Mormon Church Launches Website On 'Sa...

Mormon Church Launches Website On 'Same-Sex Attraction'

There are 432 comments on the GPB.org story from Dec 6, 2012, titled Mormon Church Launches Website On 'Same-Sex Attraction'. In it, GPB.org reports that:

The Mormon Church has a new website to clarify its position on "same-sex attraction" and to reach out to all of its members, including gays and lesbians, "with love and understanding." The launching of mormonsandgays.org follows persistent criticism of Mormon involvement in California's ballot measure banning gay marriage, NPR's Howard Berkes ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at GPB.org.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#383 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
D&C 132
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
What trespasses would she be angry about if it wasn't adultery?
Did you read ALL of D&C 132? No. If you had read it all, you would have taken note that it said nothing at all about Emma being "angry" with Smith. You're twisted statement is based on you wanting to believe the Lord was telling an angry Emma, angry at what you believe were adulterous actions of Smith that Emma became wise to, that made her angry so verse 56 to you is about Emma's anger for Smiths adultery and the Lord telling her to cool it and forgive him.
Like I said, nice twist.
D&C 132 says nothing of Emma being angry nor of Smith having committed adultery. It does state that as the Lord forgives them both their trespasses, that he wan't Emma to forgive Smith his trespasses and wants Smith to forgive Emma her trespasses.
Read the information as it was written before you foolishly twist it to your wants and needs.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#384 Jan 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, you need to face this fact and accept it as the fact it is. Smith never, ever, legally married any other female accept Emma. She was his only "legally" recognized wife.
What does "legal" have to do with this subject? He was claiming to be above the law. That God's law out rules man's law. They are listed as his wives on the LDS familysearch web site, so they consider them "legal" marriages. You do love to debate what overs aren't even claiming. And for that, I'm deleting all of the rest of this post debating the legality of his marriages. You are such a child. Not even a clever one. You get backed into a corner and you try to change the debate. Pathetic.
As to your question, I know anti-Mormons on the web that understand why Smith preformed his own "version" of a "holy marriage" to these other women. So why do they get it and you don't? That's the real question. They know from what they have read that Smith married those women for the "here after". They know that Smith didn't marry those females to have a relationship in the here and now because for most of those females he married, there is no existing evidence to show he married them and had a marital relationship with them. They know that for most of those females he married, there is no evidence he consummated those relationships as he did so with Emma.
I don't know these other so-called "anti-Mormons" nor why they would think differently from me. Nor do I care. But the wording of the ceremony made it perfectly clear that the marriage began right that minute, while they were alive. It said nothing about the marriage starting at the time of his or hers death. So maybe those "anti's" are as thick and ignorant about plain simple English as you are. The wording couldn't be any more clearer.
They do speak of the rumours spread by a few of the wives and some of the rumours spread by people that knew Smith or the wife. But many acknowledge wisely there exists no factual evidence to prove Smith had sex with any of them.
But being wise doesn't seem to suit you.
Just as common sense doesn't seem to suit you. But I'm calling you a liar. Show me some "anti" who thinks it's all rumors. I can hardly wait.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#385 Jan 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read ALL of D&C 132? No. If you had read it all, you would have taken note that it said nothing at all about Emma being "angry" with Smith. You're twisted statement is based on you wanting to believe the Lord was telling an angry Emma, angry at what you believe were adulterous actions of Smith that Emma became wise to, that made her angry so verse 56 to you is about Emma's anger for Smiths adultery and the Lord telling her to cool it and forgive him.
Like I said, nice twist.
D&C 132 says nothing of Emma being angry nor of Smith having committed adultery. It does state that as the Lord forgives them both their trespasses, that he wan't Emma to forgive Smith his trespasses and wants Smith to forgive Emma her trespasses.
Read the information as it was written before you foolishly twist it to your wants and needs.
The subject of D&C 132 was God telling Emma that polygamy was his will for Smith. It was also a admission that Smith had started long before he wrote that revelation down. What other trespasses would he be talking about? Him not taking out the garbage?

Still a child. You don't see the truth because you don't want to see the truth. That's your problem, not mine.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#386 Jan 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
From the web...
While Bennett was mayor, he was caught in private sexual relations with women in the city. He told the women that the practice, which he termed "spiritual wifery," was sanctioned by God and Joseph Smith, and that Joseph Smith did the same. When discovered, he privately confessed his crimes, produced an affidavit that Joseph Smith had no part in his adultery and was disciplined accordingly.
Yes, Smith excommunicated people for doing exactly what they saw him doing. Bennett had to be punished for exposing the perversions of his prophet.

