YouTuber Alyssa Grenfell Has Cost The Church 2.4 Million Dollars

[MG 2.0]

The church also frowns on fornication, sodomy, and adultery.

Unless an angel with a flaming sword is involved, of course.

Does the church frown on fornication, sodomy, abortion on demand, and adultery? Would any one of these fall under the category of "bodily autonomy" which has been brought up in this thread? Among many in the current progressive culture in the West these 'sins' are not sins. They are a 'human right'.

The church sees it differently.

Of course, as you know, that any discussion of the law of the plurality of wives is in some respects a separate discussion which, also as you know, has been discussed ad nauseum in other places. It is highly unlikely that the early saints participated in fornication, sodomy, abortion, or adultery without being brought before church authorities and disciplined.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Unless an angel with a flaming sword is involved, of course.

Does the church frown on fornication, sodomy, abortion on demand, and adultery? Would any one of these fall under the category of "bodily autonomy" which has been brought up in this thread? Among many in the current progressive culture in the West these 'sins' are not sins. They are a 'human right'.

The church sees it differently.

Of course, as you know, that any discussion of the law of the plurality of wives is in some respects a separate discussion which, also as you know, has been discussed ad nauseum in other places. It is highly unlikely that the early saints participated in fornication, sodomy, abortion, or adultery without being brought before church authorities and disciplined.

Regards,
MG

That must have been a great comfort to Emma Smith in the midst of finding her husband in the barn with their teenage housemaid. Or when she watched the second sham sealing performed because she was unaware of the first secret sealing.

With husbands like that, who needs enemies?

[MG 2.0]

Does the church frown on fornication, sodomy, abortion on demand, and adultery? Would any one of these fall under the category of "bodily autonomy" which has been brought up in this thread? Among many in the current progressive culture in the West these 'sins' are not sins. They are a 'human right'.

The church sees it differently.

Of course, as you know, that any discussion of the law of the plurality of wives is in some respects a separate discussion which, also as you know, has been discussed ad nauseum in other places. It is highly unlikely that the early saints participated in fornication, sodomy, abortion, or adultery without being brought before church authorities and disciplined.

Regards,
MG

That must have been a great comfort to Emma Smith in the midst of finding her husband in the barn with their teenage housemaid. Or when she watched the second sham sealing performed because she was unaware of the first secret sealing.

With husbands like that, who needs enemies?

Their relationship was complicated it seems. The love that they had for each other weathered the storms that were placed before them by most accounts. Are you familiar with any 'later in life' conflicts between Joseph and Emma? Just before Joseph was killed he made at least a couple of stops by his home to say goodbye to Emma and the kids. By all accounts there was weeping and a sense of pain in their parting. They did have more than their share of hardships along the way. Losing children. Homes uprooted. Sickness. Polygamy. It wasn't an easy life for either one of them. Whether it was comparable to the Old Testament prophets who had more than one wife, who knows?

I notice that you're evading the conversation in regard to 'bodily autonomy' and some of the things I've brought up.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

That must have been a great comfort to Emma Smith in the midst of finding her husband in the barn with their teenage housemaid. Or when she watched the second sham sealing performed because she was unaware of the first secret sealing.

With husbands like that, who needs enemies?

Their relationship was complicated it seems. The love that they had for each other weathered the storms that were placed before them by most accounts. Are you familiar with any 'later in life' conflicts between Joseph and Emma? Just before Joseph was killed he made at least a couple of stops by his home to say goodbye to Emma and the kids. By all accounts there was weeping and a sense of pain in their parting. They did have more than their share of hardships along the way. Losing children. Homes uprooted. Sickness. Polygamy. It wasn't an easy life for either one of them. Whether it was comparable to the Old Testament prophets who had more than one wife, who knows?

I notice that you're evading the conversation in regard to 'bodily autonomy' and some of the things I've brought up.

Regards,
MG

How much Joseph and Emma may have loved each other is irrelevant to the question of whether Joseph indulged in polygamy.

Did you not concede on another thread that Joseph was guilty of adultery and fornication as a result of his polygamous "marriages", none of which were legal in the jurisdictions in which they took place? Did I misunderstand? Or are you now going back on what you conceded before?

[sock puppet]

That must have been a great comfort to Emma Smith in the midst of finding her husband in the barn with their teenage housemaid. Or when she watched the second sham sealing performed because she was unaware of the first secret sealing.

With husbands like that, who needs enemies?

Their relationship was complicated it seems. The love that they had for each other weathered the storms that were placed before them by most accounts. Are you familiar with any 'later in life' conflicts between Joseph and Emma? Just before Joseph was killed he made at least a couple of stops by his home to say goodbye to Emma and the kids. By all accounts there was weeping and a sense of pain in their parting. They did have more than their share of hardships along the way. Losing children. Homes uprooted. Sickness. Polygamy. It wasn't an easy life for either one of them. Whether it was comparable to the Old Testament prophets who had more than one wife, who knows?

I notice that you're evading the conversation in regard to 'bodily autonomy' and some of the things I've brought up.

