Let's see where we can get with this

[_Darth J]

If D&C 132 represents an eternal law that was the basis for ancient patriarchs and prophets to have been justified in plural marriage (which it is, under D&C 132's own terms), why would we assume that the hypothetical commandment to practice polygamy---which nobody has produced---prior to 1843 would have different terms and conditions than in D&C 132?

Why would Joseph Smith's inquiry about the justification for plural marriage be the impetus for the revelation canonized as D&C 132, if Joseph Smith had been commanded to practice polygamy prior to that time?

I am not convinced that Joseph was commanded to practice polygamy with Fanny but I believe that there is an argument to be made he was. Have you read Don Bradly's essay "Mormon Polygamy before Nauvoo"? Here is a link where much of it can be read. http://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Polygamy-Joseph-Origins-ebook/dp/B004GNEDIM#reader_B004GNEDIM

My response regarding it being polygamy was meant to offer a TBM view which defends Joseph against adultery but leaves unanswered your question regarding authority and the proper way to practice plural marriage per D&C 132. The date that D&C 132 was known to Joseph Smith understandably does not seem all that important to the faithful. Regardless of whether or not he understood the requirements of D&C 132 when he knew Fanny or he found out later on, he still seems to have not applied it to the way he practiced plural marriage at any time. Being able to prove he both knew the requirements and had the authority to seal at the time he was out in the barn with Fanny only makes him more guilty of not following his own revelation.

I wasn't meaning to imply that you believe what you expect the TBM response to be. The putative TBM response has God making it up as he goes: suddenly in 1843, "Oh, yeah, I just remembered that X and Y and Z are imperative requirements for plural marriage to be acceptable to me. I guess I should have told you that a few years ago!"

There is no good answer that works with the faith promoting narrative. For example, even giving the later timeframe (circa 1836) in Don Bradley's article, if Joseph Smith was "sealed" to Fanny Alger, you have to wonder why Oliver Cowdery would be so upset about Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger when Oliver was allegedly standing right there in the temple when Elijah brought back the keys to the sealing power.

[_Fence Sitter]

I wasn't meaning to imply that you believe what you expect the TBM response to be. The putative TBM response has God making it up as he goes: suddenly in 1843, "Oh, yeah, I just remembered that X and Y and Z are imperative requirements for plural marriage to be acceptable to me. I guess I should have told you that a few years ago!"

There is no good answer that works with the faith promoting narrative. For example, even giving the later timeframe (circa 1836) in Don Bradley's article, if Joseph Smith was "sealed" to Fanny Alger, you have to wonder why Oliver Cowdery would be so upset about Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger when Oliver was allegedly standing right there in the temple when Elijah brought back the keys to the sealing power.

It appears that Oliver was unaware that sealing keys included a roll in the hay with the hired help. When you think about it there were quite a few things regarding the restoration that Oliver did not understand correctly. 1st vision, the visit of Moroni (or Nephi or a spirit), restoration of the high priesthood, law of consecration ("what do you mean I can't sell my own property in Missouri?"), how to translate with his sprout and so on. For being involved from the beginning he sure seems to have misunderstood a lot of what he witnessed and what Joseph Smith taught. We can be grateful however, that even when he incorrectly recorded or misunderstood all these other things, that his testimony as one of the "Three Witnesses" remains rock solid.

[_reuigen verrater]

Stem you are a piece of work. You say you want to have a meaningful discussion on Mormonism yet you are unable to hold any position for longer than a couple of posts when it comes under scrutiny, any position except... the church is true.

