God asks you to practice polygamy ????? what would you do?

[_marg]

which means that any organization that draws its ecclesiastical authority from him--polygamous or not--is fundamentally tainted.

Yes that's the way I see it. I don't believe the church has renounced the sort of polygamy that Smith started..the taking of other men's wives, the request for daughters, taking advantage of hired help, the exchange of women..they've not said that that was a morally egregiously abusive system to impose on women, for the many trapped in the system. They've renounced polygamy only because it's illegal.

So to some extent anyone apologizing for Smith's polygamy without noting the immorality of the abuse it can inflict on women..such as arguing Smith & Fanny thought they were married..by extension there's nothing wrong with Smith's polygamy or Smith thought an angel was threatening him..again by extensioon there's nothing wrong with his polygamy... are guilty to some extent of supporting arguments sanctioning egregious abuse of women.

And actually anyone supportive of the LDS Church aware of its past polygamy..share some responsibility for the FLDS communities' actions of a polygamous system highly abusive of women. I realize the system is also abusive to many of the males as well.

I really detest liberal views on polygamy of the sort practiced by the FLDS..which is an extension of Smith's polygamy. Such views neglect to recognize that when children are highly indoctrinated in such a system...and even if they reached adulthood when they enter into such a polygamous marriage...they are not freely choosing that system. Their options have been limited, their minds crippled.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius:

agreed. story ended over a century ago.

The name Warren Jeffs mean anything to you?

Nope, does not mean a thing to me, why? Is he a friend of yours? Is there any meaningful conclusion you are trying to draw (with crayons)?

says you, prove otherwise.

Well, if you're going to say that "morality comes from God" then you need to prove that He/She/It/They exist before you can assert that He/She/It/They radiate His/Her/Its/Their morality down upon us poor earthlings. So get to it, junior birdman.

To prove God to you would simply result in your claim that you were "tricked". A predisposition such as yours is often seen in feeble arguments.
But if you want to start at the ground floor, resolve your assertion of a subjective morality without recognizing that there is, indeed, an absolute morality.

obviously you do not have a correct notion of God

See previous response.

no thanks, i feel sorry enough for it not to read it again.

Also *inquire , minus 2 points, see me after class - tabloid variants are not amusing.

Regarding inquire vs. enquire...the dictionary is your friend.

apparently not yours....look in the "V" section under 'variant', and then actually use the "E" section to look up enquire.....see the magic? variant.

double-ugh, posts like that bring to mind the question of what your goal is here.

No need for questions, youngster; I'm here to corrupt impressionable young minds like yours.

worse attempt ever. your potency of corruption is about as strong as Richard Dawkins' will to refuse a book signing.

according to you, Joseph could very well have been " good morals" because "good morals" differ from person to person, etc. So, "morality" is irrelevant in this discussion.

You're ignoring--disingenuously--the fact that Joseph was also subject to the collective morality of the society he inhabited, i.e. the "law of the land". Hence the criminal nature of his bigamous relationships.

amateur mistake. Morality and law are hardly the same thing. You contradict your earlier assertion with "subject to the collective morality". Still got the floaties on do you?

No, i do not agree. I do not agree that any "alleged " action is worthy of condemnation.

Well yes, that's why I said "alleged" as in "alleged sexual battery". Would you agree that sexual battery, alleged or otherwise, is a bad thing? Or do you approve of, for example, Warren Jeffs' bad acts?

But you condemned "alleged acts".
alleged sexual battery is completely different than sexual battery. Much like one could allege that you are intelligent, but in reality you could be less than that. Key word "allege" - your flaw is by trying to associate "alleged action" with "action" - to most people these are completely different - with only the latter deserving condemnation or praise.

why does it bother you? What may seem to be bad moral actions by you are certainly able to be seen a good moral actions by others.

Would you agree that sexual battery, alleged or otherwise, is a bad thing? Do you approve of, for example, Warren Jeffs' bad acts?

absurd statements, absurd conclusions, and absurd question.

But some people do not require confirmation of facts or truth to condemn others, and usually these people are called atheists.

So how does this explain you?

It does not explain me.

