Introducing .... Buckeye

[_truth dancer]

Thanks for the welcome. Though I'm not sure how you guessed I am male :)

Sort of a default thing. If I don't recognize something that identifies a poster as a woman, they usually are a guy. Just a guess. :-)

This wasn't the point of my post, but since we're on it I'll go for one more response. I'll take your word on the months vs weeks. Technically, "a few months" could also be "a few weeks". It doesn't materially affect her age. Personally, I don't think any of us should be "framing" the issue. For instance, Helen Kimball was not "a middle school girl". There was no middle school at the time. We should be wary of imposing our notions of when children become adults onto society with different notions. I think it best to let Joseph and Helen speak to whether the arrangement was "disgusting" or "cruel."

I don't go with the presentism excuse.

The way I view it, polygamy has nothing to do with this at all... it has to do with God. (I posted something about this on another thread recently, I'll have to find it).

In other words, is God down with girls and women being sexually used and abused by older married men? Does GOD think it is great for older married men to screw/"marry" the wives of other men?

I hope men aren't suggesting that God may not be ok with it today but he was fine with it a hundred years ago because that doesn't speak well for God.. ya know what I mean? ;-)

Seems to me, if there is a God, this God would not want grown married men to take advantage of girls no matter what year it was, no matter what sort of education they were a part of, no matter how long it was until their fifteenth birthday.

The point being... the idea that God sent an angel with a flaming sword to command Joseph Smith to sexually use girls just doesn't fly with me. I'm not a fan of men who use God as an excuse for their disgusting, cruel, or unholy behavior, whether it is Joseph Smith or David Koresh, or any other man.

~dancer~

[_Who Knows]

As to Helen Kimball, I will concede that it was quite unusual in Joseph's day for a woman of any age to marry an already married man. However, I don't agree that the age difference was "quite uncommon". It was not at all uncommon for younger women to marry older men. There were many reasons for marriage apart from love, such as security. Even today we see large age gaps - consider Senator McCain.

The reason that older men like to hook up with younger women is the same today as it was 170 years ago. Think about it.

And, for example, a 20 year age difference when one is 45 and the other is 25, is quite different to one where one is 35 and the other is 15 (or 30 vs. 10, or 25 vs. 5, etc.).

And as far as the OP goes, OMWO2 said about all that needed to be said. If you're asking me to trust you that you speak with god, that you receive revelation from god, that you speak for god, and you show me no proof of this, then yes, i'm going to want to know everything there is to know about you - good and bad - all the 'bad' stuff you've done, etc. - to figure out if you're trustworthy.

[_Mister Scratch]

Howdy. I’m fairly new the LDS message board scene. Most of my time has been spent at MADB.

It is sometimes argued by critics that the church should not teach anyone the gospel without first informing them of, for lack a better phrase, “the dirt.” Not being sure where to begin here, I thought I’d introduce myself by trying this out. So here are some reasons you should ignore everything I have to say:

1) I swore once. Just once, but it was a big one.
2) At a family reunion when I was a kid (eight or nine If I recall correctly) I stole a polished rock from the campground store so I could skip it across the river. I got caught.
3) I threw a baseball through my window once on accident.
4) I sometimes picked on my younger siblings growing up.
5) I sometimes struggle getting out of bed in the morning.
6) I have lied, and continue to lie, to my children about Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and El Cucuy.

I could go on, but you get the gist. Looking at the above list, I don’t expect anyone to respond to this post. But if you do, please be sure to include your bad history so that if I’m ever persuaded by your logic, I can at least fall back to impeaching your character.

I think you are misinterpreting the typical critic's argument, Buckeye---either that or I am misunderstanding what you're getting at. (A hearty welcome to the board, by the way!) I, for one, see no problem with teaching the Gospel before one gets to "the dirt." I think the chief complaint is that many feel that investigators get rushed into baptism and full commitment prior to having a good, solid grasp of the LDS Church and its history, and that they aren't given a full enough picture to make an "informed decision".

[_beastie]

First, why is someone's integrity (actually practicing what he preaches) a "signal" for evaluating whether they speak for deity? Can you point me to anyone who speaks for deity? Can you then compare that person's integrity against the integrity of non-annoited persons?

