Just_A_Guy

Bytor, I'm shocked and appalled that you even brought this up. Spreading stories about black kids beating up white kids is obviously race-baiting designed to undercut the President, doncha know?

Ehkape, I agree that the "raise up seed" thing is confusing when you look at the statistical number of children born to polygamous families. There were one or two women who claimed to have borne children by Joseph Smith, but so far none of the claims have been verified and your overall point stands. One thing that I've seen pointed out, though--and I wish I had a link for this--was that polygamy was a bond that tended to hold the body of the Church together after Joseph's death. If Brigham Young goes west, and he happens to be married to one of my sisters, I'm a lot more likely to go west too. Moreover, the Church's experiences with polygamy--both on the level of individuals trying to make their non-conventional families "work", and on the level of the institutional Church's dealings with the feds--was really a defining experience for the Church's identity. So while the "raise up seed" argument is statistically questionable, I think one could argue that God had other valid reasons for commanding polygamy. At this point, is your argument that God can't command polygamy? Or just that He didn't in the particular case of the early LDS Church?

But I thought Christians believed Jesus has existed eternally? Sez you. Umm, no; I can quite easily believe that God wanted it then, deeming the circumstances appropriate; but does not "want" it now. There are statements from John Taylor that allegedly point to mandatory polygamy in heaven, but I personally think you have to view the statements in their historical context. At any rate, they are not canonized. Moreover, I am unaware of any such statements from Joseph Smith himself. I won't go the Joe Wilson route; but I will say that you ought to actually open the D&C before you go making strident declarations like that.

That's amazing, Elphaba, because you just reminded me that my mother has told me in the past that my Idaho Mormon grandmother (still going strong at 92) has a "crystal ball" she occasionally uses. I've never worked up the courage to ask her about it, and my grandfather--a convert--wasn't very big on it. I'd never connected that with the LDS tradition of seerstones. Now, I wonder . . .

I cannot speak as to all the ins and outs of black magic vs white magic, but the evidence is pretty solid that the Christian population of Joseph Smith's Palmyra had few compunctions about it (it was the educated secularists, influenced by Enlightenment ideas, who really held it in disdain). Heck, Willard Chase--who was one of Smith's money-digging partners, was angry that Smith had taken the seer stone for himself rather than sharing it with Chase, and whose sister later led an expedition to steal the gold plates from the Smith farm assisted by a peep stone of her own--was a Methodist minister. The Salem witch trials are fascinating to read about. I recall, in a colonial American history class, reading one scholarly work that suggested the witch trials weren't so much about genuine fears of evil magic, as they were a convenient mechanism to get rid of nonconformists and allow catty old colonists to work out their personal vendettas.

Why? Was Jesus not God until after His death and resurrection? Was Jesus' birth not something that was planned from before the creation of the world? So, your point has changed from Jesus can't change to Jesus can't change over the BIG stuff, and I am the one who decides what is "big". Got it.

No; I said He "made an allowance" and then provided another biblical example where He did exactly that. But by all means, yes; let's stay on-topic. I don't think it's off-limits, but as I am a monogamist I'll have to defer to others.

The unauthorized practice of polygamy is wrong, as you'll see if you open your Book of Mormon to Jacob Chapter 2. As for the rationale for ending polygamy--I'd suggest you look at the explanations appended to Official Declaration 1 (the document that ended the practice of polygamy within the United States).

Then kindly explain Samuel's behavior in choosing a king for Israel after the Lord's express manifestation that Israel not be governed by a king.

Unless either a) the purposes for which God had the Church practice polygamy have been accomplished; or b) God does, in the long term, want the Church practicing polygamy; but He has made an allowance because of the political climate we live in.

Pale, if the guy had shot up a school looking for crack he'd deserve our pity. But to extend compassion to someone who got addicted to pain medication after back surgery? What the #%@! is wrong with you?

Can't remember the link, but someone made the point yesterday that the President is *never* "off the record". Not an ideal situation, but I think it's a pretty realistic assessment.

No arguments there; but at least as far as this discussion goes their factual documentation seems solid. I don't want to be a condescending SOB here, but . . . did you go to Seminary as a teenager? Did you go to Gospel Doctrine class consistently the year they did the Old Testament? The fact that the papyri still exist--and even that they Egyptologists view them as basically copies of the Book of Breathings--is not exactly a state secret. Not being a Book of Abraham wonk, I'll leave the argument there for others. I think Elphaba discussed that pretty well in a recent post addressed to me on this thread. Those other stones, for the most part, are in private collections. To the extent that the Church owns any (the Chase stone and, I think, at least one or two others used by other early LDS leaders), I can completely sympathize with their desire not to take holy relics and turn them into circus attractions.