Are you really going to claim that Smith didn't teach "spiritual wifery,"?

The term was later introduced to Mormonism by John C. Bennett, who openly applied it to the doctrine of plural marriage. According to Helen Mar Whitney, "At the time [in Nauvoo] spiritual wife was the title by which every woman who entered into this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order."[3] Bennett was soon excommunicated for such offenses.

William Smith, youngest brother of Joseph Smith, Jr. and an Apostle, as well as briefly Patriarch to the LDS Church, wrote a little-known pamphlet in late 1844, called The Elders' Pocket Companion, explaining his own views on the differences between "the Spiritual Wife System" and "plurality of wives". Smith explained that spiritual wifery was the practice of:(1) an LDS woman standing as living proxy for her husband's previous civil wife (or wives) to be "sealed" to him for all eternity by the power of LDS priesthood, and (2) unmarried LDS women being sealed plurally to LDS men during the "Millennium" (the post-apocalyptic thousand year reign of Jesus on the earth). The "plurality of wives doctrine" however, Smith wrote, was simply biblical polygamy as practiced by the "ancient Prophets and Patriarchs". Citing the Book of Mormon, Smith ended his pamphlet emphasizing that the Book of Mormon, while generally proscribing biblical-type polygamy, does include the loophole, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I WILL COMMAND MY PEOPLE" (emphasis is Smith's).[4] Smith's THEORIES HOWEVER BELIED HIS PRAXIS, for he not only had some five civil wives (two of whom he was sealed to by LDS priesthood) but he was also sealed to some 17 other women, whom he generally referred to as "spiritual wives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery...

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#387 Jan 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What is wrong with you? You're thinking is so twisted.
The writing in a diary is usually personal and usually not written to state pathetic lies to deceive who ever might read it before or after their death.
Smith was "pro-diary". He told his people to keep and maintain diary's. Diary's of early Mormons have given us much, much information about what went on in the early days of the church. And when different individuals write of a similar experience, that's called strong circumstantial evidence of something having taken place. Like the personal diary writings of those Mormons that went through the Haun's Mill massacre. They corroborate certain things that took place.
Well these wives had diary's. Not a single one ever wrote of what they later considered was one of the most important events in their life that happened to them. A marriage, legal or illegally done. They didn't record it. They didn't say it had been consummated. They didn't write of liking it, hating it, feeling raped, feeling used, feeling elated, feeling glad, not anything!
And after Smith was dead most wonder what kept these wives from writing detailed accounts of their marriage and consummated relationship with Smith. He was dead and there were no repercussions to be had. The fact that some would speak of having children and having consummated the relationship in court proves nothing held them back from recording such an eventful experience. But we have nothing. And as usual you don't ask why.
Of your reply about a court recorded statement, are you telling me you believe no one lies in court for their own need/purpose or for the need/purpose of someone else? Is that what you're telling me? You're saying in your mind, these women told the God's honest truth and nothing but the truth? That is your belief???
And the statements given by these women aren't a straw-man argument. THE JUDGE DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM! According to you if you believe those women were telling God's truth, then you can't disbelieve that the Judge called them inn a nice way LIARS. He didn't believe them. He didn't believe any polygamous consummated relationships took place from the evidence presented to him.
Deal with that bit of fact for a change :)
What judge didn't believe them?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#388 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
What does "legal" have to do with this subject? He was claiming to be above the law. That God's law out rules man's law. They are listed as his wives on the LDS familysearch web site, so they consider them "legal" marriages. You do love to debate what overs aren't even claiming. And for that, I'm deleting all of the rest of this post debating the legality of his marriages. You are such a child. Not even a clever one. You get backed into a corner and you try to change the debate. Pathetic.
Fact. Smith was never legally married but to one woman. People over look that fact. I realize people speak of his "wives" and even I do. But by the law of this land, Smith had one wife and only one wife.
Do you realize that it was never proved in any court of law while Smith lived or after he died that he was illegally married through bigamy or polygamy to any female but Emma?
You, me, we all speak like these were females Smith legally married. They weren't. You and others address these females like he legally married them but under the action of bigamy and the legal proof is Smith and each wife consummated the marriage and or had children.
Very few people understand that these "so called marriages" weren't legal. Very few understand that these females and Smith married for the "here after", not for the here and now. That they married him to give him children in the here after, not the here and now. Very few understand these marriages had nothing to do with the here and now.
And that's why Smith was never charged with bigamy. People claimed Smith was marrying this girl and that girl. But the proof of sexual relations and cohabitation was greatly lacking even for those that hated Smith when he was living.
What provides proof for all that? Lack of evidence of relationships being consummated. Lack of evidence of living together as man and wife. lack of evidence of sexual relations a man and wife would normally have because no children have been proved to exist which would verify sexual relations. After Smith died, many wives went on to have children in another married relationship that produced one or more children, proving sexual relations took place but not with Smith.
So when any one says Smith was married to other females, that word married comes with unknown complications so many never understand nor consider.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#390 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject of D&C 132 was God telling Emma that polygamy was his will for Smith. It was also a admission that Smith had started long before he wrote that revelation down. What other trespasses would he be talking about? Him not taking out the garbage?
Still a child. You don't see the truth because you don't want to see the truth. That's your problem, not mine.
No it wasn't. There were 66 verses and only 5 pertained to Emma.
Next, Smith, according to the story couldn't have committed any trespasses as you define them. In the story it states the Lord gave Smith his wives he would marry for time and eternity. So Smith couldn't have committed any trespasses. So what Emma needed to forgive of according to the information in 132 didn't pertain to him having other wives, adultery, etc as you claim.
Read the information please?????

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#391 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
What judge didn't believe them?
The judge handling the temple lot case. You reference that case all the time when you speak of the two wives that made claim to of had sexual relations with Smith while under oath.
How don't you know that? Are you telling me you reference information without knowing the source of that information? Yes, that's what you just revealed. You use information without reading the source it comes from. Maybe you should Google the Temple Lot case and read the minutes, just saying :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#392 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Smith excommunicated people for doing exactly what they saw him doing. Bennett had to be punished for exposing the perversions of his prophet.
Are you really going to claim that Smith didn't teach "spiritual wifery,"?
The term was later introduced to Mormonism by John C. Bennett, who openly applied it to the doctrine of plural marriage. According to Helen Mar Whitney, "At the time [in Nauvoo] spiritual wife was the title by which every woman who entered into this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order."[3] Bennett was soon excommunicated for such offenses.
William Smith, youngest brother of Joseph Smith, Jr. and an Apostle, as well as briefly Patriarch to the LDS Church, wrote a little-known pamphlet in late 1844, called The Elders' Pocket Companion, explaining his own views on the differences between "the Spiritual Wife System" and "plurality of wives". Smith explained that spiritual wifery was the practice of:(1) an LDS woman standing as living proxy for her husband's previous civil wife (or wives) to be "sealed" to him for all eternity by the power of LDS priesthood, and (2) unmarried LDS women being sealed plurally to LDS men during the "Millennium" (the post-apocalyptic thousand year reign of Jesus on the earth). The "plurality of wives doctrine" however, Smith wrote, was simply biblical polygamy as practiced by the "ancient Prophets and Patriarchs". Citing the Book of Mormon, Smith ended his pamphlet emphasizing that the Book of Mormon, while generally proscribing biblical-type polygamy, does include the loophole, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I WILL COMMAND MY PEOPLE" (emphasis is Smith's).[4] Smith's THEORIES HOWEVER BELIED HIS PRAXIS, for he not only had some five civil wives (two of whom he was sealed to by LDS priesthood) but he was also sealed to some 17 other women, whom he generally referred to as "spiritual wives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery...
No, Smith NEVER taught spiritual wifery as Bennett taught it to Mormon women to so to have sex with.
Wiki...
While Bennett was mayor(and a Mormon), he was caught in private sexual relations with women in the city. He told the women that the practice, which he termed "spiritual wifery," was sanctioned by God and Joseph Smith, and that Joseph Smith did the same. When discovered, he privately confessed his crimes, produced an affidavit that Joseph Smith had no part in his adultery and was disciplined accordingly.
Now read and weep...
Wiki...
Bennett's subsequent letter to the editor of the Hawk-Eye and Iowa Patriot describing the Mormon "Doctrine of Marrying for Eternity" is the first of his writings that discusses eternal marriage, as compared to the free love/spiritual wife doctrine he previously accused Joseph of practicing, where sexual relations weren't in the context of committed marriage.[3]Smith, Andrew F (1971). The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 138.
Read slowly....
"...describing the Mormon "Doctrine of Marrying for Eternity" is the first of his writings that discusses eternal marriage,...where sexual relations weren't in the context of committed marriage."
....
Even Bennett is quoted as having said the actual doctrine of marrying for eternity as Smith actually taught it, excluded sexual relations.
Summery; Your Bennett man flip flopped a lot on his thinking. Did you know it's suspected by many researchers of Bennett that he joined the church because he heard he could have multiple wives? Did you know in his first book he wrote that he denied ever believing anything about Mormonism? Did you know after Smith died, he would become a Mormon AGAIN under Ridgon's Mormon sect?
I keep pleading for you to just read your own information.
Concerning William Smith, please read his pamphlet...
http://connellodonovan.com/pocket_companion.p...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#393 Jan 8, 2013
This is all as ideologically rationalized and encrusted as a Hammerkop's nest.

