Stay Strong Saints

[_Drifting]

How I wish that were true!

How do you know it's not?

[_Themis]

Themis, of course, one could consider Emma as a spiritual wife since she was also sealed to him for the next life, however, what I was referring to were the spiritual only wives, and he had no children by any of them.

The issue has always been about showing that Joseph viewed his marriages to the married women differently and only for this life. You have shown none, and we have shown you more then one. You believe simply because you don't like the idea of Joseph having sex with married women.

I know that one mother on her deathbed told her daughter that she was Joseph Smith's daughter, and that is basically all the evidence that the anti's have! As I said before, I believe that she meant that her daughter was sealed as his daughter.

Yet you show no basis for this invented interpretation or why she only told the child who could be Joseph's biological child.

I have also seen something recently with regard to evidence that she may have been actually divorced, and if she was divorced and sealed to Joseph, then there wouldn't be a problem anyway.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL The justification we come up with just to protect what we want to believe.

If you can't understand all the intricate things relating to modern revelations and scriptures, then I seriously doubt that you would have understood Christs teachings had you lived at that time also.

Now the excuses. If you don't agree with me then you never really understood. I would be fine with that if you were the one who actually had evidence to back what you believe instead of evidence showing the opposite.

I know that you believe that this is a man made religion, but do you know of any other church which even claims to have restored at least 20-30 important ingredients of the primitive church as part of the great restitution of all things which Peter spoke of?! Do you even know of any other church which offers the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as the apostles did in the primitive church?!?

Who cares? If you really studied what the scholarly community knows about it, you would find it does not match well the LDS church. many religions make all kinds of claims, and even claims past history supports what they claim. The LDS are no different. The HG is more likely to created in our own minds, and interpreted based on how we may want to believe.

[_Themis]

I did explain it to you, but you don't have the Spirit so you don't comprehend what I am saying! When Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead, if you were there, you would have really questioned Him about that. You would have no doubt been asking Him, how can a dead person bury another dead one?!

LOL you don't agree with me so you can't understand argument again. Why is it that we are the ones quoting from section 132 on what it actually says.

[_gdemetz]

Well, for example, you are quoting one of the few verses which says virgin instead of just wife, and then making a leap of logic and trying to say that that means that one should only marry a virgin in polygamous relationships. Of course, it is ideal for all women to be virgins before they marry (and men too for that matter), but it does not state in D&C 132 that one can not marry a woman if she is not a virgin!

[_Drifting]

Well, for example, you are quoting one of the few verses which says virgin instead of just wife, and then making a leap of logic and trying to say that that means that one should only marry a virgin in polygamous relationships. Of course, it is ideal for all women to be virgins before they marry (and men too for that matter), but it does not state in D&C 132 that one can not marry a woman if she is not a virgin!

 

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has acommitted adultery.

I think this puts a hole in your battleship...

Judging by the nonsense you have posted on this thread, You obviously haven't read D&C 132...

[_Themis]

Well, for example, you are quoting one of the few verses which says virgin instead of just wife, and then making a leap of logic and trying to say that that means that one should only marry a virgin in polygamous relationships. Of course, it is ideal for all women to be virgins before they marry (and men too for that matter), but it does not state in D&C 132 that one can not marry a woman if she is not a virgin!

I am sure they would, but then I think Joseph was trying to keep to the traditional view of unmarried women. The verse certainly says the must not be vowed to any other man. I don't know many who would suggest it was ok. Even you have fighting hard to view Joseph's marriages to married women as somehow only for the next life. You have failed miserably here, but even Joseph marrying them for the next life behind their husbands back should make you stop and think. That it doesn't just shows just how much we need to believe some things. We haven't even discussed the manipulation going on with polygamy.

[_gdemetz]

Drifting, your battleship has a hole in it to begin with. You see how hard it is to grasp the meaning of these scriptures at times when one doesn't have the gift of the Holy Ghost? That verse simply means that if a woman is not married in the new and everlasting covenant, just a civil marriage for example, and she be (has sex) with another man, then that is adultery also! Even if the woman is single, and she has sex with a man, that is fornication, and could be looked upon as an adultery or pollution of her future marriage.

Themis, you are always trying to accuse Joseph Smith of being a playboy with secretive and evil motives. However, even the parties involved themselves, almost without exception, did not view it that way!

"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."

[_Drifting]

Themis, you are always trying to accuse Joseph Smith of being a playboy with secretive and evil motives. However, even the parties involved themselves, almost without exception, did not view it that way!

Warren Jeffs and most of his wives don't feel they have done anything wrong. Are they right?

[_Themis]

Drifting, your battleship has a hole in it to begin with. You see how hard it is to grasp the meaning of these scriptures at times when one doesn't have the gift of the Holy Ghost? That verse simply means that if a woman is not married in the new and everlasting covenant, just a civil marriage for example, and she be (has sex) with another man, then that is adultery also! Even if the woman is single, and she has sex with a man, that is fornication, and could be looked upon as an adultery or pollution of her future marriage.

LOL I guess the obvious meanings don't fit what you want to believe so you make news one and claim the HG. Believe what ever you like.

Themis, you are always trying to accuse Joseph Smith of being a playboy with secretive and evil motives. However, even the parties involved themselves, almost without exception, did not view it that way!

I thought the issue here was your incorrect view of Joseph viewing marriages to married women differently then marriages to single women. There were exceptions if you read church history, but then we see the same with others religious leaders. I never said Joseph was a play boy. You get that from the discussion of Joseph marrying many wives. I think he did polygamy for more then just sex, but it played an important role. Interesting that you cannot see how it fits with so many other religious leaders and how they seek many sexual partners. Power has a tendency to do this. You even miss the manipulation Joseph and others did to get some of these women to agree, and how they threatened those who refused if they said anything.

[_subgenius]

Warren Jeffs and most of his wives don't feel they have done anything wrong. Are they right?

according to Themis, yes they are "right".
In response to whether principles are the basis of morality - "They do base it on the individual, but also the group." - Themis

But, that post Themis provides a link to the following
"Moral codes are often complex definitions of moral and immoral that are based upon well-defined value systems."

Value system?? wha?
A value system is a set of consistent ethic values

Consistent?? wha?
"A well defined value system is a moral code."

Well defined?? wha?
Themis considers the following to be "well-defined"
"They do base it on the individual, but also the group. Different individuals and groups including religious ones have different moral codes to some extent"
huh?

So, well defined means "could be anything for anyone"
and consistent obviously refers to "could be anything for anyone"
and a value system "could be anything for anyone"

Therefore since Jeffs and company "don't feel they have done anything wrong" they must be absolutely "right".

Thanks Themis!