Mad Viking wrote:Nice try. The timeline and manner in which polygamy was instituted into the LDS church is nothing short of dishonest. You have done nothing but dodge the valid questions posed to you with regard to this matter.
Dishonest to who? The people trying to kill us? Boo-hoo. The disinterested who could care less? They don't care. The general membership not living the Gospel well enough to receive this light? That was their own fault.
Your god condones such lying?
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace
Mad Viking wrote:And yet his later "revelation" was not doctrine. Why did it take him eight years to deliver the superceding revelation?
Because he was giving revelation on God's timetable and not his and the Saints weren't worthy of what they had, let alone more.
You've stopped addressing questions directly.
The facts:
1. Joseph Smith started taking plural wives in 1833 (Fanny). 2. In 1835 monogamous marriage was made the official doctrine of the church with the origininal statement on marriage. 3. In 1841 Joseph stepped up his polygamous practices by taking more wives. 4. He continued a steady pace throughout 1843. 5. In the spring of 1843 (May, I think) he delivered a "revelation" justifying his polygamous actions to his wife and those closest to him who were aware of his secret actions. 6. Polygamous marriages continued contrary to official church doctrine until the D&C was changed in 1875. 7. In response to accusations of polygamous practices, Joseph lied to the general church membership, the public, and law enforcement officials until his death. At times he even used the official statement on marriage in the D&C as a defense. 8. Not once did he seek to set the record straight about his practices or God's true will.
Number one is a speculation based on an angry letter by Oliver. So I think stating it as a fact is probably dangerous (unless you've had revelation on the matter).
In regards to six, we have official Church doctrine? News to me. I would have thought if we do that the open teachings of Brigham Young and others might count too.
In regards to seven, CFR.
In regards to eight, he didn't get much of a chance. A lawless mob shot him.
Nehor,
I gave you reference to Smith's publishing of the 1841 Times and Seasons article declaring only one rule of the church on marriage. Smith also declared that he had but one wife (while being accused of having seven) in his statements on May 26, 1844 contained in the HOC ( History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 408-412).
Church historical records on his marriages are clear that he was married to several women before the the 1841 publication and even more before his speech in 1844.
So was he lying about having only one wife, or was he lying about the church having only one rule on marriage?
It's a very straightforward question based on very basic and well documented facts - something you seem to be in denial of!
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
I'm under obligation to believe only what the Spirit verifies to me. Every obligation in the Church is directly to God. I have no vows, oaths, or covenants owed to anyone in the Church. I like it this way. When I act on revelation I receive I act alone with only God being the final judge.
It is a nice way for believers (of any religion) to do as they wish, pick and chose what they will or will not obey, and not follow the commandments, rules, or teachings of their religion.
The "God said" excuse is a good one. :-(
If a non-believer commits a crime they are condemned.
If a believer commits the same crime but says God told them to do it, somehow that is supposed to negate the horror of the crime.
Funny.
Just blame God and all is well. OK.
~dancer~
So you're complaining that the Church isn't controlling enough? Fair enough, but I disagree.
Now quite sure how you arrived at this conclusion. My point has nothing to do with the controlling aspects of the church.
The point is, again, people use the "God said" excuse to get away with murder, (or affairs, or racism, or sexism, or whatever).
It is a convenient excuse for people to engage in and justify whatever behavior they wish.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Mad Viking wrote:And yet his later "revelation" was not doctrine. Why did it take him eight years to deliver the superceding revelation?
Because he was giving revelation on God's timetable and not his and the Saints weren't worthy of what they had, let alone more.
You've stopped addressing questions directly.
The facts:
1. Joseph Smith started taking plural wives in 1833 (Fanny). 2. In 1835 monogamous marriage was made the official doctrine of the church with the origininal statement on marriage. 3. In 1841 Joseph stepped up his polygamous practices by taking more wives. 4. He continued a steady pace throughout 1843. 5. In the spring of 1843 (May, I think) he delivered a "revelation" justifying his polygamous actions to his wife and those closest to him who were aware of his secret actions. 6. Polygamous marriages continued contrary to official church doctrine until the D&C was changed in 1875. 7. In response to accusations of polygamous practices, Joseph lied to the general church membership, the public, and law enforcement officials until his death. At times he even used the official statement on marriage in the D&C as a defense. 8. Not once did he seek to set the record straight about his practices or God's true will.
