O
OKComputer
Guest
And even that is falling apart. They recycle names quite frequently. At last count about 30% of the names used in the temple have been used before. That was also a major shelf item for me.
- Status
P
PeaceBeWithYou
Guest
Seems quite strange to me. I know quite a few LDS folks and they seem very guarded when I ask questions about their faith. One of them gave me a copy of the book of Mormon and told me all my questions can be answered by reading it.
A
AngelaMarie
Guest
Depending on what your questions are would depend on if the BoM would answer them. There is nothing in the BoM that talks of what goes on in the temple, for example.
They Mormons are having success in third world countries. Places like the countries of Africa. But the same is true for the Catholic Church and other denominations.
How good the retention rates are? Well, that is another story.
Like the Catholic parishes in the USA, Mormon words are contracting, and wards and stakes are being merged. The only exception to that would be what is know as the Mormon corridor (Utah, Idaho-which is north of Utah, and Azirona, which is south of Utah).
It really depends where in the world one is speaking of
O
OKComputer
Guest
And even inside the Mormon corridor, there is trouble brewing.
Foreshadowing.
Foreshadowing.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
They’re in for a big wake up call. Once the dead are dead, they can’t be whatever Mormons consider “redeemed” to be. Mormons can’t go in their temples as proxies for anyone. They can’t baptize their dead using live members as proxies.
G
gazelam
Guest
There are non-LDS historical sources confirming the curtain account. But that scenario wasn’t the only one used during the translation process. It seems unnecessary that the Sunday School manual contain half a dozen pictures each time the translation process is taught.
non-LDS historical curtain reference said:
Only a liberal one.gazelam:
You got a reference?
NYT:
You don’t, and this isn’t pedophilia. Such a victim of pedophilia wouldn’t write a book defending polygamy, and wouldn’t raise her children to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. There is significant evidence that the marriage was never consummated.
Until 2016 in Virginia it was still legal for a 13 year old girl to marry. See here.
Her father first suggested the marriage. This Helen Mar Kimball story is simply used in an attempt to wrongly smear Joseph Smith.
No worries, and I won’t refer the missionaries to you.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
It’s always telling, this blind defense of a married man in his thirties, who groomed teenagers into his bed. “But her father encouraged it.” Really? You think that makes it ok? Do you want to stop and think about that for a minute or two? When teenagers were getting married, it wasn’t to married men in their thirties. It was to single boys and young men, who were closer in age.
A victim of sexual abuse professing love for their abuser is not a good sign. It’s an indication of the manipulation fostered on the victim. The victim’s love and adoration is a means for the abuser to keep the victim in line, and receptive to continued abuse.
But I agree with you that the marriage was never consummated, in that, their was never a marriage to consummate. Sexual abuse is not a consummation of marriage.
A victim of sexual abuse professing love for their abuser is not a good sign. It’s an indication of the manipulation fostered on the victim. The victim’s love and adoration is a means for the abuser to keep the victim in line, and receptive to continued abuse.
But I agree with you that the marriage was never consummated, in that, their was never a marriage to consummate. Sexual abuse is not a consummation of marriage.
Last edited:
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
How brainwashed does one have to be to defend Joseph Smith’s coerced sham marriages to girls as young as 14? Or his marriages to women who were already married to other men? Or how Joseph repeatedly lied to Emma about his affairs/plural marriages until she found out? The entire Joseph Smith polygamy travesty stinks to high heaven.
The pathetic excuses Mormons make for his behavior are ridiculous…and untrue:
Oh, and LDS claim that polygamy was ended in 1890 with a revelation to their prophet. But in fact polygamy was “suspended” by the 1890 manifesto due to pressure from the U.S. government, which was seriously considering invading Utah territory and disenfranchising the Mormon church. But the church continued creating plural marriages in Mexico long after that, and even today the church still practices polygamy in that men can remarry in the temple for eternity if their first wife dies, but a woman cannot. That means these LDS men will have multiple wives in the celestial kingdom. Two of the current top three leadership in the church have been sealed to two women–Apostle Dallin Oaks and President Russell Nelson.
The pathetic excuses Mormons make for his behavior are ridiculous…and untrue:
- Teenage marriage was very common in his time and place—not true (the average age then for a woman getting married was 22.)
- There weren’t enough men for women to marry so they needed polygamy so all women would have a marriage opportunity–not true (there were many more men than women on the frontier).
- God commanded Abraham to plural marriage so it must have been o.k. in the 1800’s–untrue. This claim was made by Joseph Smith in his revelation on polygamy, but nowhere in the bible does God command Abraham to take a second wife. Abraham did that on his own at the behest of Sarah instead of trusting God that Sarah would someday have a child of her own, and it all ended up in disaster.
- Well Joseph did marry a lot of women (including teenagers) but he didn’t have sex with all of them. First of all, there is no way you can possibly know that. Secondly, what difference does it make? Isn’t just marrying all these young women (and girls) creepy enough on its own?
Oh, and LDS claim that polygamy was ended in 1890 with a revelation to their prophet. But in fact polygamy was “suspended” by the 1890 manifesto due to pressure from the U.S. government, which was seriously considering invading Utah territory and disenfranchising the Mormon church. But the church continued creating plural marriages in Mexico long after that, and even today the church still practices polygamy in that men can remarry in the temple for eternity if their first wife dies, but a woman cannot. That means these LDS men will have multiple wives in the celestial kingdom. Two of the current top three leadership in the church have been sealed to two women–Apostle Dallin Oaks and President Russell Nelson.
Last edited:
O
OKComputer
Guest
You are so right about number 1. I can’t tell you how many Mormons I’ve heard say that “Oh, young teens getting married was common back then.” No it wasn’t. Not even close. I didn’t even graduate college and I know that.
Last edited:
G
gazelam
Guest
Absolutely shocking!
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Hello,
I do not consider myself brainwashed. I doubt you know more about the practice of polygamy by the early CoJCoLDS than I do.
I will assert a few things and then ask you two questions. You can answer or recognize that you have no answer and should change the way you attack my church.
The historical record cannot demonstrate when/if God spoke to Joseph Smith anymore than it can demonstrate when God spoke to St. Peter.
The historical record is consistent with Joseph Smith NEVER consummating ANY of his plural marriages. This is a possibility. I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility.
I do not think any LDS should suggest that the historical record can be read without acknowledging sins associated with polygamy. Deception being the chief one I think is too certain to deny. While one can debate the amount of culpability involved in these deceptions and what other choices would have meant, it is IMO prudent to acknowledge sinful deception.
1. Is #4 creepy because multiple young woman are betrothed to Joseph Smith even if this marriage is ONLY a spiritual connection and not sexual?
2. If God did not command Polygamy, why did Joseph Smith introduce Polygamy?
I am no fan of Polygamy. I suspect it would mean I would have zero wives if it was practiced today. I am a modern American and as such polygamy does not sit well with me. But the arguments offered against it IMO fall down when present-ism, prejudice, and other biases are brought into check.
Charity, TOm
I do not consider myself brainwashed. I doubt you know more about the practice of polygamy by the early CoJCoLDS than I do.
I will assert a few things and then ask you two questions. You can answer or recognize that you have no answer and should change the way you attack my church.
The historical record cannot demonstrate when/if God spoke to Joseph Smith anymore than it can demonstrate when God spoke to St. Peter.
The historical record is consistent with Joseph Smith NEVER consummating ANY of his plural marriages. This is a possibility. I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility.
I do not think any LDS should suggest that the historical record can be read without acknowledging sins associated with polygamy. Deception being the chief one I think is too certain to deny. While one can debate the amount of culpability involved in these deceptions and what other choices would have meant, it is IMO prudent to acknowledge sinful deception.
- Teenage marriage was MORE common and “on the frontier” the average age of a female’s first marriage was much lower than 22.
- I think ENOUGH is inaccurate. I think it possible that the children of faithful polygamists received greater paternal spiritual guidance than my children might. Since birth rates for males and females are very close to equal and early death does not create the mismatch, it is IMO wrong to say there were not enough men for women. There are examples of marrying widows, but this does not explain what happened either.
- God did “give” multiple wives to David according to the Bible. Do you think this is a Bible error?
- I do not think it is creepy when children are sealed to their parents and siblings like my daughter was.
1. Is #4 creepy because multiple young woman are betrothed to Joseph Smith even if this marriage is ONLY a spiritual connection and not sexual?
2. If God did not command Polygamy, why did Joseph Smith introduce Polygamy?
I am no fan of Polygamy. I suspect it would mean I would have zero wives if it was practiced today. I am a modern American and as such polygamy does not sit well with me. But the arguments offered against it IMO fall down when present-ism, prejudice, and other biases are brought into check.
Charity, TOm
A
Apache75
Guest
As for #4, your church teaches families are forever. While I don’t think it is wrong to want our children or loved ones to be with us in the afterlife, the teaching is not sound. You believe in the 3 kingdoms correct? Now correct me if I am wrong but the lower level of the LDS heaven cannot go to the 2nd and 1st heavens but someone in the 1st heaven can visit the lower kingdoms? So families are actually not forever if one cannot visit the other and must wait for another to visit. As for polygamy, God would have to contradict his own words. The Bible says for a man and a woman to leave their parents and become one. Not man and women. Smith had to make up such a claim to justify it to his wife when he was caught cheating on her. This revelation came only after he was caught, not before. Polygamy is a way for men to be lustful and say God commanded it. Nothing more. And don’t try and say Abraham had 2 wives. Sara was his only wife and Hagar was his slave, not wife.
Last edited:
O
OKComputer
Guest
Could you please show us a legit non LDS source about women marrying that young “on the frontier”?
Stephen168
New member
Joseph Smith claimed to restore Christianity, not Judaism. Polygamy has never been a Christian practice. In fact, celibacy has been the example set by Christian leadership since the Apostles.
Stephen168
New member
Yes, I think the problem was Joseph Smith’s age not the age of the girls.
Canon Law tells us:
Canon 1083.1 A man cannot validly enter marriage before the completion of his sixteenth year of age, nor a woman before the completion of her fourteenth year.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Are you willing to answer my questions?
Anyway…
We have Benjamin Franklin stating:
This is the GENERAL principle to which I was referring.
Here is some data that is later than the 1830’s and 1840’s we are actually talking about, but it shows that areas that included frontier regions had lower marriage ages:
There is no data for pre-1850 readily available, but in the two “west” regions and in the “Mountain and Pacific Region” average ages in the 1850’s, 1860’s were still below 22. It should be noted that the percent of 15-19 year old females who were married was in the 20’s.
I have no idea how to extrapolate from the 1850’s census data to the frontier pre-census and 1830’s/1840’s truth, but I think Benjamin Franklin’s principle should aid in such projections.
Average ages of 19 for females are reported in some rural areas in the 1700’s.
This is not an important aspect of this debate IMO. The answer to my bolded questions are important IMO.
Charity, TOm
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I’m descended from Mormon polygamists. My grandmother’s grandmother and her two sisters were married to the same man. Plus he married two more women, for five total.
He died young, leaving a dozen or so young children with no father, which in those times, meant no breadwinner. The older, married children from these marriages took in their younger siblings and raised them.
Anyway, regarding spiritual marriages…this is a borrowing of terms from another polygamous group in the Nauvoo area, who followed a spiritual leader named Jacob Cochran. Cochran called plural marriage, spiritual wifery. His ideas and practices were admired by Brigham Young and others, who introduced them into Nauvoo. No fool then ever believed spiritual wifery meant the oxymoron, celibate marriage.
I agree, a thirty something married man who chases after other women and young teenagers, is a creep.
He died young, leaving a dozen or so young children with no father, which in those times, meant no breadwinner. The older, married children from these marriages took in their younger siblings and raised them.
Anyway, regarding spiritual marriages…this is a borrowing of terms from another polygamous group in the Nauvoo area, who followed a spiritual leader named Jacob Cochran. Cochran called plural marriage, spiritual wifery. His ideas and practices were admired by Brigham Young and others, who introduced them into Nauvoo. No fool then ever believed spiritual wifery meant the oxymoron, celibate marriage.
I agree, a thirty something married man who chases after other women and young teenagers, is a creep.
Last edited:
O
OKComputer
Guest
I’m under the impression that Joe Smiths behavior was considered predatory back then as well. Like you perfectly said, a married man looking to hook up with other women is creepy no matter what century you are in. Add in the age aspect and you’ve got him crossing every single line out there.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
True that. But today’s Mormons are far removed from their 19th century predecessors, in many ways. For one, Smith is more legend now than fact.
O
OKComputer
Guest
I think it’s because the past is so difficult for them to justify. Think about it-how many Mormons leave the church after hearing about the history? A ton. How many converts join the church after hearing about it’s history? None.
Smith will eventually fade away into oblivion or be thought of like a Ron Hubbard character.
Smith will eventually fade away into oblivion or be thought of like a Ron Hubbard character.
- Status