? 4 DCP: Will there be changes to the lesson manuals?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It makes no sense to suggest that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relationships with his wives, outside of the few who were too old or too young. The entire point of polygamy, according to God, was to raise faithful seed.

Just how do you do that without having sex?

And the reason Joseph Smith probably did not impregnate most of his wives is because they were not having regular sexual relations. He didn't live with them, or have easy access to them. The relationships were furtive and under pressure. It is not uncommon for those type of relationships not to produce children. Plus, he had way too many to have regular sex with any of them, other than his one legal wife - who, by the way, watched him like a hawk.

You're speculating beyond the data.

At my high school, incidentally, more than a few furtive and hurried backseat trysts appear to have produced children. (If not, it must have been the stork.) That not a single non-Emma descendant of Joseph has yet been identified seems to me problematic on the assumption that Joseph had sex with somewhere between a score and three score women.

[_beastie]

I'm not writing for you, I'm asking you to agree or disagree with a simple statement. The fact that you won't, and insist on rewriting it, explains enough, however. You refuse to use the words "understandable",although you "understand" it, or "reasonable". Why is that?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Good grief. I've never met a creedal atheist before.

[_Polygamy Porter]

beastie, Dan has other things to consider as well.

Family, his wife and children are devote members. I am sure most of his extended family is as well.

His current employer, the Mormon church(BYU) would not look favorable if he quit professing belief in and defending Mormonism.

His lifelong associates and friends related to Mormonism would be lost.

I am sure he is well known in his neighborhood, ward and stake as one of the "Lord's Scholars".

Most of his adult life has been devoted to defending Mormonism. If he quit now, the repercussions from family, friends, community, and work(BYU) might be too much for him to handle.

Understanding that he has much more to lose than most members helps one understand his reasoning.

[_beastie]

You're speculating beyond the data.

At my high school, incidentally, more than a few furtive and hurried backseat trysts appear to have produced children. (If not, it must have been the stork.) That not a single non-Emma descendant of Joseph has yet been identified seems to me problematic on the assumption that Joseph had sex with somewhere between a score and three score women.

How am I speculating beyond the data? It's not speculation to say that if Joseph Smith were having sex with his wives, it was not regular due to the conditions I described.

Of course even just one furtive moment can result in conception. But the most favorable conditions for conception are regular, un-pressured sex.

And, by the way, the jury is still out on whether or not Joseph Smith had offspring with other wives. I believe testing is ongoing.

So when the LDS church produced a bulk of evidence supporting the fact that Joseph Smith had other wives and had marital relationship with them in order to disprove the RLDS church's claim otherwise, were they just making stuff up?

[_Tarski]

I'm not writing for you, I'm asking you to agree or disagree with a simple statement. The fact that you won't, and insist on rewriting it, explains enough, however. You refuse to use the words "understandable",although you "understand" it, or "reasonable". Why is that?

Because of the change in connotation. He doesn't want to write a sentence that could be construed as saying that disbelief in the church is the reasonable option. He thinks belief in the church is more understandable and reasonable. Not the other way around like us.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Understanding that he has much more to loose than most members helps one understand his reasoning.

The word is spelled lose, PP. One o.

Actually, understanding that I didn't agree completely with beastie's proposed doctrinal formula, but that I also wouldn't agree entirely with the negation of beastie's proposed creed, would be much more helpful in following my reasoning than your well-poisoning blather.

Sorry about your relapse.

[_Daniel Peterson]

How am I speculating beyond the data? It's not speculation to say that if Joseph Smith were having sex with his wives, it was not regular due to the conditions I described.

That's not all you said.

And, by the way, the jury is still out on whether or not Joseph Smith had offspring with other wives. I believe testing is ongoing.

I'm aware of that. I know the people doing the testing.

So when the LDS church produced a bulk of evidence supporting the fact that Joseph Smith had other wives and had marital relationship with them in order to disprove the RLDS church's claim otherwise, were they just making stuff up?

You asked specifically about the already-married women. I responded with a tentative suggestion regarding the already-married women.

There's little point in trying to converse with you if you're going to continually shift topics, misread my answers, and attempt to put words in my mouth.

[Guest]

Because of the change in connotation. He doesn't want to write a sentence that could be construed as saying that disbelief in the church is the reasonable option. He thinks belief in the church is more understandable and reasonable. Not the other way around like us.

Once again, Tarski, thanks.

You get it.

It must be the precision of your mathematical training. (And from a first-rate university, too.)

Of course, it helps to be an adult, as well.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Understanding that he has much more to loose than most members helps one understand his reasoning.

The word is spelled lose, PP. One o.

Actually, understanding that I didn't agree completely with beastie's proposed doctrinal formula, but that I also wouldn't agree entirely with the negation of beastie's proposed creed, would be much more helpful in following my reasoning than your well-poisoning blather.

Sorry about your relapse.

The issues that you face, which I pointed out, are valid and you know it Dan.

Telling me that none of that matters to you is a complete lie.

Your wife would be devastated if you lost your belief. You could not do that to her. I am not judging you but I do understand what is at risk for you.


There are many members that do not want to know if the church was not true.