Ugh

Right, "ugh" is your codeword for "I concede your point.”

Whatever blows your skirt, dude.

[/quote]
actually ugh is also in that dictionary you have
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ugh
i subscribe to the "disgust" option, though your leaps in reason are "horrific".

[_subgenius]

.... indoctrinates females from a young age, provides little education and little other alternatives available than being a plural wife of some man.

pretty much describes all of 19th century american society (-plural). I see no reasonable argument to draw such conclusions against the Church as an organization. The doctrine and principles of the Church are not at all "tainted" by the flaws of one man (or even a few) no matter their position - the scriptures, etc. stand on their own merit, not on the merit of men's or women's actions.

[_Chap]

Just in passing - looking at your sig line, "Cum catapultae proscriptae erat, tum soli proscript catapultas habeunt", I guess that one of two things may be true:

1. You don't know any Latin grammar, but you like to copy what you think are hilarious quotes in that language off websites.

2. You do know Latin grammar, and you post bad Latin in your sig line as a form of self-punishment, or as a provocation to the pedantic, maybe in the same way as the poster who has a sig line with a quote from 'Einstien'.

Neither of these possibilities has any relevance to the truth-value of your views on religious questions, of course.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Nope, does not mean a thing to me, why? Is he a friend of yours? Is there any meaningful conclusion you are trying to draw (with crayons)?

Your feigned ignorance of Warren Jeffs says much about the courage of your convictions. You’re essentially running away.

To prove God to you would simply result in your claim that you were "tricked". A predisposition such as yours is often seen in feeble arguments.
But if you want to start at the ground floor, resolve your assertion of a subjective morality without recognizing that there is, indeed, an absolute morality.

From your first post in this thread: it seems that since "morality" comes from God, it would be an error to claim that His commands are criminal.

If you can’t back up your assertions you shouldn’t make them in the first place. Man up, boy.

apparently not yours....look in the "V" section under 'variant', and then actually use the "E" section to look up enquire.....see the magic? variant.

So now that you’ve looked it up you know the one is a variant of the other. You may have a cookie.

worse attempt ever. your potency of corruption is about as strong as Richard Dawkins' will to refuse a book signing.

You’re not a native English speaker, are you?

amateur mistake. Morality and law are hardly the same thing. You contradict your earlier assertion with "subject to the collective morality". Still got the floaties on do you?

The one derives from the other, similar to how Warren Jeffs' priesthood authority derives from that of Joseph Smith. Both are sexual batterers. Both have a history of deception for the purpose of personal gain and enrichment. Both are criminals.

Tell me, which of these cretins do you claim to be a prophet? Joseph or Warren? Or both?

Or will you run away from this question too?

But you condemned "alleged acts".
alleged sexual battery is completely different than sexual battery. Much like one could allege that you are intelligent, but in reality you could be less than that. Key word "allege" - your flaw is by trying to associate "alleged action" with "action" - to most people these are completely different - with only the latter deserving condemnation or praise.

My question from my previous post: Would you agree that sexual battery, alleged or otherwise, is a bad thing?

You refusal to answer says a great deal about the courage of your convictions. Again, you’re running away.

absurd statements, absurd conclusions, and absurd question.

Ah, so this is what you’re saying now instead of “ugh” when you really mean “I concede your point.”

Whatever blows your skirt, dude.

actually ugh is also in that dictionary you have
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ugh
i subscribe to the "disgust" option, though your leaps in reason are "horrific".

Yet, apart from this instance here you’ve suddenly stopped saying “ugh”. How telling.

Which "prophet" are you defending? Warren Jeffs or Joseph Smith?

[_marg]

Just in passing - looking at your sig line, "Cum catapultae proscriptae erat, tum soli proscript catapultas habeunt", I guess that one of two things may be true:

1. You don't know any Latin grammar, but you like to copy what you think are hilarious quotes in that language off websites.

2. You do know Latin grammar, and you post bad Latin in your sig line as a form of self-punishment, or as a provocation to the pedantic, maybe in the same way as the poster who has a sig line with a quote from 'Einstien'.

