marg wrote:How are you different than the run of the mill TBM's when you say things like in your first sentence above...that your primary issue is whether "marriage was indeed commanded by God" You sound very much like an individual well indoctrinated who on some issues involving the church willingly suspends critical thinking in lieu of acceptance of the dictates of the church. So when church authority makes claims on behalf of a god, a TBM willingly, non critically accepts with little if any questioning. by the way, swearing is not acceptable in this forum. If you feel the need to swear you can do so, in the lower forum, (don't remember its name)
marg wrote:From what I've read so far from you, you don't come close to the objectivity of Runtu and Truth Dancer, nor to their excellent critical thinking. Previously you had said The primary issue to me is not whether or not they were married, but whether or not their marriage was indeed commanded of God or an adulterous affair posing as a marriage.
Your words indicate lack of objectivity and that you are well indoctrinated into a religious frame of mind. Assuming you mean what you say, it appears you believe that if a church authority makes a claim that god commands..that it actually means in reality... indeed a god commands. Therefore evidence, no matter how slight or unpersuasive of a command from God as claimed by the church, as in your sealing evidence of Fanny to J. Smith which you seem keen to argue for...is used to justify resultant actions.
If you want to illustrate your critical thinking...explain why you think a God would command J. Smith to have sex with Fanny behind Emma's back without her consent. And explain why a god would command J. Smith to engage in polygamous sexual relationships with many women.
Hello Marg, I think we got off on the wrong foot. Let's start over. Hi, I'm known as desert_vulture, a silly pseudonym meant to disguise my online identity, for numerous reasons, similar to those of many folks here. People on the DAMU generally know me as DV. It's nice to meet you. I apologize for my swearing, I will try to clean up my act a bit. I would like to learn a little bit more about yourself too. Here's the link to an intro of mine on FLAK:
http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?t=108 if you are interested.
I became irritated at Fortigurn's sweeping generalization that Joseph Smith was obviously committing adultery with Fanny Alger, when there is at least ancillary evidence to the contrary. I lost my cool, sorry about that. It had been a long day, and I should have bit my tongue. I just discovered Jason Bourne's Fanny Alger thread, I should have just pointed him that direction. Here's the link:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=1194
Based on our chance encounter here, it seems that you have the impression that: a) I lack objectivity b) I am well indoctrinated c) I suspend critical thinking d) I accept things with little if any questioning e) I am keen to argue for church authority which automatically suspends my ability to think critically and f) that I am a proponent of Joseph Smith' version of polygyny/polyandry.
Wow. That is quite a bit to assume about a person online, without the slightest knowledge of that person's background, perferences, personality, and belief system. I understand the limitations of online communication, as do you, and concede that misunderstandings and miscommunications sometimes become the rule rather than the exception. I really think that the characterizations you have made, based primarily on my usage of the word "indeed" in one sentence, are an inaccurate representation of my perceptions and my overall character. Although born and raised in Mormonism, I have discovered that my religion is quite different from what I was taught. I have a more lengthy intro on FLAK, if you haven't seen it, many others have. But to summarize my position with regards to Mormonism, I know it is not what it claims to be. I would like to point out, however, that Mormonism does possess a certain degree of good, based on its ability to teach love, kindness, and acceptance, which attributes I believe to be of the highest value in human interactions, regardless of religious affiliation or belief. (Unfortunately, many times I personally fall short in my ability to practice these values.) Mormonism's value, or deficiency, is rooted in its ability or inability to provide an atmosphere that encourages these traits. Many times the institution falls short in these categories, as we do as humans. I am an active member of my ward, with various callings. But I would not consider myself to be a TBM. My faith is based on a belief in God, a believe I choose to continue to hold, in spite of the counter evidence. Those who think my belief is irrational cannot objectively assess my personal spiritual experiences, because these experiences are subjective by nature. Therefore, I do not expect anyone to be able to understand my faith in God, unless they have experienced the same things that I have experienced. I have met a number of these people online, who also continue to believe in God, in much the same way that I do, but not necessarily in an orthodox way. That should give you a better understanding of my background.
I am not a proponent of polygamy. I agree that it seems that Joseph Smith was having an adulterous affair with Fanny Alger. But whether or not he was married or having an affair is very much a debate. There is no conclusive evidence either way. As Runtu suggest in the Fanny thread, the jury is out as to whether Joseph Smith was married to Fanny or not, and I agree with his assessment. Whether they were married in some form of ceremony is an interesting question. But a far more interesting question is whether the church claims that Joseph Smith had already received a commandment from God to practice polygamy, and if that claim is supported by evidence. To me, that is a far more fascinating question. Other bigamists exist, who marry multiple wives in different states, without their knowledge. That type of person exists even today. But none of those people also claimed to receive revelation from God, justifying a churchwide practice of polygamy six decades into the future. Isn't it a much more fascinating question to ask, when did Joseph Smith claim to have received the revelation on polygamy? In light of the years of public denial, and the subsequent open practice of polygamy from 1852 to 1890, wouldn't it be more instructive to ask if God "indeed" had revealed polygamy as a concept to Joseph Smith prior to Fanny Alger, as the church claims? Does the evidence support this assertion? This to me, seems to be an overriding question, which would have ramifications far into the future of the church. Fanny Alger may or may not have been the first polygamist wife of Joseph Smith. But was the polygamy condoned by God? That to me, seems to be the $64,000 question. That is all that I was getting at when I asked if God had "indeed" revealed polygamy to Joseph Smith prior to his association with Fanny Alger, because I do not believe there is any evidence that he did. In a sense I was playing devil's advocate, and in a sense I was looking forward to any knowledgable posters out there who could point me in the direction of that evidence. Because of my legal background, and familiarity with the Socratic method, I enjoy posing tough questions. They present the greatest threat yet offer the highest rewards.
My question obviously presupposes a belief in Deity. If this is offensive, in some way, to the atheist members of the forum, then I apologize. I would assume, however, that in a religious based internet forum, questions that presuppose a belief in a God would be acceptable. If I have offended you, Marg, with my line of reasoning, I do apologize. It was not intended to offend, or insult the sensibilities of rational thinkers. I look forward to future interactions with you, and the other members of this forum.
-DV