"My yoke is easy, and my burden is light"

When things move away from this simplicity, the chances of BS increase exponentially.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#395 Jan 8, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The judge handling the temple lot case. You reference that case all the time when you speak of the two wives that made claim to of had sexual relations with Smith while under oath.
How don't you know that? Are you telling me you reference information without knowing the source of that information? Yes, that's what you just revealed. You use information without reading the source it comes from. Maybe you should Google the Temple Lot case and read the minutes, just saying :)
The judge never said he didn't believe them, that wasn't what the case was about. So again, you lie.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#396 Jan 8, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No it wasn't. There were 66 verses and only 5 pertained to Emma.
Next, Smith, according to the story couldn't have committed any trespasses as you define them. In the story it states the Lord gave Smith his wives he would marry for time and eternity. So Smith couldn't have committed any trespasses. So what Emma needed to forgive of according to the information in 132 didn't pertain to him having other wives, adultery, etc as you claim.
Read the information please?????
He wrote the revelation to try and get Emma to accept his damn cheating. That was the purpose of the revelation. God gave nothing. He was as usual abusing and misusing the good name of the Lord to justify his sick perversions.

Such a child.

On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843; Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office.... They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." ... Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we shall see." ... Hyrum then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life....

Joseph quietly remarked, "I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did." Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket.... Two or three days after the revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, but he had consented to her wish in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he ... could rewrite it at any time if necessary (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Introduction to vol. 5).

Emma took that revelation, supposing she had all there was; but Joseph had wisdom enough to take care of it, and he had handed the revelation to Bishop Whitney, and he wrote it all off.... She went to the fireplace and put it in, and put the candle under it and burnt it, and she thought that was the end of it, and she will be damned as sure as she is a living woman. Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her (Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, p. 159).

The irony of D&C 132:
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

History has shown that Emma wasn't destroyed, but lived to an old age, denying the very church her husband built. Is God a liar? In the Mormon church, yes.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#397 Jan 8, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact. Smith was never legally married but to one woman. People over look that fact. I realize people speak of his "wives" and even I do. But by the law of this land, Smith had one wife and only one wife.
Do you realize that it was never proved in any court of law while Smith lived or after he died that he was illegally married through bigamy or polygamy to any female but Emma?
You, me, we all speak like these were females Smith legally married. They weren't. You and others address these females like he legally married them but under the action of bigamy and the legal proof is Smith and each wife consummated the marriage and or had children.
Very few people understand that these "so called marriages" weren't legal. Very few understand that these females and Smith married for the "here after", not for the here and now. That they married him to give him children in the here after, not the here and now. Very few understand these marriages had nothing to do with the here and now.
And that's why Smith was never charged with bigamy. People claimed Smith was marrying this girl and that girl. But the proof of sexual relations and cohabitation was greatly lacking even for those that hated Smith when he was living.
What provides proof for all that? Lack of evidence of relationships being consummated. Lack of evidence of living together as man and wife. lack of evidence of sexual relations a man and wife would normally have because no children have been proved to exist which would verify sexual relations. After Smith died, many wives went on to have children in another married relationship that produced one or more children, proving sexual relations took place but not with Smith.
So when any one says Smith was married to other females, that word married comes with unknown complications so many never understand nor consider.
Yet the LDS church considers them marriages in a real sense:
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/M18D-5C...

