Up for mo'pologizing: 1835 edition of D&C 101:4

[_The Nehor]

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?

No, but Joseph might have done it anyways.

[_truth dancer]

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?

You missed the point. Let me try again.

NON-believers don't use God as an excuse. Only believers do. Seems believers use the "God said" excuse even when it is contrary to their doctrine or teaching.

If a non-believer abuses a child, there are consequences and no one thinks it is OK. There is no "God said" excuse.

If a believer abuses a child, and claims GOD TOLD THEM TO, they somehow think it is OK.

Or, if a guy flies a plane into a building most folks think it is a horrible thing.

However, if a guy flies a plane into a building and says God told him to do so, he (and fellow believers) somehow think it is all well and good.

The "God said" excuse gets a lot of mileage.

~dancer~

[_Mad Viking]

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?

No, but Joseph might have done it anyways.

That pretty much sums it up for me. Thanks for the exchange.

[_RockHeaded]

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?

No, but Joseph might have done it anyways.

This is what I don't understand. I've had many Utah Mormons state the Joseph Smith lied, and he lied for God. For some reason they say it is okay to lie if you are doing it for God. So basically it is okay to lie if you are doing it for God otherwise you are breaking a commandment given to us by God. I don't understand any of this, but for the record I am going to make this clear again, I DO NOT believe Joseph Smith was a polygamist. DNA is proving that he had no children from these supposed marriages.

[_Mad Viking]

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?

No, but Joseph might have done it anyways.

This is what I don't understand. I've had many Utah Mormons state the Joseph Smith lied, and he lied for God. For some reason they say it is okay to lie if you are doing it for God. So basically it is okay to lie if you are doing it for God otherwise you are breaking a commandment given to us by God. I don't understand any of this, but for the record I am going to make this clear again, I DO NOT believe Joseph Smith was a polygamist. DNA is proving that he had no children from these supposed marriages.

DNA cannot prove that he wasn't a polygamist. DNA can prove that any given individual is/is not his offspring/relation. Lack of offspring does not prove that he wasn't married to more than one woman.

[_truth dancer]

This is what I don't understand. I've had many Utah Mormons state the Joseph Smith lied, and he lied for God. For some reason they say it is okay to lie if you are doing it for God. So basically it is okay to lie if you are doing it for God otherwise you are breaking a commandment given to us by God. I don't understand any of this, but for the record I am going to make this clear again, I DO NOT believe Joseph Smith was a polygamist. DNA is proving that he had no children from these supposed marriages.

Have you read the evidence RH? In Sacred Loneliness for example? I think it is difficult to deny Joseph Smith had multiple women. (I think they were more like concubines than wives, still...).

And it makes no difference if he had children from his other relationships.

If you think about it, he had at least 33 additional women, which means he wasn't sleeping with any of them very frequently. He was still in a relationship with Emma, (Joseph Smith was hiding his relationships from her), so had to be discrete. And, he was involved in all sorts of work, traveling here and there, escaping from the bad guys, etc. etc. The chance that he impregnated other women seems pretty slim, in my opinion.

[_The Nehor]

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?

You missed the point. Let me try again.

NON-believers don't use God as an excuse. Only believers do. Seems believers use the "God said" excuse even when it is contrary to their doctrine or teaching.

If a non-believer abuses a child, there are consequences and no one thinks it is OK. There is no "God said" excuse.

If a believer abuses a child, and claims GOD TOLD THEM TO, they somehow think it is OK.

Or, if a guy flies a plane into a building most folks think it is a horrible thing.

However, if a guy flies a plane into a building and says God told him to do so, he (and fellow believers) somehow think it is all well and good.

The "God said" excuse gets a lot of mileage.

~dancer~

Yes, but God is hardly alone in this. Replace God with 'the cause demands' or 'the future demands' or 'for the good of the people' and you have the same level of justification. Everyone these days seems to be innocent in their own eyes with a ready justification for why they did what they did. Adulterers always have a good reason, murderers always have a good reason, embezzlers always have a good reason. Their reasons uniformly suck to everyone else but there you go. I have ways I justify many of my faults and I suspect you have the same problem. Why should what the justification is matter to you?

[_Joey]

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!

Nehor,

Again, care to give a direct answer to the question above?

[_Mad Viking]

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?

You missed the point. Let me try again.

NON-believers don't use God as an excuse. Only believers do. Seems believers use the "God said" excuse even when it is contrary to their doctrine or teaching.

If a non-believer abuses a child, there are consequences and no one thinks it is OK. There is no "God said" excuse.

If a believer abuses a child, and claims GOD TOLD THEM TO, they somehow think it is OK.

Or, if a guy flies a plane into a building most folks think it is a horrible thing.

However, if a guy flies a plane into a building and says God told him to do so, he (and fellow believers) somehow think it is all well and good.

The "God said" excuse gets a lot of mileage.

~dancer~

Yes, but God is hardly alone in this. Replace God with 'the cause demands' or 'the future demands' or 'for the good of the people' and you have the same level of justification. Everyone these days seems to be innocent in their own eyes with a ready justification for why they did what they did. Adulterers always have a good reason, murderers always have a good reason, embezzlers always have a good reason. Their reasons uniformly suck to everyone else but there you go. I have ways I justify many of my faults and I suspect you have the same problem. Why should what the justification is matter to you?

Joseph never murdered anyone.

[_The Nehor]

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!

Nehor,

Again, care to give a direct answer to the question above?

Sure, I'll take a stab at this. I have no idea which lie he told. It's also of course possible that all his marriages at the time were of the eternal and not time variety and that he in fact only had one wife.

And yes, I do live in denial. Thank you for noticing.