charity wrote:I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.
Charity you were recently referred to as a "d" word and that offended you.
"It seems logical to me that only those who think they are a "d" word have any call at all to be offended. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended."
Are you OK with this?
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
charity wrote:You have no proof at all that there were any physical relations between Joseph Smith and the wife of Orson Hyde. Or any of the plural wives.
How about the affidavits of some of those plural wives testifying to marital relations with Joseph?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
charity wrote:You have no proof at all that there were any physical relations between Joseph Smith and the wife of Orson Hyde. Or any of the plural wives.
How about the affidavits of some of those plural wives testifying to marital relations with Joseph?
I haven't seen the one from Marinda Hyde. Can you post?
Or the affidavit of any woman who was married to another man?
charity wrote:You have no proof at all that there were any physical relations between Joseph Smith and the wife of Orson Hyde. Or any of the plural wives.
How about the affidavits of some of those plural wives testifying to marital relations with Joseph?
I haven't seen the one from Marinda Hyde. Can you post?
Or the affidavit of any woman who was married to another man?
Would it make any difference to you what the women said?
charity wrote:You have no proof at all that there were any physical relations between Joseph Smith and the wife of Orson Hyde. Or any of the plural wives.
How about the affidavits of some of those plural wives testifying to marital relations with Joseph?
I haven't seen the one from Marinda Hyde. Can you post?
Or the affidavit of any woman who was married to another man?
I am not so sure the sex is the issue for me regarding polyandry. It might make is worse. But I think it was pretty awful anyway. Take Henry Jacobs-faithful LDS. Essentially he was not good enough to seal his own wife to him? And then Brigham took her for his own for time. What odd things resulted from such a bad thing as polyandry.
charity wrote:You have no proof at all that there were any physical relations between Joseph Smith and the wife of Orson Hyde. Or any of the plural wives.
How about the affidavits of some of those plural wives testifying to marital relations with Joseph?
I haven't seen the one from Marinda Hyde. Can you post?
Or the affidavit of any woman who was married to another man?
Would it make any difference to you what the women said?
The affidavits were executed in respose to one of the RLDS lawsuits over a temple site -- probably Jackson County; I can't recall. The Church would have tried to get the best possible evidence it had at the time.
charity wrote:You have no proof at all that there were any physical relations between Joseph Smith and the wife of Orson Hyde. Or any of the plural wives.
How about the affidavits of some of those plural wives testifying to marital relations with Joseph?
I haven't seen the one from Marinda Hyde. Can you post?
Or the affidavit of any woman who was married to another man?
I am not so sure the sex is the issue for me regarding polyandry. It might make is worse. But I think it was pretty awful anyway. Take Henry Jacobs-faithful LDS. Essentially he was not good enough to seal his own wife to him? And then Brigham took her for his own for time. What odd things resulted from such a bad thing as polyandry.
I can deal with both Hyde and Zina, but first I want Rollo to support the claim that Hyde made an affidavit.
charity wrote:I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.
Charity you were recently referred to as a "d" word and that offended you.
"It seems logical to me that only those who think they are a "d" word have any call at all to be offended. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended."
Are you OK with this?
You missed an important part of merc's post.
He said I, specifically, was a d****.
Now, if he had said, "All stupid, blind, Mormons are d****'s" and then I thought he meant me, I would have to admit that I thought I was a stupid, blind Mormon. But when he said "Charity, you are a d*****." that is a different case. I hope you can see the difference there.
To be honest I really don't give a rat's butt if Marinda Hyde executed an affidavit claiming to have had sex with Joseph Smith while her real husband was out of town or not. I don't care whether we have any of her blue dresses with Lewinksi stains we can run DNA tests on and compare with Joseph's descendants. I think it's been clearly enough established that there is an overwhelming pattern in Joseph Smith's plural marriages of sex being involved, that I can think of no good reason not to assume that he didn't also have sex with Marinda Hyde.
But even aside from that, why in the hell would God's true prophet go meet with the wife of an apostle by themselves and tell her she ought to marry him, when she was already married to a living man? That cannot be explained satisfactorily within the doctrines of the LDS church, much less the standards of the day, or our day. Having done so would have made them "legal", in Joseph's eyes, to have had sex, and that means he would have thought it perfectly fine for him to be having sex with the wife of one of his apostles, whom he'd sent out on a mission. There's really no good reason to assume that they didn't have sex.
And the story of Henry Jacobs, and Zina, is just damnable. Joseph Smith courted Zina, but she was already in love with Henry Jacobs, and ended up marrying him. Joseph Smith couldn't just wish him well and be happy for him. No, he still continued courting her even after she'd already married Henry. He persisted until Henry and Zina agreed to let Zina be married to Joseph Smith. Henry and Zina had some kids together and everything, and still the Mormon Prophet, the man who is said to have communed with Jehovah, and to have done more for the salvation of all mankind save Jesus alone, still would not stop pursuing her and didn't give up until she and Henry agreed to the bizarre time-share marriage. And then what Brigham did to Henry later on after Joseph's death was simply unforgiveable. He basically claimed Zina as Joseph Smith's proxy and kicked Henry out of her life. And she was Henry's wife!
How can you guys honestly look at yourselves in the mirror and say out loud, without cringing, that God, the great Elohim, and Jehova his son would require, or even just allow, their Prophet on Earth to actively pursue a woman who has already decided to marry the man she loves, and not give up until she agrees with something so contrary to all scriptural precedent, the mores of the time, and common decency? How can you guys honestly pull this off? Have you guys so thoroughly given over your very minds and consciences to the Church, and honestly and truly are untouchable by any notion that contradicts its truth in your mind?
Or are you really as repulsed as the rest of us are by these shenanigans, but doing your best to write it all off as the reaction of a flawed paradigm that must be altered until Joseph was still a righteous man and a true Prophet, a la David Bokovoy?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen