w/ online missionaries: NY TIMES on 14 year old bride!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

My belief is that the vast majority of Mormons don't care about anti-Mormon literature or Mormon apologetics. And, I say, that is all the better for them.


Very true, Trevor. So why not leave it at that? What is the point of approaching people who you may not have had contact with otherwise, under the pretense of educating them about the truths of Mormonism?

I left the church, not because of history or doctrine. Mainstream Christianity has just as much outlandishness within it as the LDS church does. Every religious group does, they all have their beliefs which can be seen as illusion, none of which can be proven. If it makes you a better and happier person, who is anyone to challenge that?

I left because I felt that I could not fully express who I see myself to be as a Mormon. I care not one whit about Joseph Smith or Mormon doctrine. The same problems in Mormon doctrine can be applied to religion all across the board, everyone has their myths and stories. I will not single one out above the other.

I had my period of anger, then I woke up one day and realized that the viciousness of those who attacked me for questioning and leaving the church didn't matter, beacause I define who I am. Then it all ceased to matter.

Leave the church, talk to those who want to talk to you, who are seeking out the information you have because of your path. THEY will listen to you and find value in your words. Seeking out people who do not want to hear from you is forcing yourself on them.

I swear, if I were to apply B&L's logic to any other demographic, or even my family, I'd be wrong.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Sam:

Maybe it's not about "life paths." Maybe it's about what's true vs. what's false.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Boaz & Lidia wrote:
RockHeaded wrote:
Boaz & Lidia wrote:
RockHeaded wrote:Got a question. Is there a marriage license for Joseph Smith and Hellen Kimball?
yes there is.


Where?
I am not sure, but you can bet it does exist. Otherwise why would they list it as a MARRIAGE on their website???


There is no marriage license. None of JSs plural marriages were legal or sanctioned by the state. This does not mean it was not a plural marriage in the LDS sealing sense.
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Boaz & Lidia wrote:
RockHeaded wrote:
Boaz & Lidia wrote:
RockHeaded wrote:Got a question. Is there a marriage license for Joseph Smith and Hellen Kimball?
yes there is.


Where?
I am not sure, but you can bet it does exist. Otherwise why would they list it as a MARRIAGE on their website???


There is no marriage license. None of JSs plural marriages were legal or sanctioned by the state. This does not mean it was not a plural marriage in the LDS sealing sense.


Or in 'the matrimonial relations' sense.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Dr. Shades wrote:Sam:

Maybe it's not about "life paths." Maybe it's about what's true vs. what's false.


Your truth doesn't have to be everyone else's. Sorry, but THAT is the truth.

Let these people alone to live their lives. Stop playing God, it is not up to you to determine how they think or what they think. The information is out there, they can find it on their own, if they truly wish to.

Like I said before, if this were applied to any other demographic, it would be so wrong. And you all know it.

I have never heard of any recovery system that actually encourages the stagnation that recovery from Mormonism does. If a drug dealer or an alcoholic were to spend the years justifying their behavior the way folks do on here, people would tell them to move on.

I have no pity, because I've seen and endured far worse, and came out happy. I know that trying to get my family to see "the truth" would be a long and painful process for everyone involved, and there is no guarantee that it would turn out the way I want. Upsetting their boat would just be hateful and malicious. They have access to the same information that proved to be my salvation, and the fact that I moved away from their behavior (drugs, teenage parenting, lack of education, whitemanouttogetmesyndrome) is in itself a testimony, just like exmos are living testimonies of the world outside the church to their LDS kin. Some have family members who follow, many like me have family members who revile them. I refuse to waste my time on people who do not want to see. IT IS THEIR LIFE PATH, AND THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHOICES THEY MAKE. NOT ME.

I made my choice, I moved on. And I'm so amused at how I need to move on when someone s***s on my character in the worst possible way, but you all can dwell on crap that happened years ago. My recent outrage is nothing, but you all deserve to keep doing what you're doing.

Sure.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_RockHeaded
_Emeritus
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:00 pm

Post by _RockHeaded »

For the record, as Shades pointed out, I do NOT believe Joseph Smith had more than one wife. I don't care what the Utah Church claims.

Joseph Smith had one wife, and yes I do believe there was a license for that marriage.

For these other wives that are claimed to be Josephs, there were not Temple records of these marriages, no license. I know the obvious explaination is because it's kept secrete. The problem is, Joseph Smith always spoke out against polygamy, was excommunicating polygamists, and was involved in a defamation of charactor lawsuit against a lawyer who claimed Joseph was a polygamist. The suit never went to court because he was killed.