Neither of these possibilities has any relevance to the truth-value of your views on religious questions, of course.

Or maybe he's offering a hint that he's posting to provoke not because he really believes what he says.

I have a hard time sometimes accepting (on religiously related message boards) that people really do believe what they say..and yet I'm often wrong on that. Who would have thought a PHD professor would with sincerity ask the question.."what would you do if an angel asked you to commit adultery?". I would have thought that was a joke had I known nothing about DCP..but knowing him I appreciate he's sincere that it's something he'd say for apologetic purposes..to imply that was really Smith's situation. Not that I've checked the interview to verify but it in line with something he'd likely say.

[_LDS truthseeker]

Just in passing - looking at your sig line, "Cum catapultae proscriptae erat, tum soli proscript catapultas habeunt", I guess that one of two things may be true:

1. You don't know any Latin grammar, but you like to copy what you think are hilarious quotes in that language off websites.

2. You do know Latin grammar, and you post bad Latin in your sig line as a form of self-punishment, or as a provocation to the pedantic, maybe in the same way as the poster who has a sig line with a quote from 'Einstien'.

Neither of these possibilities has any relevance to the truth-value of your views on religious questions, of course.

Or maybe he's offering a hint that he's posting to provoke not because he really believes what he says.

I have a hard time sometimes accepting (on religiously related message boards) that people really do believe what they say..and yet I'm often wrong on that. Who would have thought a PHD professor would with sincerity ask the question.."what would you do if an angel asked you to commit adultery?". I would have thought that was a joke had I known nothing about DCP..but knowing him I appreciate he's sincere that it's something he'd say for apologetic purposes..to imply that was really Smith's situation. Not that I've checked the interview to verify but it in line with something he'd likely say.

He phrased it as 'polygamy' or maybe 'plural marriage'. DCP did not use the term 'adultery'.

But it is interesting that not one poster (unless I missed it) said 'yeah sure God, I'll practice polygamy if you command it'. That's encourgaing but doesn't say much for Smith.

[_Corpsegrinder]

But it is interesting that not one poster (unless I missed it) said 'yeah sure God, I'll practice polygamy if you command it'. That's encourgaing but doesn't say much for Smith.

I take that as an encouraging sign too.

Large numbers of people who, like Martin Harris, lack a functioning BS filter is not a good thing.

[_marg]

He phrased it as 'polygamy' or maybe 'plural marriage'. DCP did not use the term 'adultery'.

I stand corrected, sorry about that you even said "polygamy" in the OP.

For the record if DCP had said "adultery" I would have thought better of him as I don't find adultery as immoral or disrespectful of women as the sort of polygamy that J. Smith created and ultimately practiced by the FLDS.

[_Jason Bourne]

marg

I think adultery is pretty repugnant. It always involves betrayal of a vow and a commitment and is usually started out in secret. Often it not only destroys one marriage but another if both partners in the adultery are married. Children can suffer, spouses suffer financially, it is often an ugly mess.

Now I certainly do not defend polygamy at all unless it is between persons that can consent totally without duress as well as it not resulting in putting women in a subjugated position. One of the biggest problems I have with Joseph Smith and polygamy is it seems initially that it was a cover for adultery. Later as it was expanded it was done in secret behind his wife's back. He also used it to test the loyalty of some of those in high leadership in the Church by asking for their wives then telling them it was just a test. I find this abusive. He also used his position of power as well as some women's faith in him as a prophet to persuade them to marry him. All very abusive and repugnant.

However after the LDS Church publicly practiced it, while I think it was still an unhealthy and could end up in an emotionally empty relationship for many women I think it became less abusive. The biggest issue may have been that top leaders seemed more succesful in obtaining women, teachings that a woman was justified in leaving her husband for another in higher power, teaching that such marriage was required to get to the highest reward in heaven-all this added to moral problems in the LDS practice of polygamy.

However, on the other hand it was not mandated and a person could opt out not to practice it and only 25% of the Church did so. As time progressed it seemed most who entered into polygamy did so of their own choice. So while it was rife with problems I am curious to know why you think it was worse than adultery if most he did it did so under their own choice?