Number one is a speculation based on an angry letter by Oliver. So I think stating it as a fact is probably dangerous (unless you've had revelation on the matter).
In regards to six, we have official Church doctrine? News to me. I would have thought if we do that the open teachings of Brigham Young and others might count too.
In regards to seven, CFR.
In regards to eight, he didn't get much of a chance. A lawless mob shot him.
Nehor,
I gave you reference to Smith's publishing of the 1841 Times and Seasons article declaring only one rule of the church on marriage. Smith also declared that he had but one wife (while being accused of having seven) in his statements on May 26, 1844 contained in the HOC ( History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 408-412).
Church historical records on his marriages are clear that he was married to several women before the the 1841 publication and even more before his speech in 1844.
So was he lying about having only one wife, or was he lying about the church having only one rule on marriage?
It's a very straightforward question based on very basic and well documented facts - something you seem to be in denial of!
Not really that straightforward and well documented, unless you can come up with these marriage certificates.
"… 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
The Nehor wrote:...for some reason apostates expect to understand greater light and knowledge when they don't get the first principles. This tends to lead to delusional thinking.....this board for example.
Oh that is fresh.
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace
The Nehor wrote:...for some reason apostates expect to understand greater light and knowledge when they don't get the first principles. This tends to lead to delusional thinking.....this board for example.
Oh that is fresh.
The only problem being that the membership of the LDS Church doesn't seem to get them either, and should be open to precisely the same charge.
“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 wrote: Not really that straightforward and well documented, unless you can come up with these marriage certificates.
If I did, you would then counter that they were not notarized! I know the game.
You must believe the LDS Church is out to deceive it's own members by allowing fraudulent information about it's founding prophet's marriages to be included on its own protected website. The mental gymnastics are incredible!
Anything to avoid answering the direct question.
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
RockHeaded wrote: Not really that straightforward and well documented, unless you can come up with these marriage certificates.
If I did, you would then counter that they were not notarized! I know the game.
You must believe the LDS Church is out to deceive it's own members by allowing fraudulent information about it's founding prophet's marriages to be included on its own protected website. The mental gymnastics are incredible!
Anything to avoid answering the direct question.
Oh, I know that the LDS Church is out to deceive it's own members, they've been doing it for so long that they themselves don't even know where the deception ends or begins.
But you cannot come up with them because they do not exist, therefore the notarized question is mute.
"… 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
I'm under obligation to believe only what the Spirit verifies to me. Every obligation in the Church is directly to God. I have no vows, oaths, or covenants owed to anyone in the Church. I like it this way. When I act on revelation I receive I act alone with only God being the final judge.
It is a nice way for believers (of any religion) to do as they wish, pick and chose what they will or will not obey, and not follow the commandments, rules, or teachings of their religion.
The "God said" excuse is a good one. :-(
If a non-believer commits a crime they are condemned.
If a believer commits the same crime but says God told them to do it, somehow that is supposed to negate the horror of the crime.
Funny.
Just blame God and all is well. OK.
~dancer~
So you're complaining that the Church isn't controlling enough? Fair enough, but I disagree.
Now quite sure how you arrived at this conclusion. My point has nothing to do with the controlling aspects of the church.
The point is, again, people use the "God said" excuse to get away with murder, (or affairs, or racism, or sexism, or whatever).
It is a convenient excuse for people to engage in and justify whatever behavior they wish.
~dancer~
I arrived at this conclusion because you said above: "It is a nice way for believers (of any religion) to do as they wish, pick and chose what they will or will not obey, and not follow the commandments, rules, or teachings of their religion."
The obvious counter to this would be for the Church to crack down on this 'rebelliousness'. Of course what you said could also also apply to those who do not believe in God as they "wish, pick and chose what they will or will not obey". Thousands justify whatever behavior they wish. You seem to want religion to check behavior while on this board I've heard you protest that you don't need religion to be moral. Aren't you in this same danger?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:...for some reason apostates expect to understand greater light and knowledge when they don't get the first principles. This tends to lead to delusional thinking.....this board for example.
Oh that is fresh.
The only problem being that the membership of the LDS Church doesn't seem to get them either, and should be open to precisely the same charge.
Amen, hence why we are still under condemnation.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo