Polygamy.....I Now Pronounce You Man and Wives

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
Don’t we mean “Polygyny”??

As far as I can tell, God never commanded gals to marry multiple guys. But wouldn’t what’s good for the gander also be good for the goose?
Click to expand...
Bump, what about polgyny why did LDS gals have more than one living husband at the same time?
 
NeuroTypical said:
This is the post you wanted me to respond to?

I don’t find “What if’s” very useful. I have a hard enough time trying to understand why things work the way they do. Changing something and then playing ‘who’s guess is best’ about what impact that should have, seems like a waste of time.

As far as the subject of the BoA in general, I note that egyptologists argue and fight amongst themselves as passionately as Kensyans and followers of Hyek. The whole area seems very personality-driven. It’s difficult to prove anything in such soft-science areas.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very typical non-answer that we hear when LDS are faced with a real challenge to their claims. The BoA is false, your leaders I am sure know it, so Grant Palmer is probably right.
 
lynnettejane said:
I think this is a very typical non-answer that we hear when LDS are faced with a real challenge to their claims. The BoA is false, your leaders I am sure know it, so Grant Palmer is probably right.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
What I have seen on this thread is that Mormons really have no defense for this horrible practice. They appear to deep-down believe that polygamy was a façade to allow js to have as many women as he wanted. They cannot defend his attemots to William Law and his wife into a wife swapping deal with js and his wife.

They cannot defend that their “prophets” lied about polygamy, did not stop practicing it when became illegal, and and they cannot defend BY claiming that no one can get to heaven without practicing polygamy.

Sad
 
TexanKnight said:
What I have seen on this thread is that Mormons really have no defense for this horrible practice. They appear to deep-down believe that polygamy was a façade to allow js to have as many women as he wanted. They cannot defend his attemots to William Law and his wife into a wife swapping deal with js and his wife.

They cannot defend that their “prophets” lied about polygamy, did not stop practicing it when became illegal, and and they cannot defend BY claiming that no one can get to heaven without practicing polygamy.

Sad
Click to expand...
As the old saying goes:

Bad habits are hard to break.
 
zaffiroborant said:
NeuroTypical;10842334:
As far as the subject of the BoA in general, I note that egyptologists argue and fight amongst themselves as passionately as Kensyans and followers of Hyek. The whole area seems very personality-driven. It’s difficult to prove anything in such soft-science areas.
Click to expand...
zaffiroborant said:
Except about the BoA, on that they agree, the JS translation is simply wrong. Nice job there though, muddying the water with innuendo, and making it about the manufactured failings of egyptologists in general instead of the failed translation of JS. I’ve seen LDS do this before both about egyptologists in general and using innuendo to besmirch specific individual egyptologists. But hey a bit of ad hominem here, poison the water there it’s all in a days work when you’re an LDS apologist.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why no response from any LDS poster on the fact that no Egyptologist agrees with Joseph Smiths translation of the BoA???
 
zaffiroborant said:
Why no response from any LDS poster on the fact that no Egyptologist agrees with Joseph Smiths translation of the BoA???
Click to expand...
The latest spin I see, is that Smith didn’t really translate, he was inspired by the papyri, the BofA being the result of that inspiration.

Revisionist history but LDS excel in that area.
 
RebeccaJ said:
The latest spin I see, is that Smith didn’t really translate, he was inspired by the papyri, the BofA being the result of that inspiration.

Revisionist history but LDS excel in that area.
Click to expand...
You mean he was inspired by Egyptian funerary texts? Amazing! :rolleyes:
 
TexanKnight said:
Seriously? Joe is a very common usage of Joseph. Very common. “Frankie Boy” is not a valid anything.

Geez.
Click to expand...
Maybe a little late to reply but my point was that all posts here could be considered insults to the “prophet” Joe. Afterall, Mormonism is an insult to God and, therefore, so is Joe Smith. Woe to those who lead God’s people from him.
 
Zachary said:
Maybe a little late to reply but my point was that all posts here could be considered insults to the “prophet” Joe. Afterall, Mormonism is an insult to God and, therefore, so is Joe Smith. Woe to those who lead God’s people from him.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Zachary said:
Maybe a little late to reply but my point was that all posts here could be considered insults to the “prophet” Joe. Afterall, Mormonism is an insult to God and, therefore, so is Joe Smith. Woe to those who lead God’s people from him.
Click to expand...
I mean, why would Jesus come into the world at such a specific time, die for us, the wait almost two decades and send word to Joe Smith that, btw, I’m changing my mind. The gospel is clear (and perfect) and needs no Smith, Hubbard or Luther to update it.

Call me uncharitable but some times these debates seem to be more about the writer rereading what he just wrote than anything else. Lots of words and no thought. A clanging gong.
 
NeuroTypical said:
I find it important that people understand the difference between wierd mormon stuff that is true, and wierd mormon stuff that is false. Our views on, and history of, polygamy, is true. Of course, not everything people tell you about LDS polygamy is true, and there’s a lot of assuming motives and guessing at reasons with which I disagree. From my standpoint, if you’re a believing Christian of any stripe, looking for ammo to use in your arguments against my church, there’s enough real stuff to be found in our history and doctrines that there’s no reason to make anything up.
Click to expand...
Therefore, the unspoken question, how di you know what is real or not? Or right or not? Doesn’t sound like how God wants us to live. Why not look into a faith which offer clear, unchanged truths which allows one to know God fully, the Father,Son and HS both spiritually and physically in the Holy Eucharist?
 
NeuroTypical said:
Petulant whining, Zachary? In my 12 years of paying attention, the only people who call Joseph Smith names like “Joe” or “Joey boy”, are critics who are engaged in attacking some aspect of Joseph. Historically, the armed mobs who were clamoring for blood were shouting about “old Joe and his gold bible”.

Just for the record, when I discuss the Pope, I’ll continue to use the appropriate title Pope Francis, and not “Frankie-boy” or any other such insulting nonsense.

I don’t think it’s petulant whining to request that an atmosphere of civility needs to go both ways.
Click to expand...
Joe was no prophet, Joe was a con-man of the first water. He was a clever man, with a great imagination, but no prophet. Wishing will not make it so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top