Our leaders

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Post by _Nevo »

beastie wrote:I meant specifically the behavior Joseph Smith engaged in. You know, lying to his wife about it, using God to threaten her into submission, not openly recognizing or taking care of his wives, using spiritual manipulation to get young women to agree quickly to his proposal... that kind of thing.


My answer still stands. But as you know, I reject this sort of characterization of Joseph's polygamous practice. I'm sure Joseph would have liked to practice polygamy openly with Emma's warm approbation, but that option was not available to him. As for "spiritual manipulation," that is in the eye of the beholder.
_Boaz & Lidia
_Emeritus
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:31 am

Post by _Boaz & Lidia »

Jason Bourne wrote:Yes, yes I understand my attachments to the LDS Church causes me to cut Joseph Smith more slack then I do others.

I also think that many of you who have abandoned any belief in the LDS Church caused you to treat Smith more harshly then is deserved as well as make irrational conclusions like we see from TD and Inconceivable here. Inc think the people of Illinois were justified in driving the saints out. TD thinks just because the locals did not like the saints that automatically makes them guilty of being bad and scoundrels.
Look at the FLDS. Examine how you feel about them and you will come to an understanding of exactly how the citizens of Illinois felt about the Mormons.

The Mormons back then and the FLDS today deserve to be driven out of the areas that they attempt to take over.

Jason, are you going to answer my question that I posed to you?

How do you feel about the injustice served upon the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints?
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Nevo wrote:
beastie wrote:I meant specifically the behavior Joseph Smith engaged in. You know, lying to his wife about it, using God to threaten her into submission, not openly recognizing or taking care of his wives, using spiritual manipulation to get young women to agree quickly to his proposal... that kind of thing.


My answer still stands. But as you know, I reject this sort of characterization of Joseph's polygamous practice. I'm sure Joseph would have liked to practice polygamy openly with Emma's warm approbation, but that option was not available to him. As for "spiritual manipulation," that is in the eye of the beholder.


Like Emma, most women wouldn't celebrate if their husbands came home and told the women they wanted their wives support so they could sleep with dozens of other girls and women. Similarly I don't think most men would jump up and down if their wives came home and said they wanted support so they could go out and sleep with, twenty of thirty other boys and men.

I think it would be interesting to do some research on the women who follow their cult and religious leaders into their bed. When I listen to the "testimonies" of women in various cults who claim to know their leader is of God, I reflect on the words of Eric Hoffer and how powerful the hold of True Belief is. The phenomenon is of course nothing new, still how and why women "attach" to powerful males in our modern day is a fascinating topic.


~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Boaz & Lidia
_Emeritus
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:31 am

Post by _Boaz & Lidia »

Nevo wrote:
beastie wrote:I meant specifically the behavior Joseph Smith engaged in. You know, lying to his wife about it, using God to threaten her into submission, not openly recognizing or taking care of his wives, using spiritual manipulation to get young women to agree quickly to his proposal... that kind of thing.


My answer still stands. But as you know, I reject this sort of characterization of Joseph's polygamous practice. I'm sure Joseph would have liked to practice polygamy openly with Emma's warm approbation, but that option was not available to him. As for "spiritual manipulation," that is in the eye of the beholder.
Your reason for rejection is really quite simple and widespread among others like yourself.

You have an explicit need to believe.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

My answer still stands. But as you know, I reject this sort of characterization of Joseph's polygamous practice. I'm sure Joseph would have liked to practice polygamy openly with Emma's warm approbation, but that option was not available to him. As for "spiritual manipulation," that is in the eye of the beholder.


Ok, I grant you "spiritual manipulation" is on the eye of the beholder. Maybe an angel with a sword really did visit Joseph Smith and tell him that Joseph Smith would die if he couldn't get women to agree to "marry" him and fast. Maybe Joseph Smith gave many of these women a very short amount of time in which to make this decision for some reason known only to God. Maybe God really did promise that if certain women accepted Joseph Smith' proposition, then their entire families would be exalted. Maybe. I doubt it, but maybe. I'm not omniscient. But surely you must concede that only believers would accept that "maybe". For the rest of us, since we don't really believe God was behind all these actions, it just looks like spiritual manipulation.

Now, other than the quibble about "spiritual manipulation", what could you possibly reject, factually, in my characterization?

lying to his wife about it

using God to threaten her into submission

not openly recognizing or taking care of his wives

Seriously, which one of these do you reject on the basis of fact?

So, Nevo, are you as generous to Bent? (see the story I already linked). Time to put your money where you mouth is.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Joseph experienced revelation as "sudden strokes of ideas" that (he believed) came from God, but on some level these were also his own ideas. But I guess I won't get any argument from you there ;)


This is what I believe about Joseph Smith in regards to his sexual behavior. I think Joseph Smith confused his ideas and his desires with God's ideas and God's desires. Joseph Smith desired women other than his wife, and he always did. I think he was looking for a way to satisfy his desires (not just sexual, but desire emotionally, as well), and that's why the "Revelation" of polygamy occurred to him in the first place. Then, once he had the theology in place, I believe he continued to confuse his desires for specific women with God telling him "this woman has already been given to you, no one has the right to keep you from her", and this is why he felt justified marrying women who already had husbands.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

There's actually something devilish about the very doctrine that God had already "given" a woman to Joseph Smith, ie: that she was his by right. And all this before she even knew Joseph had developed a fancy for her, and she had already married someone else.

