U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-14-2011, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,275 posts, read 20,883,681 times
Reputation: 9954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
No offense, but you seem to have a difficult time discerning when non-mormons are agreeing with you and offering a practical defense for Mormonism.
No offense, but I think you would come back at me with a criticism no matter what I said. My reference to Einstein (which is what I think you were getting at) was merely my attempt to say, "Well, you've just stated the obvious." I also noticed that the poster said "Isn't that the objective?" instead of "Wasn't that the objective?" which, to me, implied that he thought that Mormons were still practicing polygamy. That was the reason for the rest of my comments. If the poster was offended by my response, he didn't say anything. (Am I going to have to defend myself to you every time I post something?)

Quote:
In this case, he was simply making the observation that most of the religions of that day wanted to have lots of children to increase the ranks of it's members, thus offering a non-offensive explaination for why we should expect someone in Smith's position to have had many wives.
I think the issue here was that Joseph Smith actually didn't have any known descendants from any of his wives other than his first wife, Emma, who bore him quite a number of children. Given the lack of birth control measures in those days, this raises the question that Hueff posed in the OP. Brigham Young, under whom the practice of polygamy was made official, had many, many children by many, many women. Joseph Smith did not, and there is some indication that while he consumated a number of his marriages, he may not have consumated all of them. It is probably even more obvious that he was not having frequent relations with most of these women. Otherwise, you might have expected to see a sizable number of pregnancies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2011, 07:43 PM
 
2,670 posts, read 3,553,324 times
Reputation: 1010
Well Katz,while I agree with the substance of what you've posted I even think you've been a little over zealous toward a few posters in defending and correcting some comments they have made over the last day or so.While I applaud your efforts to 'correct the record' some of the posters seemed to me to hold simple ,misconceptions,or oversimplications and weren't 'attacking' the church or being willfully deceptive in my view.You normally do a great job of clarifying misconceptions about lds issues without 'rapping the students knuckles with a ruler' unless they really deserve it.....and I think a couple of them didn't
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,275 posts, read 20,883,681 times
Reputation: 9954
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbobbbb View Post
Well Katz,while I agree with the substance of what you've posted I even think you've been a little over zealous toward a few posters in defending and correcting some comments they have made over the last day or so.While I applaud your efforts to 'correct the record' some of the posters seemed to me to hold simple ,misconceptions,or oversimplications and weren't 'attacking' the church or being willfully deceptive in my view.You normally do a great job of clarifying misconceptions about lds issues without 'rapping the students knuckles with a ruler' unless they really deserve it.....and I think a couple of them didn't
Maybe you're right. I don't know. If I was out of line, I apologize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 06:02 AM
 
34,517 posts, read 8,904,414 times
Reputation: 4790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
Maybe you're right. I don't know. If I was out of line, I apologize.
I think that's ok. You obviously have a considerable knowledge of LDS and use it to defend your belief. I have been obliged to back off because my knowledge - though I have read the book and some background history - was shown to be sketchy and you showed that up pretty conclusively, with the result that I shall have to do some reading if I ever want to take LDS on again. I respect someone who knows their stuff. You deserve credit for that, rather than criticism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,275 posts, read 20,883,681 times
Reputation: 9954
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I think that's ok. You obviously have a considerable knowledge of LDS and use it to defend your belief. I have been obliged to back off because my knowledge - though I have read the book and some background history - was shown to be sketchy and you showed that up pretty conclusively, with the result that I shall have to do some reading if I ever want to take LDS on again. I respect someone who knows their stuff. You deserve credit for that, rather than criticism.
Thank you. No hard feelings on this end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 10:55 AM
 
2,379 posts, read 2,606,949 times
Reputation: 1191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
...Let me add that when I was a believer, I knew about all of this and was ok with it, because I thought whatsoever the Lord commands is right, no matter what our prejudices are. I mean God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (or Ishmael if your Muslim). It was not until I thoroughly studied the Book of Abraham, that I realized that Joseph was a knowing fraud, that I realized that God never commanded him to marry and have sex with all those girls, and that is when I became outraged.
Why get all pissed off about what happened 200 years ago?
It only raises your blood pressure & makes life generally seem unpleasant.
Yes, Joseph Smith had 30+ wives, many he slept with, some he married even when they were married to others. He screwed up.
Get over it!