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#398 Jan 8, 2013
The revelation was not printed until 1852 and did not appear in the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876. As we have shown, the revelation on polygamy is now printed as section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Upon careful examination it can be seen that this revelation is filled with inconsistencies. The first problem is the date it was given. The date on the revelation reads July 12, 1843, yet Lorenzo Snow, who became the fifth president of the church, testified that anyone who lived in plural marriage prior to the time the revelation was given was living in "adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the State, too" (Temple Lot Case, p. 320).

We find that Joseph Smith was married to at least twelve women prior to July 12, 1843. According to Lorenzo Snow's statement, this would make Joseph Smith an adulterer. In an article published in the church's own Millennial Star on July 25, 1857, we read as follows: "The Latter-day Saints, from the rise of the Church in 1830, till the year 1843, had no authority to marry any more than one wife each. To have done otherwise, would have been a great transgression" (Millennial Star, vol. 19, p. 475). In order to get out of this dilemma Mormon leaders now claim that Joseph Smith received the revelation prior to the time he wrote it down and that the date on the revelation is the date the revelation was written down, not the date it was actually received. Joseph Smith's History of the Church, however, says that the revelation was actually given on July 12, 1843: "Wednesday, 12.—I received the following revelation.... Revelation on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including the Plurality of Wives. Given through Joseph, the Seer, in Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, July 12th, 1843" (History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 500-501).

The revelation on polygamy contradicts section 58, verse 21 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which reads as follows: "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land."

In order to practice polygamy in Nauvoo the Mormons had to break the law of the land, for the State of Illinois had laws against both adultery and bigamy (or "the crime of marrying while one has a wife or husband still living from whom no valid divorce has been effected"). The Mormon church leaders understood that polygamy was a crime. In an article published in the church's own Times and Seasons on November 15, 1844, the following appeared: "The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once ..." (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715).

After the Mormons came to Utah, Brigham Young commented: "If I had forty wives in the United States, they did not know it, and could not substantiate it, neither did I ask any lawyer, judge, or magistrate for them. I live above the law, and so do this people" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 361).

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#399 Jan 9, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
The judge never said he didn't believe them, that wasn't what the case was about. So again, you lie.
lol...you haven't read the minutes of the temple lot case you liar. But if you'll supply the link you went to to read that case I'd like to go there and read where you claim he didn't believe them.
But you lied. So you won't supply me a link to the minutes of the temple lot case.
The Utah LDS side was basing ownership rights through the polygamous marriages they claimed Smith had, with two exclusive women that would have received land owner ship rights with his death.
Thus it was up to them to prove polygamous marriages had been fully consummated with those women to show legal land ownership rights. The judge didn't find the evidence was sufficient to prove Joseph Smith had polygamous marriages with either woman. The judge ruled in the RLDS favour.
The judge had found no evidence to support Smith had been in polygamous marriages with those two women. Do you understand that? The Utah LDS side had presented what they thought was overwhelming evidence to prove Smith had these two women as polygamous wives. The most evidence they had to show Smith had been in polygamous marriages was with these two women. It is why the church used them for evidence.
BUT THE JUDGE, A NON-MORMON JUDGE FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF ALL THAT WAS BROUGHT TO HIM, TO SHOW BEYOND A DOUBT THAT SMITH HAD BEEN IN A POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE WITH EITHER WOMAN.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. A NON-MORMON JUDGE DIDN'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO AND HE SAW MORE POSSIBLE EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPPOSED POLYGAMOUS THAN YOU KNOW EXISTS.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#400 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
History has shown that Emma wasn't destroyed, but lived to an old age, denying the very church her husband built. Is God a liar? In the Mormon church, yes.
Remember this one you pasted in the past?
"It appears that the Prophet's involvement with plural marriage in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835-1836 drove a wedge between him and Oliver. In her exposé, Wife No. 19, Ann Eliza Webb Young wrote:
Mrs. Smith had an adopted daughter, a very pretty, pleasing young girl, about seventeen years old. She was extremely fond of her; no own mother could be more devoted, and their affection for each other was a constant object of remark, so absorbing and genuine did it seem. Consequently it was with a shocked surprise that the people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night…By degrees it became whispered about that Joseph’s love for his adopted daughter was by no means a paternal affection, and his wife discovering the fact, at once took measures to place the girl beyond his reach…the storm became so furious, that Joseph was obliged to send, at midnight, for Oliver Cowdery, his scribe, to come and endeavor to settle matters between them... Emma refused decidedly to allow her to remain in her house; but after some consultation, my mother offered to take her until she could be sent to her relatives. Although her parents were living, they considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the Prophet’s family, and her mother [Clarissa Hancock Alger] has always claimed that she was sealed to Joseph at that time."
........
Speaking of polygamy, did you know this of the author of that statement? Fanny left the Smith's in 1836. She was born in 1844. She didn't write this till more than 20 years later. And you believe that statement to be as true and accurate as God's own words. And you wonder why I call you your own fool at times? Eh?
"The accuracy of this account is unknown. The author, Ann Eliza, was born in 1844 so should could not be reporting the events from a firsthand knowledge."