It's so hypocritical and devilish that Mormons will point enthusiastically to the Proclamation on the Family and trumpet how highly God prizes familes, and then rationalize and excuse away actions that directly dismembered existing families. Just how highly did the Prophet and his God value Henry Jacobs' family? How about Orson Pratt's family, whom Joseph Smith attempted to elbow in on by trying to bed Sarah Pratt, and then publicly tarnished her reputation when she refused?

How do you guys even manage to find excuses for this crap? You feel compelled to vote for Prop 8 in order to stop the evil of two gay men getting "married" by the state, and yet you make excuses for why God would "give" Joseph Smith a woman already married to some other man? Or God "giving" a young girl to Joseph Smith at all?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

by the way, Seth's comments still stand even if the marriages were platonic (which I don't believe for one second), because Joseph Smith was dividing families throughout eternity. For heaven's sake, even if believers can justify Joseph Smith taking the wife for eternity (cuz maybe her marriage really sucked anyway), how can they justify taking the man's children away from him for eternity??? Any children that the woman had would go with HER and SMITH in the celestial kingdom.

Sometimes I wonder if Mormon men are OK with this because they imagine that, in the next life, it will be them taking other, less worthy, men's wives and children. But in reality, unless these same men have very high positions within the church, it's really their wives and children who could be taken from them.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

In other words:

"Other than breaking laws of the land that were punishable by imprisonment, what laws were broke?"




I asked for some other issues. You think polygamy and the destruction of a press justified life time imprisonment for Smith? You said as much. And you think this justified robbing people of property and home at gun point? Basically you say the saint got whet they deserved and this mostly because they were a large voting block in the county they lived in.

Huh?

What did happen in Nauvoo anyway? Mostly threats, but not much else.


Oh gee their leaders were only murdered in COLD FRIGGIN BLOOD. Not much for you perhaps but I think murder is pretty bad.



Read up on the Nauvoo war that Crockett mentions. Also let us note that the Saints left the city in order to avoid wide spread bloodshed and war with the locals. What would have happened had they stayed?

1
) The temple burned by arsen a year or so later - not the night of the Exodus (remember the painting that is hard to find now?).



No I do not remember such a painting. But you don't think burning their temple a big deal? Now arson ok?

2) Brigham Young and the apostles left as a forward party to "prepare the way". They had plenty of supplies for the entire journey.



BY and many member. So what if they were prepared. Some of the saints were better prepared than others. Economics played into this of course. The locals charged exorbitant prices for supplies and would pay nothing for property. In other words they exploited those they were driving out.

3) The frozen river was not a sign from the Mormon God. The "saints" disobeyed BY's commandment to stay behind to properly prepare for the journey - they did not.



Your point is what?

4) The horrible conditions of the exodus westward was a result of the lack of preparation of the mass of frenzied saints abandoning the safety of Nauvoo. The "saints" consumed all of the forward party's supplies in about one week.



Nauvoo was not safe. Better study up on your history man.

5) Hundreds (thousands) did not die in Nauvoo. They died in the wilderness.



I do not know how many dies in Nauvoo. Do you think though that maybe, just maybe those who dies would not have died had they not been drivin from their homes???

6) Emma, Lucy Mack and their families (and some old abandoned people) refused to leave or were left behind. They weren't raped and seldom pillaged. In fact, Emma remarried and lived within 200 feet of the mansion house for the rest of her very long life.


So what? A few stayed. They were not viewed as threat. Of course they were left alone.

7) If BY and his band of perverts remained in Nauvoo, the wheels of justice would have seen each one in prison. Who knows? The Mormon God may have issued the Manifesto in 1847 instead of the 1890, eh? Kind of difficult to do if DC 132 won't be revealed to the church at Salt Lake for another 5 years though.



Well since Mobacracy was effective in driving them out I guess we will never know.

BY's intention was to leave months before the rest of the saints. His thoughtful reasoning was to prepare the way. If the saints had obeyed him, I muse whether many would have even followed later in the relative safety of the spring/summer (after the run off) - seeing that Nauvoo became just another frontier town after the band of perverts had abandoned it.



I am not sure you can document this.


(sorry for the long post but I think it's worth considering)


I found little compelling in your post. Sorry.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

beastie wrote:
TD thinks just because the locals did not like the saints that automatically makes them guilty of being bad and scoundrels.


I think you have misstated her position. If I understand her correctly, her point isn't that they were scoundrels because locals didn't like them. They were scoundrels due to the reasons locals didn't like them.



Her point was that:

1: The locals did not like them

2: This is evidence that they must have been scoundrels.
Post Reply