John C Bennett's Highly Unpopular Boston Anti Mormon Lecture

[_ZelphtheGreat]

"a payment of the rent Bennett owed for the 39 weeks he lived in the Smith home in 1840-1841"

Think Joe the sexual predator charged rent to the girls he was grooming to be his later 'wives'?

Maybe the sexual favors later were Joe "collecting payment"? Seem right for him, doesn't it? Making them into little hookers who pay with their bodies? Fits in perfectly with his character.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

How doesn't it work?

In Darth J's convoluted logic it can't work because according to him both Joseph Smith and Bennett can be justified by lack of cohabitation and lack of children.

Wait a minute, I thought you were the one arguing that no cohabitation and no kids meant no sex? Am I wrong?

The problem for Bennett is that there is actual corresponding evidence of sexual impropriety whereas in Joseph Smith's case, there is none.

What do you mean by "sexual impropriety"? Isn't having sexual intercourse with a woman not your legal wife generally viewed as "sexual impropriety"? How, pray tell, is Bennett's sexual intercourse with a woman not his legal wife considered "sexual impropriety," while Joseph's sexual intercourse with a woman not his legal wife not considered "sexual impropriety"?

As I've established, and you've agreed, under both "versions" each man had sex with women to whom he was not legally and lawfully wedded.

I've agreed to nothing yet.

Oh, yes you have. You have agreed that both "versions" involved a man having sexual intercourse with women to whom he was not legally and lawfully wedded. Not even you can be this obtuse.

[_bcspace]

If the "Bible" (God) sanctioned plural marriage, then is it unreasonable to think that plural marriage might be sanctioned at other times?

No, it's not unreasonable,

Then merely practicing plural marriage and having sex in those relationships, at least in a Christian sense, is not an argument that can be logically used against the Church or Joseph Smith. I realize some here are not Christian at all, but I'd say (anecdotally) most in the audience are.

And now that we come to that point, I freely admit some women sealed to Joseph Smith testified as to sexual relations in the temple lot case.

but, as someone above pointed out, I see a real difference between "sanction" and "command."

Neither here nor there. If sanctioned, then one would seem free to choose the quantifiabilities. David's case seems sanctioned. I tend to go with commanded and sanctioned which I term authorization.

I also note that the prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon didn't seem to think that King David's polygamy was "sanctioned" by God.

The Bible and D&C confirm God's authorization and both clarify that it was what David did without God's authorization that was not "sanctioned".

[_Darth J]

In Darth J's convoluted logic it can't work because according to him both Joseph Smith and Bennett can be justified by lack of cohabitation and lack of children. The problem for Bennett is that there is actual corresponding evidence of sexual impropriety whereas in Joseph Smith's case, there is none.

No, because it is not possible for people to have sexual relations unless they live together, so lack of cohabitation proves that John C. Bennett did not have sex with his plural wives. Also, when a male and a female have sexual intercourse, it invariably results in the birth of a child. So the lack of children also proves that John C. Bennett did not have sex with his plural wives.

Lack of cohabitation and lack of lack of children conclusively decide the issue, so we don't need to address affidavits and court testimony promulgated by extremely friendly sources. Nor do we need to address the admission by one of the plural wives shortly before her death.

Also, Mormons are dogmatically hostile to John C. Bennett, so I only need to rely on faith-promoting sources.

[_Darth J]

And now that we come to that point, I freely admit some women sealed to Joseph Smith testified as to sexual relations in the temple lot case.

Which party called them as witnesses, and what was the relevance of their testimony? I forgot.

[_bcspace]

Wait a minute, I thought you were the one arguing that no cohabitation and no kids meant no sex? Am I wrong?

Nope. That is still the case.

The problem for Bennett is that there is actual corresponding evidence of sexual impropriety whereas in Joseph Smith's case, there is none.

What do you mean by "sexual impropriety"? Isn't having sexual intercourse with a woman not your legal wife generally viewed as "sexual impropriety"?

Now you've changed the parameters of the argument.

I've agreed to nothing yet.

Oh, yes you have. You have agreed that both "versions" involved a man having sexual intercourse with women to whom he was not legally and lawfully wedded. Not even you can be this obtuse.

With the change in parameters, we are back to square one.

[_Darth J]

Still no actual evidence that John C. Bennett had sex with his plural wives. Just more conjecture and yellow journalism.

What lengths people will go to in order to justify their unbelief in John C. Bennett.

[_Darth J]

bcspace, how could David have sinned with Bathsheba? They didn't cohabitate when Bathsheba cheated on Uriah.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Then merely practicing plural marriage and having sex in those relationships, at least in a Christian sense, is not an argument that can be logically used against the Church or Joseph Smith.

Sure it can, if that Christian doesn't think that Joseph's behavior was "sanctioned" by God.

And now that we come to that point, I freely admit some women sealed to Joseph Smith testified as to sexual relations in the temple lot case.

Do you believe that what those women testified to was the truth?

but, as someone above pointed out, I see a real difference between "sanction" and "command."

Neither here nor there. If sanctioned, then one would seem free to choose the quantifiabilities. David's case seems sanctioned. I tend to go with commanded and sanctioned which I term authorization.

I think there is a very real difference, particularly in Joseph's case where he so often used the "God commanded me or I'll be destroyed" card; in contrast, David could just force the women to do it because he was king. I don't know of any instance in which David took a plural wife or concubine because God commanded him to.

I also note that the prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon didn't seem to think that King David's polygamy was "sanctioned" by God.

The Bible and D&C confirm God's authorization and both clarify that it was what David did without God's authorization that was not "sanctioned".

Wait a minute -- I thought the Book of Mormon was "the most correct book on the face of the Earth." Suckered again.

[_Darth J]

Then merely practicing plural marriage and having sex in those relationships, at least in a Christian sense, is not an argument that can be logically used against the Church or Joseph Smith.

Straw Man wanted me to ask you who is saying that.