He may have copied alot from the bible to the Book of Mormon... and he may have based Temple work on Freemasonry (which his dad was involved in)... so what?
He also began a church that has grown today to have influence world-wide.
Yes, it's not perfect, but I'd say, it's a pretty good religious organization...

-encourages the treatment of one's body as a temple (no smoking, no drinking alcohol/caffeine, no tatoos)
-No premarital sex
-Good sense of community - home teaching, visiting teaching - people are there for anyone when they need them
-Involves everyone - not just preached to - but everyone works as volunteers - teaching, praying, singing, etc.
-Teaches that we're all spiritual children of God, entitled to personal revelation about anything we seek.
-Family oriented (Family Home Evening every Monday - no meetings etc... also Date night (unofficially Fridays)
Teaches that families can be together forever - hope for those who's loved ones have passed on
-Service oriented - always helping others... locally & world-wide

I'm sure there are more positive aspects of Mormonism, & some negative aspects as well...
-Cliquish
-Doesn't encourage spiritual development beyond limiting, superficial doctrine (based on misteaching of political power-based Christianity)
-History issues - Polygamy, Some (esp. African Americans) restricted from priesthood & related prejudice
-Church doesn't disclose finances & has unhealthy relationship with $ & members (IMO)

Let's keep it all in perspective, not zeroing in on his strange sex life 200 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 11:45 AM
 
4,472 posts, read 5,129,775 times
Reputation: 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
So, you are ok with Joseph marrying and, by implication, having sex with his own foster daughters, and marrying and having sex with other men's wives, and marrying and having sex with girls as young as 14?

Aren't we outraged with Warren Jeffs, president of the RLDS, for doing very similar things?

I've actually looked at analyses of 1840's census, and it was not common to marry 14-year-olds back then, contrary to what some apologists try to claim.
Other mens wives would be adultry, foster daughter is a blurry line, and girls that are 14 is no problem. Through out most of history and even in alot of nations today that is not taboo, 14 is a freshman in high school and most everyone has hit puberty so its not like sleeping with a 3 year old. I personally think its unfair to the 14 year old because they will grow old unequally and she will have to deal with issues of him aging way before she should have to if she married her own age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 11:15 PM
 
2,670 posts, read 3,553,324 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt View Post
Aren't we outraged with Warren Jeffs, president of the RLDS, for doing very similar things?




.
While its a minor,easily made mistake and of little consequence to me Warren Jeffs is president of the FLDS not the RLDS.The RLDS never even practiced polgyny and i'm sure if I were a member of the RLDS I wouldn't be real happy to be associated with Warren Jeffs.I merely point this out to help clarify the somewhat confusing world of 'other latter day saint movement groups'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,275 posts, read 20,883,681 times
Reputation: 9954
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbobbbb View Post
While its a minor,easily made mistake and of little consequence to me Warren Jeffs is president of the FLDS not the RLDS.The RLDS never even practiced polgyny and i'm sure if I were a member of the RLDS I wouldn't be real happy to be associated with Warren Jeffs.I merely point this out to help clarify the somewhat confusing world of 'other latter day saint movement groups'.
Good catch!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2011, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,108 posts, read 2,424,287 times
Reputation: 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbobbbb View Post
While its a minor,easily made mistake and of little consequence to me Warren Jeffs is president of the FLDS not the RLDS.The RLDS never even practiced polgyny and i'm sure if I were a member of the RLDS I wouldn't be real happy to be associated with Warren Jeffs.I merely point this out to help clarify the somewhat confusing world of 'other latter day saint movement groups'.
Yes, good catch. I meant FLDS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top