Joseph Smith vs Harvey Milk

[_Jason Bourne]

Which I did do in the other thread and there's really nothing that can gainsay it. There is also the matter of marriage. Can one be guilty of fornication or adultery by having sex with one's spouse?

And of course this begs the question of whether the marriages were legit or not. By the legal standard of the day they were not. So it was adultery. Proving that God really commanded it is another story. It just seems so convenient that really it is more likely Joseph had and affair with Fanny and came up with God sanctioned plural marriage to justify it. And the justification may have been for himself as much as other. His then closest male associate thought it was a filthy affair. I think Oliver was accurate, as much as that pains me.

[_Yoda]

Someone is alleged without evidence to have slept with 16 year old girls is called a rapist and someone who actually does sleep with 16 year old boys is just a harmless gay man?

No. They are both equally guilty of statutory rape.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

One realizes one man claimed to be moral and called of God, and another simply wanted to be treated like a human being, right?

There's a difference, people.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Milesius]

The world is better off without both of them. Incidentally, Milk was bedfellows with another crazy cultist, Jim Jones, who bused cultists in from out of the area to fraudulently vote for another equally worthless individual, George Moscone.

[_bcspace]

Which I did do in the other thread and there's really nothing that can gainsay it. There is also the matter of marriage. Can one be guilty of fornication or adultery by having sex with one's spouse?

And of course this begs the question of whether the marriages were legit or not. By the legal standard of the day they were not. So it was adultery. Proving that God really commanded it is another story. It just seems so convenient that really it is more likely Joseph had and affair with Fanny and came up with God sanctioned plural marriage to justify it. And the justification may have been for himself as much as other. His then closest male associate thought it was a filthy affair. I think Oliver was accurate, as much as that pains me.

Ironic in your case since the situation in question has been Fanny Alger and Oliver Cowdery admitted it wasn't a case of adultery. So if OC didn't think so, what could it have been? How far down the road of speculation are you willing to go to smear the name of someone you don't like simply because you disagree with the doctrine he preached?

Someone is alleged without evidence to have slept with 16 year old girls is called a rapist and someone who actually does sleep with 16 year old boys is just a harmless gay man?

No. They are both equally guilty of statutory rape.

Sure, unless marriage were involved. But looking at the cases in question, there is no evidence of sex or statutory rape in Joseph Smith's case and in Harvey Milk's case, it seems to be open shut because of admission.

Now I freely admit that no evidence for is not evidence against, but it would be ironic indeed for some of you reason thusly.

[_moksha]

Second, Joseph Smith didn't sleep with the underaged.

I think you are absolutely right. There is no evidence that he did not return to his own bed every night.

[_Buffalo]

Which I did do in the other thread and there's really nothing that can gainsay it. There is also the matter of marriage. Can one be guilty of fornication or adultery by having sex with one's spouse?

Like Harvey Milk, Joseph Smith was not legally married to the teens he bonked.

[_Buffalo]

Someone is alleged without evidence to have slept with 16 year old girls is called a rapist and someone who actually does sleep with 16 year old boys is just a harmless gay man?

Joseph Smith was caught with Fanny mid-coitus. And as you say, he "married" the other teens, which means, unless you have evidence to the contrary, that he had sex with them. Or, as we call it today, statutory rape.

[_Jason Bourne]

Which I did do in the other thread and there's really nothing that can gainsay it. There is also the matter of marriage. Can one be guilty of fornication or adultery by having sex with one's spouse?

Huh? What are you talking about? The only thing that you can use to point to this as a marriage was JSs alleged command by God. It certianly was no marriage by the law of the land. Thus in at least that sense it was adultery.

And of course this begs the question of whether the marriages were legit or not. By the legal standard of the day they were not. So it was adultery. Proving that God really commanded it is another story. It just seems so convenient that really it is more likely Joseph had and affair with Fanny and came up with God sanctioned plural marriage to justify it. And the justification may have been for himself as much as other. His then closest male associate thought it was a filthy affair. I think Oliver was accurate, as much as that pains me.

Ironic in your case since the situation in question has been Fanny Alger and Oliver Cowdery admitted it wasn't a case of adultery.

If he did I have not seen such a statement. Can you provide it?

So if OC didn't think so, what could it have been?

If OC did not think it was adultery that does not make it not adultery. The only way it was not is if God really commanded Joseph Smith to do it. And that fact is far from conclusive.

How far down the road of speculation are you willing to go to smear the name of someone you don't like simply because you disagree with the doctrine he preached?

I do not dislike Joseph Smith and I used to admire him mightily However in on this topic I do disagree with the alleged doctrine. And really who is speculating? All anyone who believes the practice of JSs polygamy is Smith's claim. And I have at least one person who claims Smith said he planned to end it as it was a mistake and it would be the destruction of the saints. Was William Marks lying?

The only reason you accept polygamy is because of your testimony of Joseph Smith. Otherwise you would reject it.

How far down the road of speculation and subjective things called testimony are you willing to go to defend something you condemn coming from anyone else?

[_harmony]

Someone is alleged without evidence to have slept with 16 year old girls is called a rapist and someone who actually does sleep with 16 year old boys is just a harmless gay man?

Joseph Smith was caught with Fanny mid-coitus. And as you say, he "married" the other teens, which means, unless you have evidence to the contrary, that he had sex with them. Or, as we call it today, statutory rape.

I thought statutory rape was when there was the appearance of possible intercourse with a minor child, while rape of a child was when there actually was intercourse.

Which means in both cases, Joseph and Harvey, the crime now would be rape of a child.