Oh, I could tell you stories about things being "played" in the Church Office Building that are by no means conducive to the Spirit--and I'm not referring to music. There's a reason that many in Church bureaucracy refer to the COB as the "Telestial Kingdom".

Based on factual sources. And Wikipedia is not exactly a hotbed of pro-Mormon sentiment. To Egyptologists, yes. But these particular papyri have a 19th-century American historical connection that sets them apart, and makes them of infinitely greater value to Mormons. You argue they are being suppressed. That's an asinine argument where the contents of the papyri are well-known. Document preservation techniques have evolved just a tad bit over the past two centuries. Your link isn't showing up on my browser. But neither this stone, nor this one, nor this one, nor this one, nor this one are the Chase stone which lies in the First Presidency vault. Oh, OK. If you don't think Whitmer was telling the truth about the use of a seer stone, then why are we having this conversation?

See the Wikipedia entry--not ideal, but it'll do. There are eleven fragments. If I've read it correctly, ten were at the Met and one turned up in LDS archives in the late sixties. I highly doubt you'd think it proved much of anything, regardless of how accurate it turned out to be. There are a variety of logistical reasons not to display a particular item, as anyone acquainted with museums and archives could tell you. As long as there are reliable copies accessible to historians, I really don't see what the issue is. Apparently you missed it when I said "we have verbal descriptions but no photographs". :) David Whitmer recorded the use of a seer stone. For more, see this issue of Dialogue (starting at page 48) by Van Wagoner and Walker; or Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling).

You're referring to the Church Historian's fragment--1/11th of the entire Book of Abraham, and which was published long ago. And has been thoroughly documented. The Mormons are not the only ones to elect not to put original, very old documents on public display. In point of fact, Joseph Smith used several seerstones throughout his life. The one that figures in the Book of Mormon translation is the Chase stone. It resides in the First Presidency vault; we have verbal descriptions of it but no photographs. There are, however, photographs of several other seerstones floating around the net.

In all fairness, Bytor, at least some of them apparently didn't--at least, not equally (c.f. Abraham and Jacob).

Not to mention financing excursions into sock-puppetry.

Which papyrus? As far as I know, the remnants of the papyri the Church purchased wound up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As far as I know, most of which were published by BYU Studies back in the 1970s (yes, after the Tanners leaked them. The saga of Church Archives is a long and twisted one; suffice it to say that the powers that be have had, IMHO, a fairly simplistic view of what purposes LDS history is supposed to serve). Huh? I'm not aware that the hat still exists. The stone certainly does, and is occasionally mentioned in fairly basic LDS texts; but I have no quibbles with the Church not wanting to turn it into a circus attraction.

As you have purported to understand elsewhere, there's a difference between polygamy and polyandry. The Church as a whole practiced the former. Joseph Smith also practiced the latter, but the Church did not follow his lead. How on earth would I know? FWIW, I personally have quibbles with the idea of "falling in love"; but I suppose that's more a cultural perspective than a theological one. I wouldn't. Can't speak as to others, though. Some of Joseph Smith's (and, for that matter, Brigham Young's) wives were in their mid-to-late fifties, and those marriages almost seem to have been--for lack of a better term--marriages of convenience--a primarily economic partnership whereby otherwise unmarried women could have claim on someone for their support.

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at, but I don't find that the past LDS experience with polygamy (let alone Joseph Smith's experiments with polyandry) has a significant influence in the day-to-day relationship that Mormons enjoy with their spouses. As for Joseph Smith: I would venture to guess that Joseph Smith did love all of his wives--or at least made a conscious effort to do so. But I'm no historian. If you want the viewpoint of his polyandrous wives, the best thing to do would be to read their own words.

1 Corinthians 13 (that's the King James version. ) The LDS concept of marital love isn't all that different from the non-LDS concept. See, e.g., this quotation from Parley Pratt after he had had the concept of Celestial Marriage explained to him: Now, as to how "love" can be "love" when you're loving more than one person simultaneously? I don't pretend to know. I take it as a matter of faith that it's possible, but as I do not anticipate living polygamously in this life or the next I haven't given it much thought.

Semi-topical: The Rise of the Uncouth Primarily an et tu argument, I suppose; but a very powerful one.

With all due respect, if I'm living a telestial life I don't think tithing alone is going to save me. If I'm living a terrestrial life, I don't think the mere failure to pay tithing is going to get me burned either.