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

[_Jersey Girl]

1833, a law was passed in Illinois against the practice of bigamy(more than one spouse).

Smith and some of his inner circle were practicing polygamy and polyandry in Nauvoo.

They weren't legal marriages. He and his inner circle weren't bigamists. If indeed the unions were more than "spiritual", they would have been guilty of adultery, not bigamy.

Surely you can put up a better argument than that.

Or not.

If these were not legal marriages and they were not anything more than spiritual, then why do Mormon authors like Bushman and Compton as well as the LDS church use the term POLYGAMY to describe smith's associations with these women?

Put on your trifocals and look up the definition of the word.

Because, Porter, I think you are misusing the terms. That's why. Now...this is EXACTLY what I'd like to see go on...on this board. I think you're misusing the terms and you think they're interchangeable. You haven't "looked them up" but I will. And then we'll see.

Get it? Get why I'm here yet?

[_Polygamy Porter]

1833, a law was passed in Illinois against the practice of bigamy(more than one spouse).

Smith and some of his inner circle were practicing polygamy and polyandry in Nauvoo.

They weren't legal marriages. He and his inner circle weren't bigamists. If indeed the unions were more than "spiritual", they would have been guilty of adultery, not bigamy.

Surely you can put up a better argument than that.

Or not.

If these were not legal marriages and they were not anything more than spiritual, then why do Mormon authors like Bushman and Compton as well as the LDS church use the term POLYGAMY to describe smith's associations with these women?

Put on your trifocals and look up the definition of the word.

Because, Porter, I think you are misusing the terms. That's why. Now...this is EXACTLY what I'd like to see go on...on this board. I think you're misusing the terms and you think they're interchangeable. You haven't "looked them up" but I will. And then we'll see.

Get it? Get why I'm here yet?

Greeeeat. Now quiet the crickets by answering my question, K?

How long do we need to wait while you "look it up"?

I will be offline for a while today, so take your time :)

[Tator]

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.

Yes, I figured that. He's arguing with this original statement of mine:

One of my pet peeves is when believers act as if there really is NOTHING in church history or teachings that could POSSIBLY justify a loss of faith. Excuse me, there is. There is plenty. Perhaps you have found a way to retain belief in the face of things like Joseph Smith' polyandry, the Book of Abraham, false teachings of past prophets - but if a believer can't even bring themselves to admit that there IS troubling information in church history that - at least - makes the loss of faith not incomprehensible, then I tend to think they're playing games, either with themselves or with us.

If the loss of faith cannot be described as understandable and reasonable, even if one disagrees, then the loss of faith cannot be justified.

edit on: I understand why believers won't use these words. I just want them to understand what refusing to use these words means.

[_beastie]

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

Then my statements make even more sense if you're only talking about the already-married women. Sex with those women would have been even more infrequent and furtive.

The reason I began talking generically instead of specifically only about polyandry was due to the fact that you began referring to the genetic testing, which I'm sure you're aware was not limited to the polyandrous wives. So shall I accuse you of shifting the topic?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sex with those women would have been even more infrequent and furtive.

Maybe. Maybe not. Some of their husbands were away on missions.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If the loss of faith cannot be described as understandable and reasonable, even if one disagrees, then the loss of faith cannot be justified.

edit on: I understand why believers won't use these words. I just want them to understand what refusing to use these words means.

Perhaps my refusal to use those words might indicate that I understand what they mean?

Just a thought.

Since I believe Mormonism to be true, I do not believe that loss of faith in Mormonism is ever ultimately justified.

That does not mean, however, that I do not or cannot understand why, given the limits of our understanding and knowledge in this life, some people lose faith.

Again, if you're demanding that I acknowledge that disbelief in Mormonism is ultimately justifiable, you will be disappointed. To do so, from my point of view, would be to acknowledge that Mormonism is false. But I don't believe that to be the case.

[_beastie]

Daniel,

If you cannot bring yourself to use the word "justified" then I have no idea why you argued with my original statement to begin with. That argument with my original statement is what caused the rest of this interaction, in which you accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

This was my original statement, with which you took issue:

One of my pet peeves is when believers act as if there really is NOTHING in church history or teachings that could POSSIBLY justify a loss of faith.

You are saying there is nothing in church history or teachings that could possibly justify a loss of faith.

[_beastie]

Maybe. Maybe not. Some of their husbands were away on missions.

If only he could have sent Emma on one.

[Tator]

Daniel -

Your reference to the genetic testing makes less sense the more I think about it, if you were talking only about the polyandrous unions. Genetic testing has yet to identify an offspring of Joseph Smith from any of his plural wives, including the ones with only him as a husband. Yet you seem to agree it's a given Joseph Smith had sex with them. So I'm entirely confused as to your point with the testing.

This is what you seem to be saying (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but rather restate my understanding of what you are saying so you can see where clarification is needed)

1. Joseph Smith had sex with his nonpolyandrous wives.
a - genetic testing has not yet identified offspring from those wives
2. Joseph Smith may not have had sex with his polyandrous wives and the fact that genetic testing has not yet identified offspring from polyandrous wives supports that contention.

You see my confusion? Just what does the testing prove or not prove to you?

(by the way, does anyone know which wives' testing has not yet been concluded? Isn't one of the "jury's still out" wives polyandrous? - Mary Rollins Lightner? Or have I misremembered? anyone have a link to information about the testing?)

Never mind, I answered my own question, yes, it is a polyandrous wife still being tested: (but not lightner's since that son died as an infant, I just misremembered which polyandrous wife)

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

Ongoing research includes evaluation of Josephine Lyon (Sylvia Sessions Lyon) autosomal DNA. "Hundreds of DNA samples from male and female descendants of both Josephine Lyon and Joseph Smith have been collected and are being analyzed with the objective of identifying lineage-specific markers..." (Perego, Woodward, Journal of Mormon History, Vol 32, No.2 fn 39). Descendants of Josephine participating in this study have indicated the research is "promising" in confirming Josephine as a daughter of Joseph Smith. The researchers are also hoping to study the other possible children of Joseph Smith and welcome the involvement of descendants.

[_Sethbag]

Sex with those women would have been even more infrequent and furtive.

Maybe. Maybe not. Some of their husbands were away on missions.

Isn't it wonderful that we go on missions now when we're 19, and we don't call already married men to go on missions and leave their wives home mostly to fend for themselves, with the chance that the Prophet might be having sex with her while you're gone? I'd say things have definitely changed for the better in this church, that's for sure.