Regards,
MG

Sounds like you are saying God is okay with 33 adulterous relationships if you have had a tough go in life. Well, let the orgy begin because most everyone has faced significant challenges in their lives.

[MG 2.0]

Did you not concede on another thread that Joseph was guilty of adultery and fornication as a result of his polygamous "marriages", none of which were legal in the jurisdictions in which they took place? Did I misunderstand? Or are you now going back on what you conceded before?

I think you would need to go back and quote what I said in context and link to the thread.

Thanks,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Their relationship was complicated it seems. The love that they had for each other weathered the storms that were placed before them by most accounts. Are you familiar with any 'later in life' conflicts between Joseph and Emma? Just before Joseph was killed he made at least a couple of stops by his home to say goodbye to Emma and the kids. By all accounts there was weeping and a sense of pain in their parting. They did have more than their share of hardships along the way. Losing children. Homes uprooted. Sickness. Polygamy. It wasn't an easy life for either one of them. Whether it was comparable to the Old Testament prophets who had more than one wife, who knows?

I notice that you're evading the conversation in regard to 'bodily autonomy' and some of the things I've brought up.

Regards,
MG

Sounds like you are saying God is okay with 33 adulterous relationships if you have had a tough go in life.

No. Go back and read again. For a more expansive understanding.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Did you not concede on another thread that Joseph was guilty of adultery and fornication as a result of his polygamous "marriages", none of which were legal in the jurisdictions in which they took place? Did I misunderstand? Or are you now going back on what you conceded before?

I think you would need to go back and quote what I said in context and link to the thread.

Thanks,
MG

Probably just my misunderstanding - not worth the effort to search.

So, anyway, was Joseph guilty of adultery and fornication as a result of his polygamous "marriages", none of which were legal in the jurisdictions in which they took place?

[MG 2.0]

I think you would need to go back and quote what I said in context and link to the thread.

Thanks,
MG

Probably just my misunderstanding - not worth the effort to search.

So, anyway, was Joseph guilty of adultery and fornication as a result of his polygamous "marriages", none of which were legal in the jurisdictions in which they took place?

It sort of comes down to whether or not Joseph and others truly believed that divine revelation could override civil law. Also, whether Joseph’s behavior aligned with the moral standards he preached and were consistent with ancient prophetic practices. It becomes a matter of faith in regard to whether all things were restored that existed anciently as part of the Judeo-Christian covenant structure with God. Does God's law override civil law? Yeah, anyone could use that as an excuse to be a philanderer.

It's a matter of looking at a picture of Joseph Smith in its entirety and deciding whether or not he was a good man at heart and if God worked through "weak things" to bring about that which is great.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Probably just my misunderstanding - not worth the effort to search.

So, anyway, was Joseph guilty of adultery and fornication as a result of his polygamous "marriages", none of which were legal in the jurisdictions in which they took place?

It sort of comes down to whether or not Joseph and others truly believed that divine revelation could override civil law. Also, whether Joseph’s behavior aligned with the moral standards he preached and were consistent with ancient prophetic practices. It becomes a matter of faith in regard to whether all things were restored that existed anciently as part of the Judeo-Christian covenant structure with God. Does God's law override civil law? Yeah, anyone could use that as an excuse to be a philanderer.

It's a matter of looking at a picture of Joseph Smith in its entirety and deciding whether or not he was a good man at heart and if God worked through "weak things" to bring about that which is great.

Regards,
MG

As you might expect, I disagree completely. It has nothing to do with Joseph's beliefs, and everything to do with his actions.

Suppose that Joseph, instead of entering into polygamous unions, truly believed that divine revelation to kill people could and should override civil law - as apparently Brigham Young did. There's lots of cases in the scriptures of killing at the command of god. Since Joseph preached marriage as one man, one woman, but didn't practice that, he could equally have preached do not kill without feeling obliged to refrain from murder. Both murder and polygamy were illegal in the location and at the time that Joseph "married" his so-called wives. So, no, what Joseph and others believed does not affect the legality or society-based morality of what Joseph did.

If one were to believe that Joseph Smith was a good man at heart and that God worked through him, it still would not negate the applicable law nor applicable morality. The plain answer is that, according to the law and prevailing morality, and according to what Joseph preached, he was a fornicator and an adulterer.

Joseph followed a well-worn path - past and future - of the religious leader who claims rights to "marry" and/or bed whichever of his followers he chooses, because god told him to do so, all the while denying that was what he was doing. So we can throw in liar as well.

I also disagree that "looking at a picture of Joseph Smith in its entirety", even if he was, on balance, a good person, would excuse his lying and fornication/polygamy.

As far as I can tell, most murderers do not spend all of their time killing, just as most thieves are probably doing ordinary, normal things for the majority of their time. Are you suggesting that we should not think badly of them because the balance of the picture is positive? How about the clergy who are wonderful preachers, or hold high positions, doing much good in their organizations? Should we let them off for the occasional rape, because they are great people most of the time?