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
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

asbestosman wrote:My more appropriate response is the second one, namely that assurance of knowing what is the truth is not so accessible to us and therefore we are all left making our best guess for most if not all instances.


I'm largely with you at this point, Ab. And for all my interest in constructivist theories of truth (not what you're referencing), I am still convinced that there are true propositions that, well, truly describe historical events (with or without subjective apprehension thereof), and even if we have no, or limited access, to the definitive documentation thereof. But, I think you'd probably agree with that.

[I'm bracketing propositions such as Electron X was located at point A at time-T. But, my I believe my point stands on a macroscopic level.]

Chris
_RockHeaded
_Emeritus
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:00 pm

Post by _RockHeaded »

Trevor wrote:
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.


Utah church claims? So you are some kind of throwback Reorganized apologist or something? Who cares what the LDS Church claims? What about plain old history? The only sense in which you might say Joseph did not have more than one wife is that he did not have more than one legal wife.


Okay, plain old history is Joseph Smith had only one wife... period. The Utah Church claims he had more. Is this better?

by the way, I'm not an apologist. That is rediculous.
"… 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
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

RockHeaded wrote:Okay, plain old history is Joseph Smith had only one wife... period. The Utah Church claims he had more. Is this better?


Only in your imagination. It seems your choice of handle is apt.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_RockHeaded
_Emeritus
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:00 pm

Post by _RockHeaded »

Chap wrote:
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.


That is what I am saying, he never taught it, never practiced it, nor condoned it. Brigham Young brought it in. That is why Emma Smith hated him so much. If Joseph Smith hadn't been killed he most likely would have ousted Brigham Young as well.
"… 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
_RockHeaded
_Emeritus
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:00 pm

Post by _RockHeaded »

Trevor wrote:
RockHeaded wrote:Okay, plain old history is Joseph Smith had only one wife... period. The Utah Church claims he had more. Is this better?


Only in your imagination. It seems your choice of handle is apt.


LOL believe what you like. Attack all you like. Doesn't matter to me. I've most likely read more about this history than you have, thus my conclusion is different. You believe this history because the Utah Church promoted so well.
"… 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
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

RockHeaded wrote:That is what I am saying, he never taught it, never practiced it, nor condoned it. Brigham Young brought it in. That is why Emma Smith hated him so much. If Joseph Smith hadn't been killed he most likely would have ousted Brigham Young as well.


There is far too much evidence out there to contradict this position. It astounds me that you would still espouse this view that has been proven false many times over. I doubt the leadership of the Community of Christ buys this nonsense.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

RockHeaded wrote:
Chap wrote:
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.


That is what I am saying, he never taught it, never practiced it, nor condoned it. Brigham Young brought it in. That is why Emma Smith hated him so much. If Joseph Smith hadn't been killed he most likely would have ousted Brigham Young as well.


RH: Would you really give Todd Comptom (a still-faithful Latter-day Saint) a fair hearing (specifically in his tome In Sacred Loneliness)? Compton's research has been manifestly rejected by Utah Mormon apologetic endeavors. Interestingly, while they paint Compton's near-immaculate research as flawed by unwarranted speculation, they [i.e., Anderson, Faulring, and Bachman] don't disagree with one of Compton's historically-manifest givens: that Joseph Smith has multiple wives.

You can find Compton's response to his Utah LDS interlocutors here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/rev.html.

I hope Compton's response will soon find a broader audience, at least among those who are interested. I've got it nearly typeset for publication as I type this, though Compton knows nothing of that at present. Of course, I won't proceed without his approval, but I needn't even do so, given that his response is available to you now via the provided link.

Chris
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

RockHeaded wrote:Okay, plain old history is Joseph Smith had only one wife... period. The Utah Church claims he had more. Is this better?

by the way, I'm not an apologist. That is ridiculous.


Well, Rock, then why are there 33 (going from memory?) wives listed on FamilySearch.org for Joseph Smith? How do you explain that?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Sam Harris wrote:Jersey Girl, I will keep this short.

I saw the initial thread in which B&L acted with utter glee that he could go online and chat with missionaries. He is doing so in order to harass Mormons. His posts clearly state that, but I understand why he is defended.


You say that you understand why he is defended and yet, you don't say why. So tell me, why is he defended?

What I do not understand is why it is ok to continue to dwell on what the church did to you, but if you take the same actions that go on here and apply it to any other demographic, it's not ok.


If you're talking about Porter, maybe he had a recent reminder of what the church did to him.

You make a strange statement. "But if you take the same actions that go on here and apply it to any other demographic, it's not okay."

What are you thinking about? What you wrote next?

Mormons have the same cultural and social problems as many other groups. Why single them out? It would not be okay for me to go up to the average black person in the projects and proceed to "talk" to them with the intent to "educate", knowing that my thoughts deemed them less than me for the choices they've made. It is not ok for me to put them in situations that would embarrass them or demean them (oh, but you don't know that happened!!!), because I made different choices that put me in a different place in my life.


