ajax18 wrote:harmony wrote:ajax18 wrote:That's your opinion. I can see how it could work out for everyones best interest. If that is seeing that women deserve less than men in your eyes, than so be it, but in my opinion it doesn't have to be so.
How is being treated like chattel for eternity in women's best interest?
I don't really see it as being treated like chattel for eternity.
9. I still see plural marriage as potentially the most happy state a man can achieve in eternity.
So, enlighten me here... why do you think it is great for women to have only one man while a man can have a harem for eternity?
I know plural marriage is disgusting to you. Maybe we should just agree to disagree on that point. Even cutting out the idea of plural marriage, my idea of the perfect male/female relationship is probably not even close to what your ideal would be. We're different people, with different needs and different desires, and probably even a different assessment of what is fair in male/female relationships.
Jason brings up an interesting point.
The belief in general christianity is based on events that supposedly occurred around 2,000 years ago. Given that amount of time and lack of definitive records and compelling evidences, it is in my opinion easier to understand someone having faith in the whole Christ story.
With Mormonism, it not only occurred less than 200 years ago, but we have records, witnesses, and evidence. We are told by the leaders that their religion is factually based on these events, that they either ACTUALLY happened or they did not.
What we argue about on boards like this is typically NOT concerning the Christ story, it is about whether these events in smith's life actually happened and if they happened in the way we have been taught about them. Much less faith is required or perhaps even allowed in these very recent events.
The divinity of the Christ story really has nothing to do with "is the church true". Think about it. Think about all of the other requirements of Mormonism. They are based on what smith and company wrote or said. Christianity is a very small portion of Mormonism.
So we could ask the following questions:
1. Would you want to know if smith's first vision actually happened as it has been taught?
2. Would you want to know if smith actually translated ancient records?
3. Would you want to know if god did not ever speak to smith and all that he claimed was from god in the D&C was only from him and his associates?
4. Would you want to know if smith did not but just copied and embellished other works and ideas for his day?
5. Would you want to know if smith lied to the membership about polygamy?
6. Would you want to know if smith translated some papyrus in doctrines that you align yourself with?
7. Would you want to know if Mormonism is nothing more than just another christian based religion?
We know, for example, that there is more to the First Vision than is generally taught, but the extra things hardly seem to negate the experience in my opinion. Rather I think they add more details.
Typical mo'pologetic defense.
Add more details? What smith wrote himself in 1832 and what he had his scribe write in 1838 are completely different. Additionally and coincidentally, 1838 was the year when Joe's little cult nearly dissolved. So he "adjusted" things to better align the theology in an attempt to retain members and attract new ones.
Similarly, it is indisputable that Joseph lied about polygamy. However, I don't think this in and of itself is proof that the church is false. Even Abraham lied about Sarah.
And so on and so forth.
.Leave the least correct book out of the discussion. Many leaders have said the Book of Mormon and TSCC can stand on its own. So for the love of the twelve, stop trying to prop up LDS Inc with the least correct book, the Bible
So with that, you are stating that smith was above his own doctrines and laws as well as laws of the land.
Additionally, why would god be afraid of the his kids on earth? Last time they did not do what his supposed prophet said, he put a cap in all their asses. So why would he command smith to lie about polygamy? Roll it out prophet boy and if they don't accept it, I will put a cap in their ass!
No way. Mormonism has a short recent history, a peculiar founder who claimed to speak for god, and numerous factual difficulties that other mainstream religions do not have. Go ahead and compare it to Scientology or the Jehovah's Witnesses, but when you say it has the same problems as Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, etc. I think you are expressing a wishful desire. Mormonism may well last 500 or 1000 years, but by then it won't look much like it does today.
Why do you see the harem lifestyle as idea for men, if not for the obvious reasons.
Maybe because of my animal ancestry?
If you think that's impossible, than I guess we'll have to let it go at that.
It seems that it was that way in times past,
I don't really see how this phenomena fits into the idea that humans are solely about pair bonding.
Some days I think the happiest state I could achieve would be to have no wife at all. Had I been raised Catholic or another religion that allows a way out of marriage, I probably would have foregone marriage. I still credit Joseph Smith with bringing the doctrine that marriage is actually the greatest good, not celibacy. I know Martin Luther may have pushed this as well, but I think it was a very important reform.
Polygamy Porter wrote:This is for believing current members.
Ray does not count, he obviously does not believe it enough to be a member again.
Regardless of what you believe, know, or how you feel, please answer this question:
If the church was not true, would you want to know?
Yes or no and a brief explanation.