I'm going to have to avoid this thread because its a disaster that gives me urges to smash my head against my monitor repeatedly... almost every time you reply by contradicting your previously stated position and tell everyone that they misunderstand you. You are the Mormon version of Marg... a name I utter at great risk per chance she is now summoned to this thread. Mormon marg... good lord you are obtuse.

stem-Yellow cats don't exist... never seen one

-30 minutes later after stem forgets what he said-

me-Hey, you sat that yellow cat in the alley? It's yellow isn't it?
stem-Why yes I see that yellow cat. Well of course its yellow silly are you blind?
me-That means yellow cats exist... you were wrong when you stated earlier that yellow cats don't exist
stem-I suppose you could say its yellow, though that is debatable. Still I don't think yellow cats exist
me-It's not debatable, the cat is sitting right there in front of us, the cat is yellow and you just said it was yellow.
stem-you misunderstand me. I said it could be yellow and I also I never said yellow cats don't exist.
me-qoute "yellow cats don't exist"
stem-They don't

[_Darth J]

I wasn't meaning to imply that you believe what you expect the TBM response to be. The putative TBM response has God making it up as he goes: suddenly in 1843, "Oh, yeah, I just remembered that X and Y and Z are imperative requirements for plural marriage to be acceptable to me. I guess I should have told you that a few years ago!"

There is no good answer that works with the faith promoting narrative. For example, even giving the later timeframe (circa 1836) in Don Bradley's article, if Joseph Smith was "sealed" to Fanny Alger, you have to wonder why Oliver Cowdery would be so upset about Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger when Oliver was allegedly standing right there in the temple when Elijah brought back the keys to the sealing power.

It appears that Oliver was unaware that sealing keys included a roll in the hay with the hired help. When you think about it there were quite a few things regarding the restoration that Oliver did not understand correctly. 1st vision, the visit of Moroni (or Nephi or a spirit), restoration of the high priesthood, law of consecration ("what do you mean I can't sell my own property in Missouri?"), how to translate with his sprout and so on. For being involved from the beginning he sure seems to have misunderstood a lot of what he witnessed and what Joseph Smith taught. We can be grateful however, that even when he incorrectly recorded or misunderstood all these other things, that his testimony as one of the "Three Witnesses" remains rock solid.

Well, look at me slap myself on the forehead! Oliver knew about the keys, but he didn't know about the locks. That's why the sex thing bothered him so much.

Like all of us, Oliver could only understand sexual relationships if he understood that for every key, there needs to be a lock. It's all about locks and keys.

[_Yoda]

Attribute it to my illiteracy or something).

ROTFLMAO!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Stem you are a piece of work. You say you want to have a meaningful discussion on Mormonism yet you are unable to hold any position for longer than a couple of posts when it comes under scrutiny, any position except... the church is true.

I'm going to have to avoid this thread because its a disaster that gives me urges to smash my head against my monitor repeatedly... almost every time you reply by contradicting your previously stated position and tell everyone that they misunderstand you. You are the Mormon version of Marg... a name I utter at great risk per chance she is now summoned to this thread. Mormon marg... good lord you are obtuse.

stem-Yellow cats don't exist... never seen one

-30 minutes later after stem forgets what he said-

me-Hey, you sat that yellow cat in the alley? It's yellow isn't it?
stem-Why yes I see that yellow cat. Well of course its yellow silly are you blind?
me-That means yellow cats exist... you were wrong when you stated earlier that yellow cats don't exist
stem-I suppose you could say its yellow, though that is debatable. Still I don't think yellow cats exist
me-It's not debatable, the cat is sitting right there in front of us, the cat is yellow and you just said it was yellow.
stem-you misunderstand me. I said it could be yellow and I also I never said yellow cats don't exist.
me-qoute "yellow cats don't exist"
stem-They don't

Don't you datamine his words! Strawman!

[_keithb]

Hey all.

It appears to me "the critic" whomever that may include, seems to often be missing the boat in this whole "discussion" thing.

The critics position, as far as I can tell, seems to be "The Church is not true. It simply can't be true. it is proven false on too many fronts to be able to hold the claim that it is true."

The LDS position seems to be, this is true at least for me, "I have faith that the Church is true. This means I hold my faith as the evidence that the Church is closer to being the true Church than any other organization on earth."

I readily acknowledge I can't show you my faith. Faith is personal. in it I see evidence. But I can't show or demonstrate that evidence.