You're asking me why single out Mormons on a discussion board titled "Mormon Discussions" based on a post made regarding interaction with Mormon missionaries? The answer should be obvious.

I have plenty of statistic family members that I could apply the same logic used here to. I could argue with them, I could tell them how they're living their life in the "wrong" way, I could go on and on. And it wouldn't be worth a damn, if they themselves had not come to the conclusion on their own that a change was needed. So I let them sit in the victim mentality of how all white people are out to get them, I let them stay on public assistance that they don't need, and that I won't get (childcare vouchers) when my baby is born. I let them continue in their lives, because it is theirs, and no thought or opinion of mine is going to change theirs until they are ready and open to recieve the information that I have.


Nothing in Porter's comments indicate that he told the missionary that he/she was living their life in the "wrong" way. Does it occur to you that Porter's interaction with the missionaries could lead to further research on their part that would allow them to make a choice regarding their membership/activity if they saw fit? Porter didn't share his "thoughts and opinions". He shared facts.

Yes, many of you on here have found a better way. But you fail to understand that some people don't want your better way, and you need to back off.


Porter didn't share a "better way". He shared facts.

I don't think that many people here are that concerned for LDS. I really do not. I think there is a lot of bitterness about past experiences, and people are using "concern" as an excuse. You go up to people who may not even be expecting you to, and proceed to tell them things from your point of view (I'm speaking in general to the exmo who feels his POV is the "right" one), as if they need to hear you.


You're asking people to mindread others regarding what they expect. Porter didn't share a POV, he shared facts. The facts that he shared aren't "right" or "wrong". They were factual.

It is my belief that no one individual, or even the group on here who wish to are going to make the LDS church fall. I'm sorry, it's not going to happen. Sure, things are changing, but it will take many many more years, if not generations. Face that.


That it could take "many many more years" is not relevant to people sharing facts in the hopes of change. That change does occur, is what is relevant.

To me, it is ok to go up to a person who is actively questioning and seeking, or even a person who is investigating and talk to them. But it is not okay to take a happy person and disillusion them because you think it is right. Please, let's have a tally of folks on this board who have not one illusion in life.


The "happy person" is a missionary voluntarily manning an online chat forum. If Christ operated by your mindset, he would have let humankind remain in their "illusions" and the cross would never have happened.

I do not approve of or agree with messing with another person's life path. Period. There is a lesson to be learned in every step we take, and it is not up to any of you to determine the order of someone else's steps. Leave them be and let them figure it out on their own. If they are meant to learn the "truth of the church", then they will do so. Like I said before, it's amazing how those on here who don't believe in God and are most vehement about that like to play God.


A person's life path? To use a typical EV analogy. If Porter saw a train coming full speed at a person (missionary) he shouldn't try to shove them off the track? People don't "figure it out on their own", Sam. They figure it out from being presented with facts. What if Porter isn't "playing God"? What if Porter is being used by God?

According to the Bible, Jesus hung on a cross in order to "mess with" people's life path.

But I know I'm in the minority, so I'll leave it be. Romper room wins. I just know that I'd be so much less of a person if I took every LDS friend I had, many of whom have been so good to me, tending to me when I was ill, feeding me, praying with me, and pump up a debate, based on what I've seen and experienced. What you don't know, is I've had my conversations with all of my friends, they know why I left. I am not about to upset the pattern of their life based on my beliefs. They are stable, happy, and highly intelligent individuals. I am not messing with that.


Well maybe you should mess with it.

And I'll never do it with any other Mormon. If they openly say they're questioning, we can talk. But until that point is reached, I'll mind my own business.


Seriously, this thread isn't about what you would do. It's about what Porter did. He shared facts.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_RockHeaded
_Emeritus
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:00 pm

Post by _RockHeaded »

Trevor wrote:
RockHeaded wrote:That is what I am saying, he never taught it, never practiced it, nor condoned it. Brigham Young brought it in. That is why Emma Smith hated him so much. If Joseph Smith hadn't been killed he most likely would have ousted Brigham Young as well.


There is far too much evidence out there to contradict this position. It astounds me that you would still espouse this view that has been proven false many times over. I doubt the leadership of the Community of Christ buys this nonsense.


Never proven false in a court of law. The court of law found that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, non-biased court. The evidence (as I've stated before) has been contradicted so many times by those that made the evidence. Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, and Hyrum for that matter never contradicted their stories. I still find it hard to believe why it is so easy to believe people that contradict each other, and themselves, over someone that tells us the same thing. The CofC is a joke, what ever it is they believe this week may be different next week. They are just trying to get accepted in the world community of churches or whatever it is they call that.
"… 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
Post Reply