The Trolley Problem--Nemo the Mormon is back

[huckelberry]

I am puzzled why the question of legality is brought up. Since when were any Mormon polygamous marriages legal? My understanding LDS view was they were legitimate before God and ordained by God not local nonmormon courts.

I have reservations about the idea God would ordain such a thing but I am not a prophet. I must rely on basic principals of respect and care for others, personal responsibility and honesty.

[MG 2.0]

I am puzzled why the question of legality is brought up. Since when were any Mormon polygamous marriages legal? My understanding LDS view was they were legitimate before God and ordained by God not local nonmormon courts.

I have reservations about the idea God would ordain such a thing but I am not a prophet. I must rely on basic principals of respect and care for others, personal responsibility and honesty.

This is an important point. We weren't there and can only go off of what others said and what common beliefs and practices were at the time. Personally, I don't see the evidence going all one way...that is, what the critics are determined to paint. I don't know that I have much else to say/contribute on this issue at this point.

I appreciate your bringing in a somewhat nuanced and balanced view, huckleberry. Even though you're not a believer you do seem to look at things from various angles. A breath of fresh air.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...Secondly, I hold a Priest of Dudism certificate which I believe is recognised as legal for performing marriages is most US states...

I know there's a lot going on in this conversation, but I'd be curious to hear what a Priest of Dudism is at some point! Maybe we can put a pin in it... : D

[malkie]

I am puzzled why the question of legality is brought up. Since when were any Mormon polygamous marriages legal? My understanding LDS view was they were legitimate before God and ordained by God not local nonmormon courts.

I have reservations about the idea God would ordain such a thing but I am not a prophet. I must rely on basic principals of respect and care for others, personal responsibility and honesty.

I'm bringing up the question of legality because the defenders seem to be unwilling to admit that any of these "marriages" were actually illegal by the state and federal laws. Look at the lengths to which MG has gone to avoid simply conceding that, by civil law, Joseph and Fanny had an adulterous affair.

[malkie]

...Secondly, I hold a Priest of Dudism certificate which I believe is recognised as legal for performing marriages is most US states...

I know there's a lot going on in this conversation, but I'd be curious to hear what a Priest of Dudism is at some point! Maybe we can put a pin in it... : D

LDD - Church of Latter-Day Dude - not the Lymantria_dispar_dispar moth

Get Ordained Free as a Dudeist Minister - I am not the guy in the picture!

[Marcus]

I know there's a lot going on in this conversation, but I'd be curious to hear what a Priest of Dudism is at some point! Maybe we can put a pin in it... : D

LDD - Church of Latter-Day Dude - not the Lymantria_dispar_dispar moth

Get Ordained Free as a Dudeist Minister - I am not the guy in the picture!

Thank you!

[Marcus]

I am puzzled why the question of legality is brought up. Since when were any Mormon polygamous marriages legal? My understanding LDS view was they were legitimate before God and ordained by God not local nonmormon courts.

I have reservations about the idea God would ordain such a thing but I am not a prophet. I must rely on basic principals of respect and care for others, personal responsibility and honesty.

I'm bringing up the question of legality because the defenders seem to be unwilling to admit that any of these "marriages" were actually illegal by the state and federal laws. Look at the lengths to which MG has gone to avoid simply conceding that, by civil law, Joseph and Fanny had an adulterous affair.

This is what has surprised me too. Maybe some apologists think admitting early LDS members were behaving in ways that were obviously illegal opens up too many issues (especially on top of a multitude of other illegalities in early LDS history) but the complete silence on the matter leaves a bad impression, in my opinion. Every argument made could also be made about Warren Jeffs, etc. You'd think they would want to avoid that comparison.

[Rivendale]

I'm bringing up the question of legality because the defenders seem to be unwilling to admit that any of these "marriages" were actually illegal by the state and federal laws. Look at the lengths to which MG has gone to avoid simply conceding that, by civil law, Joseph and Fanny had an adulterous affair.

This is what has surprised me too. Maybe some apologists think admitting early LDS members were behaving in ways that were obviously illegal opens up too many issues (especially on top of a multitude of other illegalities in early LDS history) but the complete silence on the matter leaves a bad impression, in my opinion. Every argument made could also be made about Warren Jeffs, etc. You'd think they would want to avoid that comparison.

This is frustrating. Most Mormons are descent people. However practicing it creates this impulse to jettison their own internal moral structure to defend an obvious moral failing of a leader or another member. They are more moral than the system they are defending but can't exercise it. The happiness letter explains it perfectly and many members treat it like scripture. Polygamy with underage girls is bad unless......rinse and repeat for each decadent action for 200+ years.

[MG 2.0]

Look, you have the Smith family barn, a stack of hay, and Joseph and Fanny in flagrante delicto. What more could you possibly need to prove an official LDS sealing?

Those critics get so nitpicky!

It seems Joseph Smith considered his having sex with a woman was sufficient to have "sealed" her to him as a wife, but he didn't bother to take care of her. Definitionally then, he was incapable of adultery, as long as he anointed her with his penis.

Critics, such as yourself, seem to be overly concerned and even fixated on penises. Why is that?

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

It seems Joseph Smith considered his having sex with a woman was sufficient to have "sealed" her to him as a wife, but he didn't bother to take care of her. Definitionally then, he was incapable of adultery, as long as he anointed her with his penis.

Critics, such as yourself, seem to be overly concerned and even fixated on penises. Why is that?

Regards,
MG

Because Joseph Smith used his so widely while telling others not to.