The critic, as it is, as the arguer must demonstrate his or her position. He/she is beholden to the notion that the Church is demonstrably false. in his/her mind it seems obvious to me, that the Church is false because many particular claims made by the Church shows either no evidence in support of it, or show contradicting evidence. The parameters are illy defined in most cases, so we're left quibbling about non-essentials it seems from my believing perspective. "did the Book of Mormon peoples really exist?" who knows? The critic may think he/she knows but it seems like he/she can't define what would be expected. Can't demonstrate that civilizations are all known and accounted for and that those that are known about are really understood. If that's not demonstrated then there's no support for the proposal that the Book of Mormon events never took place.

We're coming from two separate paradigms. The critics is there is no such thing as faith. The believers is my faith supports my position. There's little if any attempt to address each other. There's little if any attempt to understand each other (and that's with the knowledge that many here are former believers).

That's where we're at. Unless we can address the other side with a good idea of where they are coming from and what they wish to discuss, we'll be left quibbling, as it were, about things like is DCP a bad man? Does Pahoran hate Runtu? Are Mormon idiots? Can a Mormon become president?

Stem,

A few related questions:

What do you think of the critics of the flat earth theory?
Is the earth both flat and spherical, or does it have to be one or the other?
Can science tell us if the earth is round or flat?
Does any amount of faith on the part of believers in the flat earth theory change the fact that the earth is round?

I suspect that your answers about the flat earth theory would mimic my answers about the truth claims of the Mormon church. Assuming your metric for truth is that the claims of the Mormon church reflect events verifiable in the real world (like the spherical earth model), then I think that the objective evidence strongly points to the church being false. No amount of faith and manipulation of facts really makes that reality disappear.

[Guest]

Stem you are a piece of work. You say you want to have a meaningful discussion on Mormonism yet you are unable to hold any position for longer than a couple of posts when it comes under scrutiny, any position except... the church is true.

I'm going to have to avoid this thread because its a disaster that gives me urges to smash my head against my monitor repeatedly... almost every time you reply by contradicting your previously stated position and tell everyone that they misunderstand you. You are the Mormon version of Marg... a name I utter at great risk per chance she is now summoned to this thread. Mormon marg... good lord you are obtuse.

stem-Yellow cats don't exist... never seen one

-30 minutes later after stem forgets what he said-

me-Hey, you sat that yellow cat in the alley? It's yellow isn't it?
stem-Why yes I see that yellow cat. Well of course its yellow silly are you blind?
me-That means yellow cats exist... you were wrong when you stated earlier that yellow cats don't exist
stem-I suppose you could say its yellow, though that is debatable. Still I don't think yellow cats exist
me-It's not debatable, the cat is sitting right there in front of us, the cat is yellow and you just said it was yellow.
stem-you misunderstand me. I said it could be yellow and I also I never said yellow cats don't exist.
me-qoute "yellow cats don't exist"
stem-They don't

This is a good example of what I like to call a stembellism.

Trying to have a discussion with someone who suffers from stembellistic tendency (it is a rare condition suffered by only one poster) is like trying to play darts using tennis balls, where's the point?

It is for that reason, and his hypocrisy, that I cannot have further dialogue with the poster 'stemelbow' and so I now take reasonable precautions to avoid risk of further infection.

[_keithb]

I readily acknowledge my personal experiences that make up my faith can be viewed by many in a variety of ways. I'm aware that any explanation I offer concerning my experiences can easily be thought to be nothing more than my own interpretation that may not be factual. That's cool. I'm not here to justify my faith, as I said. I'm just here to discuss the issues of the Church, acknowledging often that there are problems with the claims of the church. In some cases I feel the Church can be wrong and yet my faith still hold merit. And in other cases I feel justified in thinking my faith provides evidence of issues we aren't fully informed on. The issue I have is if the critics position is to be taken seriously the critic must prove its claims--that is if the claim truly is the Church is proven false.

