Darth J wrote:So, Droopy, tell me some more about the historicity of the Book of Abraham.
Droopy wrote: Actually, it appears there is an utter dearth of compelling empirical/documentary evidence, and what circumstantial evidence there is is always rendered problematical by available evidence inconsistent with the pro argument.
Droopy wrote:Yes, especially in the 19th century, without the Pill, RU-486, IUDs, condoms etc.
Thin dishwater.
Wow, they don't do a very good job of explaining sex in South Carolina, do they?
I don't know about you, but my wife and I have had sex without using "the pill, RU-486, IUDs, condoms," or any other form of birth control. Against all odds, we haven't always conceived when we did so. Of course, there may also be some merit in the talk in Nauvoo about Dr. Bennett's special instruments.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Wow. So you're charging Joseph Smith with deliberately disobeying the commandments of the Lord? After all, God was pretty clear that polygamy is only ok when he commands it to "raise up seed.
Now, with just a fundamental working knowledge of LDS doctrine, one immediately realizes that, "raising up seed" in mortality aside, woman and men cannot inherit the Celestial Kingdom in a separate, un-sealed state. Hence, sealings can occur in mortality while the ultimate blessings and relationships contained and held in reserve within the principle of eternal marriage itself, can be deferred until after this earth life. In a similar way, the calling of Elder contains the keys of presidency and of apostleship, and of other offices within the Melchizedek priesthood, but they are inert, or quiescent, unless activated by a call to a particular office.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Droopy wrote:Yes, especially in the 19th century, without the Pill, RU-486, IUDs, condoms etc.
Thin dishwater.
Wow, they don't do a very good job of explaining sex in South Carolina, do they?
I don't know about you, but my wife and I have had sex without using "the pill, RU-486, IUDs, condoms," or any other form of birth control. Against all odds, we haven't always conceived when we did so. Of course, there may also be some merit in the talk in Nauvoo about Dr. Bennett's special instruments.
Continue your wild flailing at the knats flying around your head, Bob, but at the end of the day, this entire issue is speculative, conjectural, and loaded, depending on one's preassumptions, with bias, guesswork, and bad or good faith, as the case may be.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Droopy wrote:Continue your wild flailing at the knats flying around your head, Bob, but at the end of the day, this entire issue is speculative, conjectural, and loaded, depending on one's preassumptions, with bias, guesswork, and bad or good faith, as the case may be.
No kidding. I'm not the one insisting that Joseph did or did not have sex with Sylvia Lyons. The jury is still out, but I don't see any reason to believe that Joseph's "marriage" to Sylvia was any different than those to his other wives. You are arguing, without a speck of evidence, for a special kind of nonsexual relationship that was different from the other relationships. Why? Because you need Joseph not to be the kind of man who would have sex with a married woman behind his wife's back and behind her husband's back. If they didn't have sex, they didn't. But there's no reason beyond wishful thinking to believe they never consummated the marriage.
Maybe they have "knats" in an illiterate part of South Carolina, but not here.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Wow. So you're charging Joseph Smith with deliberately disobeying the commandments of the Lord? After all, God was pretty clear that polygamy is only ok when he commands it to "raise up seed.
Now, with just a fundamental working knowledge of LDS doctrine, one immediately realizes that, "raising up seed" in mortality aside, woman and men cannot inherit the Celestial Kingdom in a separate, un-sealed state. Hence, sealings can occur in mortality while the ultimate blessings and relationships contained and held in reserve within the principle of eternal marriage itself, can be deferred until after this earth life. In a similar way, the calling of Elder contains the keys of presidency and of apostleship, and of other offices within the Melchizedek priesthood, but they are inert, or quiescent, unless activated by a call to a particular office.
Droopy, in the real world, polygamy can produce children more quickly than monogamy because of the 9 months it takes for a baby to gestate. So the male can have several females pregnant at the same time, or can overlap so one wife is 2 months pregnant, another wife is 6 months pregnant, another is 8 months pregnant, and so on.
How do these facts of mortal gestation apply to a god and a goddess producing spirit children in heaven?
Why would a god need more than one wife if one modern LDS monogamous couple can be exalted and produce billions and trillions of spirit children with just one wife?
And why are you so desperate to absolve Joseph Smith of sexuality with his plural wives if all of this was so righteous and justified?
No kidding. I'm not the one insisting that Joseph did or did not have sex with Sylvia Lyons. The jury is still out, but I don't see any reason to believe that Joseph's "marriage" to Sylvia was any different than those to his other wives. You are arguing, without a speck of evidence, for a special kind of nonsexual relationship that was different from the other relationships.
None of his "polyandrous" sealings appear to have included a sexual aspect. As to his traditional plural marriages, even there, based on the utter dearth of living descendants, there appears to have been a substantial restriction in sexual relations.
That's just how it stands, from a strictly historical perspective.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
In the real (non-courtroom/litigatory/law school) world, this is an irrelevant argument, perhaps useful in a courtroom, but not in the unfettered marketplace of ideas and evidence.
The facts remain that the evidence for the critic's position on this is paper thin, and provides, at best, only plausibilities, not seriously compelling evidence.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Droopy wrote:None of his "polyandrous" sealings appear to have included a sexual aspect. As to his traditional plural marriages, even there, based on the utter dearth of living descendants, there appears to have been a substantial restriction in sexual relations.
That's just how it stands, from a strictly historical perspective.
Separating Joseph Smith from sex with his plural "wives" is also separating Joseph Smith from the purported revelation on plural marriage.
The canon of the LDS Church asserts that the purpose of the new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage is to multiply and replenish the earth.
But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
The word "and" is conjunctive. That means it is for all of these purposes, not alternatively for any of these purposes. So unless God doesn't know how to speak English, "you could either have children in this life or in the eternities as a goddess to your man-god husband" is not an available excuse.
That's just how it stands, from a strictly "things the LDS Church claims God told Joseph Smith" perspective.