Joseph Smith mega thread. We'll see

[_sock puppet]

Is polygamy inherently immoral?

Yes, it is highly immoral in the context of a liberated society that recognizes the value of women as equal to that of men, and recognizes the need for children to be raised in nurturing environments with adequate resources, including two parents.
.

Hogwash. Polygamous families today in America can have a beautiful family relionship. Now I am not referring to compound life but more to the independent 'Mormon' families that are polygamous. The family bond can be strong.

Here is your problem: you are looking at it from a horny toad perspective. But many of those who practice polygamy see it as from god and conduct the marriages accordingly.

I am sure with your rose-colored JSJr glasses on, you really believe this B.S.

As bcspace like's to say, 'have you checked the children?' Let's see, in polygamy girls at very young and tender ages appointed to be married off to be some old goat's 5th, 6th, 7th, etc wife. Boys of dating ages are kicked out of the only society they have known, with no means to provide for themselves. All to keep this ratio of females to male in place that distorts the natural ratio.

Very moral, why me, very moral. Obviously your moral compass doesn't work.

[_jon]

There was a documentary about a polygamous family. Much love in that family and it was genuine love. Now are these families perfect? No. Do they have problems? Yes. But what family doesn't.

We are faced these days with many newspaper articles on this subject. This has arisen out of a case of alleged child abuse on the part of some of those practicing plural marriage.

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy.(Gordon B Hinkley)

[_Morley]

There was a documentary about a polygamous family. Much love in that family and it was genuine love. Now are these families perfect? No. Do they have problems? Yes. But what family doesn't.

Was it this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6pBftroEc

Or this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1cTk2cJQac

Of the many one can find, to honest, I'm having a hard time finding a positive portrayal. Perhaps you're talking about the reality series on TLC?

[_stemelbow]

Is polygamy inherently immoral?

Yes, it is highly immoral in the context of a liberated society that recognizes the value of women as equal to that of men, and recognizes the need for children to be raised in nurturing environments with adequate resources, including two parents.

Fidelity and marriage are social components to encourage a stable home life in which a child can grow with adequate nurturing and resources, as contrasted with the woman alone bearing those burdens. It normally takes 18 to 22 years to raise a human to self-sufficiency in our complex world. It is immoral for the male to impregnate the woman, and then leave her to do all that raising and nurturing alone.

Short of communal living, it is immoral both to the child and the mother for the father to not be there on a regular and routine basis. Even the 'stretched thin' nature of a father in a polygamous situation was demonstrated in the recently ended series, Big Love. All three wives lived in next door houses, but there wasn't enough of Bill to go around for parenting all those children.

In a society that recognizes that men and women are and should be treated equally, how do you justify polygyny? If you toss in polyandry, such as each time the husband gets to add a new wife to the mix, the (first) wife gets to add a new husband, all you have is a long-term orgy going on.

So, for me, yes, polygamy is inherently immoral for several practical reasons.

uh...many of your points here seem to be addressing whether a man having children and then leaving them/ignoring them is inherently moral.

[_stemelbow]

Speculated by those who need to defend the indefensible.

Oh boy...what does that even mean? Too many phrases are thrown around to win some points it seems.

Regardless of what other things Joseph may have seen in sealings, sexual realtuionships with sealed women was certainly included.

Certainly? or shall we say something more along the lines, probably, plausibly, or likely? I mean I hate to quibble about things like this, but it appears to me people take things too far in their hopes to condemn LDS.

That does not mean he had sex with everyone, but we know he did with many.

But you don't "know" that any more than the 4 year "knows" the Church is true.

He went about it just like many other religious leaders past and present have. He was manuliputative, and very dishonest about it with not onlt the public, but most members as well, and most important behind Emma's back. We shouldn't also forget all the men he went behind and married their wives. This is not the behavior of someone following God, but their own interests. Those interests I think involved more then just sex.

The "I think" is far more reasonable here. But even that, its way too hard to conclude tat his interests were for sex. I mean its easy to suppose that, but we simply don't know.

Most of us also hoped to find good answers to troubling information. The real focus should be on whether Joseph was called of God. looking at polygamy is only one part of many things we can look at to find this answer. The same can be said of the Old Testament prophets and their behavior. Is God really this bad od an entity, and stupid to boot, or are their behaviors and stories more likely to be people claiming God?

And shall we conclude people who err, claiming God, are ipso facto not prophets? I don't think it can be determined so easily, that is if you trust that there is a God.

[_Buffalo]

Certainly? or shall we say something more along the lines, probably, plausibly, or likely? I mean I hate to quibble about things like this, but it appears to me people take things too far in their hopes to condemn LDS.

But you don't "know" that any more than the 4 year "knows" the Church is true.

Many of his wives went on record, on behalf of the church no less, stating that the relationships were sexual. Were they lying, Stem?

[_stemelbow]

Many of his wives went on record, on behalf of the church no less, stating that the relationships were sexual. Were they lying, Stem?

Who knows, but that's my point, Buffalo.

[_Themis]

Oh boy...what does that even mean? Too many phrases are thrown around to win some points it seems.

Didn't seem that difficult to understand. It is a hallmark of apologetics to speculate in order to defned the indefensible. An example wopuld be speculating that Joseph's sealings did not involve sex.

Certainly? or shall we say something more along the lines, probably, plausibly, or likely? I mean I hate to quibble about things like this, but it appears to me people take things too far in their hopes to condemn LDS.

Extremely likely. The evidence is to much from to many sources that were freindly to Joseph. Common sense should tell you that Joseph's polygamy is not gong to be any different then everyone else involved like BY. The problem was Joseph at that time was trying to hide it.

But you don't "know" that any more than the 4 year "knows" the Church is true.

You could have included all mebers and yourself and it would still be wrong. We do know more then you know the church is true. We have the evidence.

The "I think" is far more reasonable here. But even that, its way too hard to conclude tat his interests were for sex. I mean its easy to suppose that, but we simply don't know.

Again we have enough evidence to support that sex was a desire. Again his behavior is the same as other leaders who are trying to gain sexual access to their followers. I realise that this is not what you want to believe.

And shall we conclude people who err, claiming God, are ipso facto not prophets? I don't think it can be determined so easily, that is if you trust that there is a God

Actualy I am not asking for perfection, only that they be better then average. If God exists he would have found many who would have been much better. It's not really that hard when looking at Joseph Smith and his actions. Look , what I look at is the physical and spiritual evidence with Joseph Smith's claims like the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, polygamy, etc and see if the evidence supports his claims or not. The evidence clearly does not support those claims.

[_Themis]

Many of his wives went on record, on behalf of the church no less, stating that the relationships were sexual. Were they lying, Stem?

Who knows, but that's my point, Buffalo.

I think it is a little disingenous to be ok with using the word know in regards to the church being true, which is not really knowing but believing, then critizing us for using it when we use it based on more evidence as though the word know is being used in some absolute way. Be consistent.

[_stemelbow]

I think it is a little disingenous to be ok with using the word know in regards to the church being true, which is not really knowing but believing, then critizing us for using it when we use it based on more evidence as though the word know is being used in some absolute way. Be consistent.

What are you talking about? That is the point I raised. People complain LDS say they "know" the Church is true but then you are here using it just like any 4 year old in testimony meeting might. Show me my inconsistency? I didn't say anything about "knowing".