So BC if/when DNA shows that Joseph Smith did father children from someone other than Emma can we expect you to refer to him as "Horny ol' Joe" from then on? Or is this just another straw man defense you will abandon when the evidence shows otherwise?
Neither. The fact that nothing has turned up after testing the prime suspects goes a long way towards eliminating the horny ol' Joe hypothesis. If such were to turn up, one would have also to contend with the reasonable expectation that a plurally married man would father children from his wives. Such does not prove horniness as the reason for multiple marriages. In fact, so doing is a historically inefficient way of satisfying one's lust for women and therefore actually speaks against the anti Mormon hypothesis.
Actually what it does is further the "pulling out/condoms/anal sex/oral sex/rhythm method/abortion" hypothesis.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
So BC if/when DNA shows that Joseph Smith did father children from someone other than Emma can we expect you to refer to him as "Horny ol' Joe" from then on? Or is this just another straw man defense you will abandon when the evidence shows otherwise?
Neither. The fact that nothing has turned up after testing the prime suspects goes a long way towards eliminating the horny ol' Joe hypothesis. If such were to turn up, one would have also to contend with the reasonable expectation that a plurally married man would father children from his wives. Such does not prove horniness as the reason for multiple marriages. In fact, so doing is a historically inefficient way of satisfying one's lust for women and therefore actually speaks against the anti Mormon hypothesis.
I thought you would try and dodge it.
You might look at how silly your 'ole horny Joe' straw man looks when you yourself acknowledge it proves nothing. Most serious critics and capable apologist have realized this a long time ago.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
You might look at how silly your 'ole horny Joe' straw man looks when you yourself acknowledge it proves nothing
It's your hypothesis, not mine. I've merely given it a name.
Show me where 'Horny Joe " is my hypothesis. CFR where I have stated that Joesph Smith engaged in polygamy just because he was horny.
You can't because I have not, I know the issue goes far beyond just his sexual drive. What you will do is try and lump anyone who disagrees with you as 'Antis' and claim they all say it and then revert right back to your straw man.
You should give i up BC, it is way too transparent, but then maybe you are pandering to a different audience.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Fence Sitter wrote:I thought you [bcspace] would try and dodge it.
Would bcspace try and dodge something? That would show a lack of personal integrity.
LDS church: “It is not known precisely why . . . this restriction [on the ordination of African-American men] began . . .”
bcspace: the ban was because of disobedience
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
I think the problem with BCspaces argument is that the logic doesn't hold for Billions of people. Maybe this is due to poor sex education, so I will help him out.
I have no children. Does that mean I haven't had sex? Does no children prove that a spouse was not cheating? Does it even suggest it?
I think that's a QED. People knew where babies came from back then, so the lack of children is pretty irrelevant. But you already knew that.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
I think exmormons lean toward seeing a horney joe because the alternative is uglier. You see if you are a Mormon believer you just do not look at negative images of Joseph Smith. Loose that protective cover and the very uncertainty about Joseph is troubling. It is possible to see polygamy as a project to exert extreme control over his followers by Joseph. It might look like a way to place himself into the center of the lives of as many people as possible. This is the sort of meglamanic project of a person aiming to be king.
If you are not sufficiently protected by Mormon belief a greedy power hungry image might appear compared to which a horney Joe seems relatively safe and normal.
Jhall118 wrote:I think the problem with BCspaces argument is that the logic doesn't hold for Billions of people. Maybe this is due to poor sex education, so I will help him out.
I have no children. Does that mean I haven't had sex? Does no children prove that a spouse was not cheating? Does it even suggest it?
I think that's a QED. People knew where babies came from back then, so the lack of children is pretty irrelevant. But you already knew that.
TBM's think Joseph Smith, unique among all men, had no sex drive and only did the act as a personal sacrifice for God holding his nose in disgust throughout.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
It's your hypothesis, not mine. I've merely given it a name.
Show me where 'Horny Joe " is my hypothesis. CFR where I have stated that Joesph Smith engaged in polygamy just because he was horny.
What is your hypothesis then, if HOJ is not it? What would cause you to worry about whether or not Joseph Smith fathered any children from his other wives?