Brother Crockett vs...?

[_the road to hana]

While you're ducking and bobbing trying to make Joseph Smith into some sexless wunderkind?

The Straw Man argument is a logical fallacy hana? Understand? Joseph may have had relations with those plural wives who were unmarried at the time of the sealing. There is no evidence that he had relations with those woman to whom he was "sealed" who were at that time, also "married".

Can we put on our thinking caps now hana, and engage the argument as it stands?

Why would he seal to women who were already married to other men, at all? What difference does it make whether he has sex with them in this life or not? The relationship as understood in LDS theology certainly presumes consummation at some point, or else "eternal increase" is moot.

[_the road to hana]

are they the reason you stay in the Church under false pretenses of faithful devotion to the Gospel?

False pretenses of faithful devotion to the Gospel? I like that. Isn't that a little like what you're doing, making up your own "Gospel" as you go along?

[_the road to hana]

Joseph may have had relations with those plural wives who were unmarried at the time of the sealing. There is no evidence that he had relations with those woman to whom he was "sealed" who were at that time, also "married".

What evidence is there that he had relations with those who were unmarried at the time of the sealing? And again, why would he need to? If the argument in LDS theology and practice is that consummation is unnecessary in this life, why bother?

[_Droopy]

What I would advise, hana, at this point, is to do some extensive and serous reading on the LDS history regarding this issue and postpone any further posts on it until you can discuss it competently. RC is being more than polite and civil with people here who are, to cut to the chase, urinating into the wind on this issue.

As you are not willing to follow the argument and evidence logically, point for point, but insist on leaping into uncharted territory again and again when the inferential connections do not move you where you want to be, further debate seems, yet again, futile.

[_the road to hana]

What I would advise, hana, at this point, is to do some extensive and serous reading on the LDS history regarding this issue and postpone any further posts on it until you can discuss it competently. RC is being more than polite and civil with people here who are, to cut to the chase, urinating into the wind on this issue.

As you are not willing to follow the argument and evidence logically, point for point, but insist on leaping into uncharted territory again and again when the inferential connections do not move you where you want to be, further debate seems, yet again, futile.

Gosh, Droop, it would really help your argument if that were the case, wouldn't it?

Serious reading on LDS history? Please. Every time I distill this argument to its essence, the two of you avoid answering the most basic questions.

The fact is, you can't figure out which is worse--Joseph Smith actually having sex with his wives, as he was entitled by gift from God, or being celibate.

How about instead of advising others to "read on LDS history" (assuming erroneously they haven't), you make an appointment pronto with the First Presidency and have them straighten you out personally on whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives.

[_Droopy]

Weren't you one of those righteous pre-existent spirits who didn't fence-sit before coming here? I know I was, and ever so proud of it. Phew, escaped the curse of the dark skin.

There is no such doctrine in the Church. One was either on the side of Christ, or on that of Lucifer. There were no neutrals in heaven. The "fence sitter" concept is LDS folk theology that has never had anything approaching official status in the Church as doctrine. If you cannot even get fundamental doctrines correct hana, what possible credibility can you have on thorny historical conundrums such as plural marriage? No credibility, no debate.

[_the road to hana]

Weren't you one of those righteous pre-existent spirits who didn't fence-sit before coming here? I know I was, and ever so proud of it. Phew, escaped the curse of the dark skin.

There is no such doctrine in the Church. Once was either on the side of Christ, or on that of Lucifer. There were no neutrals in heaven. If you cannot even get fundamental doctrines correct hana, what possible credibility can you have on thorny historical conundrums such as plural marriage? No credibility, no debate.

What year were you born? Are you a convert?

There absolutely was a teaching that there were less valiant in the pre-existence. Oh, I know, history is being re-written constantly in the LDS world, but I know what was taught and what wasn't.

Oh, and if you're going to try to argue the "official doctrine" line, I'll remind you there is absolutely no official doctrine in the church, never has been.

[_harmony]

Weren't you one of those righteous pre-existent spirits who didn't fence-sit before coming here? I know I was, and ever so proud of it. Phew, escaped the curse of the dark skin.

There is no such doctrine in the Church. One was either on the side of Christ, or on that of Lucifer. There were no neutrals in heaven. The "fence sitter" concept is LDS folk theology that has never had anything approaching official status in the Church as doctrine. If you cannot even get fundamental doctrines correct hana, what possible credibility can you have on thorny historical conundrums such as plural marriage? No credibility, no debate.

She was being facetious, Loran. Good grief.

[_Droopy]

Serious reading on LDS history? Please. Every time I distill this argument to its essence, the two of you avoid answering the most basic questions.

All you've insisted on doing, for the most part, is studiously avoiding the clear inferential implications of the confession within the context of LDS Temple theology relative to the doctrine of eternal marriage. You have shown, again and again, that your actual knowledge of LDS doctrine is fairly marginal, so this should not be any surprise.

The fact is, you can't figure out which is worse--Joseph Smith actually having sex with his wives, as he was entitled by gift from God, or being celibate.

You, see, you're not even having the same argument. I could care less whether or not Joseph had sex with his lawful plural wives. Those among them who were legally married for time to other men, however, would present a problem could it be shown that sexual relations took place. The confession Beastie posted is a good example--until you see its full form and correct punctuation. Then, if you understand LDS theology to a substantive degree, the likely implications of Sylvia's statements pose no problem at all.

If you do not and refuse to understand it, other conclusions are, of course, possible.

[_harmony]

Those among them who were legally married for time to other men, however, would present a problem could it be shown that sexual relations took place.

Guess he'll have some 'splainin' to do, come Judgment Day. Because there's no other reason for the Abomination except to raise up seed (if one believes Jacob 2, any way). And one must have sex in order to raise up seed.

Read your scriptures, Loran. Your ignorance is showing... or rather, your rationalization.