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#401 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet the LDS church considers them marriages in a real sense:
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/M18D-5C...
Not everyone. Some don't care. But there is a division in the church you know nothing of concerning this matter because you simply refuse to do research and ask questions so to enlarge your understanding.
One side believes Smith had polygamous marriages, consummated them but can't explain why no descendants exist.
The other side believes Smith had eternal "non-consummated" spiritual marriages and believe the fact that no descendants exist proves it. They also believe that explains why Smith and Emma both claimed he had not engaged in the "normal definition" of what a polygamous marriage is and, claimed not to have committed adultery.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#402 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
After the Mormons came to Utah, Brigham Young commented: "If I had forty wives in the United States, they did not know it, and could not substantiate it, neither did I ask any lawyer, judge, or magistrate for them. I live above the law, and so do this people" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 361).
Go easy with what you read.
This info may be less than an accurate count of wives and children but it'll serve the purpose. Young had 27 wives it is said. Of that 27, 11 didn't have children. 16 of them did. 52 children in all by Young and those 16 wives. Children are the proof of sexual relations regardless if the woman claimed to be married or didn't claim to be married to Young. In this case I believe they all claimed to be sister wives of Young.
That said....a wife of Young would know if she and Young had been married legally or illegally.
They also could substantiate it by the child through their marriage to Young and the fact they lived with him as husband and wife.
So what that means, is that this statement by Young has a deeper meaning to it than your understanding...
"If I had forty wives in the United States, they did not know it, and could not substantiate it, neither did I ask any lawyer, judge, or magistrate for them. I live above the law, and so do this people."

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#403 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Go easy with what you read.
This info may be less than an accurate count of wives and children but it'll serve the purpose. Young had 27 wives it is said. Of that 27, 11 didn't have children. 16 of them did. 52 children in all by Young and those 16 wives. Children are the proof of sexual relations regardless if the woman claimed to be married or didn't claim to be married to Young. In this case I believe they all claimed to be sister wives of Young.
That said....a wife of Young would know if she and Young had been married legally or illegally.
They also could substantiate it by the child through their marriage to Young and the fact they lived with him as husband and wife.
So what that means, is that this statement by Young has a deeper meaning to it than your understanding...
"If I had forty wives in the United States, they did not know it, and could not substantiate it, neither did I ask any lawyer, judge, or magistrate for them. I live above the law, and so do this people."
Yeah, him and Smith were keeping it secret, lying to everyone. That is what criminals do.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#404 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everyone. Some don't care. But there is a division in the church you know nothing of concerning this matter because you simply refuse to do research and ask questions so to enlarge your understanding.
That is because if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The Mormon church when to great efforts to prove the marriages were real marriages, even being consummated. I believe what the LDS church said. Especially the people who where there.
One side believes Smith had polygamous marriages, consummated them but can't explain why no descendants exist.
The other side believes Smith had eternal "non-consummated" spiritual marriages and believe the fact that no descendants exist proves it. They also believe that explains why Smith and Emma both claimed he had not engaged in the "normal definition" of what a polygamous marriage is and, claimed not to have committed adultery.
Good for them. Some people believe in Santa Claus. There are people who claimed that the Nazi's didn't exterminate Jews either. Truth isn't an opinion poll.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 3 hr ardith 4,266
News News 3 Mins Ago Bannon savages Gop leaders in f... Dec 9 General Kabaka Oba 48
News Romney Has a Jobs Plan ... for China (Sep '12) Dec 7 Frank Gilley 29
News In slap at Romney, Trump says he wants Orrin Ha... Dec 6 Ecken 2
News Bannon blasts GOP leaders in contentious Alabam... Dec 6 Trump is a joke 3
News Former Colin Powell Aide: GOP Is 'Full of Racists' (Oct '12) Dec 5 Haleys Flag Removal 15
News Ron Paul Would Be Major Factor if He Went Third... (May '12) Nov 29 O Reilly Fired 3
More from around the web