I know Todd Compton, we emailed back and forth for quite a while. I know he did a lot of research and was very sincere in his work. Unfortunately he discounts contradictions and uses the conclusions that best went along with his beliefs. I know he made claims that Joseph Smith had some children with these wives, one of them he was certain of. The Utah Church has been trying to find these decendants of Joseph Smith through DNA. Thus far they haven't found any, which should raise some sort of questions from those that claimed Joseph Smith had some children from these marriages, shouldn't it? They will never find polygamist decendants from Joseph Smith becuase he didn't have these wives. It just didn't happen.

When I have time I think maybe a thread about section 132 should be posted. Joseph Smith couldn't have written it, God couldn't have given it. Joseph Smith never has contradicted himself, why would he with 132? And why that one occasion? It doesn't add up.

RockHeaded
"… Do you believe Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship. I am just as ready to die defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination." Joseph Smith jr. Sermon, 1843
_Boaz & Lidia
_Emeritus
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:31 am

Post by _Boaz & Lidia »

RockHeaded wrote: When I have time I think maybe a thread about section 132 should be posted. Joseph Smith couldn't have written it, God couldn't have given it. Joseph Smith never has contradicted himself, why would he with 132? And why that one occasion? It doesn't add up.

RockHeaded
You do realize section 132 is the foundation to their "eternal marriage/families"
_RockHeaded
_Emeritus
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:00 pm

Post by _RockHeaded »

Boaz & Lidia wrote:
RockHeaded wrote: When I have time I think maybe a thread about section 132 should be posted. Joseph Smith couldn't have written it, God couldn't have given it. Joseph Smith never has contradicted himself, why would he with 132? And why that one occasion? It doesn't add up.

RockHeaded
You do realize section 132 is the foundation to their "eternal marriage/families"


yes I do.
"… Do you believe Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship. I am just as ready to die defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination." Joseph Smith jr. Sermon, 1843
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Thanks for the information B&L. I am now connected to the NYT, and have e-mailed myself a copy of the article. Couldn't have done it without you. ;-)

Sam Harris, thanks to you as well for expressing your thoughts and sharing you experience. I think with careful reading you will find many who do not delight in casting darts & arrows at others in any degree of pleasure. That others do is simply a matter of personal disposition. The bi-product of their disposition might however, inform MDB members of things they might otherwise not know. B&L being a case in point...

I do not want to unduly discomfort the weak-&-meek amongst us. However, with the 'Professionals'--leaders/promulgators/teachers, and the brash-&-bold, i simply assume the right and pleasure of consensual intercourse. My purpose is to learn and share information AND understandings of subjects of mutual interest. For me that is Christianism in general, and LDSism in particular. This IS THE PLACE to do so, thanks to Doc & all. Warm regards, Roger
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Post by _Chap »

RockHeaded wrote:For the record, as Shades pointed out, I do NOT believe Joseph Smith had more than one wife. I don't care what the Utah Church claims.

Joseph Smith had one wife, and yes I do believe there was a license for that marriage.

For these other wives that are claimed to be Josephs, there were not Temple records of these marriages, no license. I know the obvious explaination is because it's kept secrete. The problem is, Joseph Smith always spoke out against polygamy, was excommunicating polygamists, and was involved in a defamation of charactor lawsuit against a lawyer who claimed Joseph was a polygamist. The suit never went to court because he was killed.

I know Todd Compton, we emailed back and forth for quite a while. I know he did a lot of research and was very sincere in his work. Unfortunately he discounts contradictions and uses the conclusions that best went along with his beliefs. I know he made claims that Joseph Smith had some children with these wives, one of them he was certain of. The Utah Church has been trying to find these decendants of Joseph Smith through DNA. Thus far they haven't found any, which should raise some sort of questions from those that claimed Joseph Smith had some children from these marriages, shouldn't it? They will never find polygamist decendants from Joseph Smith becuase he didn't have these wives. It just didn't happen.

When I have time I think maybe a thread about section 132 should be posted. Joseph Smith couldn't have written it, God couldn't have given it. Joseph Smith never has contradicted himself, why would he with 132? And why that one occasion? It doesn't add up.

RockHeaded



So you are saying that Joseph Smith neither taught nor practised polygamy, right? Please confirm.

Who started LDS polygamy, then, in your opinion? Brigham Young? If not, who, and when?

These are straight questions - no ironic intent.
Post Reply