Second, I would agree that to judge someone we must "expand" the analysis and look at their behavior "general[ly]". Would you agree then, that to judge Joseph (or Brigham or whomever), we can't merely show one side of them - either their successes or their failures, but we must show both their successes and failures? It seems hypocritical for critics to lambast the church for not telling the "whole story", when their stories are themselves so one-sided. I guess facts that show Joseph or the church in a good light, while true, just aren't very useful.

That's right, God is utterly clueless when it comes to human behavior. He doesn't understand, for example, that a brand-representative's character has an impact on the brand. Businesses run by plain ole' human beings understand this, but not God.

This is what Mormon apologetics does to people. It ends up requiring you to defend the most ludicrous notions.

[_Sethbag]

First, why is someone's integrity (actually practicing what he preaches) a "signal" for evaluating whether they speak for deity?

In the Mormon church you're unworthy to pass the sacrament if you've been touching your little factory. How much less worthy one would be for sleeping around with the hired help, one's wife's friends, etc. I think it really ought to be obvious why someone's integrity is important in helping to determine whether or not that person is likely to be telling the truth when they stand up and tell the world that God Almighty has spoken to them, personally, and appointed them his deputy/viceroy/spokesman on Earth.

Can you point me to anyone who speaks for deity? Can you then compare that person's integrity against the integrity of non-annointed persons?

No, I can't point you to anyone who speaks for God. God doesn't actually exist, and every single person, down to the man, woman, and child of them, who has ever stood up and proclaimed that they were speaking for God, was either delusional, or a con artist.

Second, I would agree that to judge someone we must "expand" the analysis and look at their behavior "general[ly]". Would you agree then, that to judge Joseph (or Brigham or whomever), we can't merely show one side of them - either their successes or their failures, but we must show both their successes and failures? It seems hypocritical for critics to lambast the church for not telling the "whole story", when their stories are themselves so one-sided. I guess facts that show Joseph or the church in a good light, while true, just aren't very useful.

No. Once it's clear by one's actions and lack of integrity that it's not possible for them to really be God's spokesman on Earth, one can charitably chalk up their successes to effort, human ingenuity, skill in working people, etc. Many people succeeded at many things in life, and weren't prophets. That Joseph managed to succeed in some things isn't all that surprising. But it's impossible for him to really have been the bona-fide viceroy on Earth for Elohim the Creator of the Entire Universe.

For that matter, look what Warren Jeffs got accomplished. He got a ranch purchased, and his people built a cement factory, a stone quarry, a cheese factory, a bunch of freaking dormitory style human breeding coops, and a large white stone temple. Doesn't mean he was really a prophet.

[_OMWO2]

OMOW2 is right. All the stuff you posted would only matter *IF* you also claimed that God told you to do all those things.

I take it then that you would find irrelevant anything that Joseph did but which did not claim God told him to do - such as destroying the Expositor's press?

No actually since Joe did all the before mentioned things I find he has no credibility.

[_harmony]

Oh goodie. Another apologist to play with.

Welcome, Buckeye!

[_truth dancer]

About a week ago I heard a story on the news where a couple had purchased (If I recall correctly) an $800,000.00 home. It was a very lovely house on a hill with a gorgeous view. After a year or so, they discovered it was built on a hazardous waste site but the owner didn't tell them.

Doesn't matter how beautiful the cherry kitchen cabinets are, doesn't matter how expensive the granite counter tops are, doesn't matter how large the master closet is... fact is, they can't live in their home, they can't sell it, and they purchased their house without knowing some vital information that would have made a difference.

My guess... they would not have cared if there was a nick in the banister, a scratch on a bedroom door, or a wall that needed a little paint.

:-(

~dancer~

[_Gadianton]

2) At a family reunion when I was a kid (eight or nine If I recall correctly) I stole a polished rock from the campground store so I could skip it across the river. I got caught.

And I suppose it would have been more honest to, instead of skipping it, say you were going to go translate a Golden Bible with it, right? LOL!

[_beastie]

by the way, Buckeye, apparently THE LORD thinks that integrity matters in regards to the authority of his leaders:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

D&C 121

And yes, welcome to the board.