I readily acknowledge my personal experiences that make up my faith in goblins can be viewed by many in a variety of ways. I'm aware that any explanation I offer concerning my experiences can easily be thought to be nothing more than my own interpretation that may not be factual. That's cool. I'm not here to justify my faith in goblins , as I said. I'm just here to discuss the issues of goblins , acknowledging often that there are problems with the claims of the goblins . In some cases I feel the goblins can be wrong and yet my faith still hold merit. And in other cases I feel justified in thinking my faith provides evidence of issues we aren't fully informed on. The issue I have is if the critics position is to be taken seriously the critic must prove its claims--that is if the claim truly is goblins are proven false

[_Chap]

Hey all.

It appears to me "the critic" whomever that may include, seems to often be missing the boat in this whole "discussion" thing.

The critics position, as far as I can tell, seems to be "The Church is not true. It simply can't be true. it is proven false on too many fronts to be able to hold the claim that it is true."

The LDS position seems to be, this is true at least for me, "I have faith that the Church is true. This means I hold my faith as the evidence that the Church is closer to being the true Church than any other organization on earth."

I readily acknowledge I can't show you my faith. Faith is personal. in it I see evidence. But I can't show or demonstrate that evidence.

The critic, as it is, as the arguer must demonstrate his or her position. He/she is beholden to the notion that the Church is demonstrably false. in his/her mind it seems obvious to me, that the Church is false because many particular claims made by the Church shows either no evidence in support of it, or show contradicting evidence. The parameters are illy defined in most cases, so we're left quibbling about non-essentials it seems from my believing perspective. "did the Book of Mormon peoples really exist?" who knows? The critic may think he/she knows but it seems like he/she can't define what would be expected. Can't demonstrate that civilizations are all known and accounted for and that those that are known about are really understood. If that's not demonstrated then there's no support for the proposal that the Book of Mormon events never took place.

We're coming from two separate paradigms. The critics is there is no such thing as faith. The believers is my faith supports my position. There's little if any attempt to address each other. There's little if any attempt to understand each other (and that's with the knowledge that many here are former believers).

That's where we're at. Unless we can address the other side with a good idea of where they are coming from and what they wish to discuss, we'll be left quibbling, as it were, about things like is DCP a bad man? Does Pahoran hate Runtu? Are Mormon idiots? Can a Mormon become president?

Stem,

A few related questions:

What do you think of the critics of the flat earth theory?
Is the earth both flat and spherical, or does it have to be one or the other?
Can science tell us if the earth is round or flat?
Does any amount of faith on the part of believers in the flat earth theory change the fact that the earth is round?

I suspect that your answers about the flat earth theory would mimic my answers about the truth claims of the Mormon church. Assuming your metric for truth is that the claims of the Mormon church reflect events verifiable in the real world (like the spherical earth model), then I think that the objective evidence strongly points to the church being false. No amount of faith and manipulation of facts really makes that reality disappear.

I have already demonstrated to stemelbow that those parts of his position bolded above are false.

The critical position the CoJCoLDS has to confront is not the naïve 'I can prove the church is not true' argument, since as I have pointed out anyone devoid of intellectual scruple can find a possible, even if improbable, way round that - the 'tiny invisible Loch Ness monster that is still really there' ploy, we may call it, or in stemelbow's example above the 'great but wholly archeologically imperceptible metal-using Judaeo-Christian Nephite culture in the Americas' ploy.

No, the position that stops me, for instance, accepting the urgent claims of the CoJCoLDS to my unique allegiance and belief is a non-naive one: 'How on earth can any sane and well-informed person believe in a religion so obviously made up on the fly as a response to the specific cultural, religious and social circumstances of early 19th C. East Coast America, as well as to the evolving personal circumstances of an unscrupulous religious entrepreneur?'

The answer is in the overwhelming majority of cases 'My parents taught it to me when I was a kid too young to know better'. That's why stemelbow feels 'faith' in the CoJCoLDS, and not in Wahhabi Islam or Mahayana Buddhism. What he thinks of as 'evidence' of the truth of his belief is simply evidence of what his Mom and Dad taught him as a kid.

But somehow I am not expecting stemelbow to show any signs of having read this: he will just repeat his claim that critics are obliged to produce an ineluctable demonstration of the falsity of his belief system, because that is what he can cope with. The rest is water off a duck's back.