harmony wrote: Just keep the mantra in your head "follow the prophet". No doubt that will suffice for you.
Ah, but he's NOT following the prophet. And no doubt if Joseph Smith could come down for the day and enlighten these Mopologists, they'd feel pretty darned foolish.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
the road to hana wrote:Gosh, the church I was raised in taught that skin color absolutely was within our control, at least in the pre-existence. What decade were you born?
Ouch. Dang, hana. That one was straight to his heart.
the road to hana wrote:Your choice. Sealings are relatively meaningless without the intent of the family, and family relationships, continuing, and "eternal increase" is a hollow promise.
You obviously don't know your history. Study Pres. Woodruff's 1894 cessation of dynastic sealings. It was common then. As I have said, I have a friend who claims descent from one of Brigham Young's apostles and bears the last name of that apostle, even though another man fathered the children. The "sealed" father claimed the family when the actual father left the church. That was common; when an actual "for time" father died or apostatized, the sealed father was supposed to step forward. Sort of like being a godparent.
harmony wrote: Just keep the mantra in your head "follow the prophet". No doubt that will suffice for you.
Ah, but he's NOT following the prophet. And no doubt if Joseph Smith could come down for the day and enlighten these Mopologists, they'd feel pretty darned foolish.
It's so hard to keep the mantra and maintain some semblance of moral foundation, when Joseph is the prophet one is following.
the road to hana wrote:Gosh, the church I was raised in taught that skin color absolutely was within our control, at least in the pre-existence. What decade were you born?
Ouch. Dang, hana. That one was straight to his heart.
Weren't you one of those righteous pre-existent spirits who didn't fence-sit before coming here? I know I was, and ever so proud of it. Phew, escaped the curse of the dark skin.
harmony, isn't this discussion of celibate Joseph starting to remind you of those political conversations about whether someone has inhaled when smoking pot in the past? One says he smoked, but didn't inhale, and another says, uh, that was sort of the point.
That's what I think Joseph Smith would be saying to these doods if he could enlighten them personally. Not have sex with these women? Uh, that was sort of the point.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
harmony wrote: Just keep the mantra in your head "follow the prophet". No doubt that will suffice for you.
Ah, but he's NOT following the prophet. And no doubt if Joseph Smith could come down for the day and enlighten these Mopologists, they'd feel pretty darned foolish.
It's so hard to keep the mantra and maintain some semblance of moral foundation, when Joseph is the prophet one is following.
Droop's not even following the modern prophet.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
While you're ducking and bobbing trying to make Joseph Smith into some sexless wunderkind?
The Straw Man argument is a logical fallacy hana? Understand? Joseph may have had relations with those plural wives who were unmarried at the time of the sealing. There is no evidence that he had relations with those woman to whom he was "sealed" who were at that time, also "married".
Can we put on our thinking caps now hana, and engage the argument as it stands?
Droopy wrote:The ethical deterioration of the typical exmo is sometimes a frightening phenomena. Who hasn't been reading threads here? We have Beastie's version, and then rc posted the entire textual sample in question, with a the period Beastie had interpolated replaced with the original comma, and an entire sentence she had edited away restored.
We've all seen the result.
Is this a bald deception on your part Chap, or just an amusing head game?
Why was rc able to reproduce the correct text, while Beastie wasn't? Lack of homework? Intellectual sloppiness? Picking and choosing which source fit her template and which did not?
Beastie did not 'interpolate' anything because she did not alter the source she used in any way.
She found a source. She gave the URL. She posted the relevant text in the referenced source fully and unaltered. (Check the posts and see if you can dispute that).
rcrocket found another source with a few extra words. He has ever since been trying to get people to believe that Beastie fiddled with her material in some way. But the record (read it) shows that she did not.
Now as to whether or not the reference to Joseph Smith having been 'sealed' to Josephine's mother removes the implication of sexual relations from the statement that Josephine was Joseph Smith's daughter - I am happy to leave others to discuss that with you. You don't seem to have much of a case.
the road to hana wrote:Your choice. Sealings are relatively meaningless without the intent of the family, and family relationships, continuing, and "eternal increase" is a hollow promise.
You obviously don't know your history. Study Pres. Woodruff's 1894 cessation of dynastic sealings. It was common then. As I have said, I have a friend who claims descent from one of Brigham Young's apostles and bears the last name of that apostle, even though another man fathered the children. The "sealed" father claimed the family when the actual father left the church. That was common; when an actual "for time" father died or apostatized, the sealed father was supposed to step forward. Sort of like being a godparent.
Don't bother patronizing me. We're not talking about Woodruff; we're talking about the man who started the whole shebang, the great Joseph Smith himself, restoring the principle of plural marriage. Not dynastic sealings.
There are no "godparents" in LDS theology, no one stands in that position at baptisms even as sponsors.
I know exactly what sealings are in LDS practice and belief, and what dynastic sealings are. Again, as I've said before, it wouldn't be necessary for Sylvia to tell her daughter about a dynastic sealing on her death bed. If you thought about that the least bit logically, you'd realize how silly suggesting such a thing is.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Silver, Droop. Or chrome, depending on your point of view. I, unlike you, refuse to put my trust in anyone's arm of flesh besides my own. But you go ahead. Maintaining a relationship with men is always easier than maintaining a relationship with God. Just keep the mantra in your head "follow the prophet". No doubt that will suffice for you.
The people you can actually fool with this self absorbed rationalizational froth concern me even more than you Harmony. And those people, are they the reason you stay in the Church under false pretenses of faithful devotion to the Gospel?