marries his 27th and final wife.
Wowzers
Wowzers
On this day in history 1868 Brigham Young...
5,580 Views |
167 Replies |
Last: 15 yr ago by PetroAg87
was this the wife that Steve Young's ancestors sprang from eventually?
If so, thank goodness for the 27th!
If so, thank goodness for the 27th!
lol...no clue.
Nothing says 'I'm a man of God' like doing 27 women.
Signed,
The Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs
The Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs
signed,
David Koresh
David Koresh
They say women who live together tend to cycle together. I'd hate to live in a home with 27 women during that time of the month. Wow.
I don't know the percentages, but I think it was most frequently the case that the wives in frontier Utah did not live in the same home.
quote:Practically speaking, that'd be a big house.
I don't know the percentages, but I think it was most frequently the case that the wives in frontier Utah did not live in the same home.
quote:Didn't Brigham Young have the "Lion House" built in Salt Lake City to accomodate his 27 wives and 56 children?
I think it was most frequently the case that the wives in frontier Utah did not live in the same home.
rab - remember what Augustine, among others had to say about plural marriage? For
Augustine, a towering figure in Christian theology, held that polygamy was not something that was a crime before God, but rather a matter that depended more upon cultural biases:
"Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the [secular] laws forbid it."
Augustine, a towering figure in Christian theology, held that polygamy was not something that was a crime before God, but rather a matter that depended more upon cultural biases:
"Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the [secular] laws forbid it."
Was it a sin against nature or custom when Joe had sex with a 14 year old?
The strange part about Joseph Smith's plural wives (and the same cannot be said for Brigham Young) is although he is believed by many to have had sex with many or all of them, not a one of them bore him a child.
He was certainly fertile. He had children with Emma. I've never heard a good explanation for that. I certainly don't have a problem with Joseph having had children with plural wives, I'm just curious why there weren't any. Genetic testing has been performed recently to try and find such a living descendant, but it has all been negative.
He was certainly fertile. He had children with Emma. I've never heard a good explanation for that. I certainly don't have a problem with Joseph having had children with plural wives, I'm just curious why there weren't any. Genetic testing has been performed recently to try and find such a living descendant, but it has all been negative.
Rab - A couple of things. It was not against custom in that time period of the U.S. Remember, even in the 1950s, the singer, Jerry Lee Lewis (devout Pentecostal), married his 13 year old cousin, claiming that although only 13, she was "all woman". I am sure he learned that fact before they were actually "married".
But Joseph's marriage to Helen did not involve physical intimacy as Joseph was only "sealed" to her. This marriage was for the next life. There is not a shred of evidence to support yours and other's contention concerning a consummation of the marriage. And, it was not even his idea, as the mother and father, Elder Heber C. Kimball and his wife suggested it to Joseph as they loved the Prophet and wanted both of their families to be enter twined for eternity.
[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 4/6/2010 5:04p).]
But Joseph's marriage to Helen did not involve physical intimacy as Joseph was only "sealed" to her. This marriage was for the next life. There is not a shred of evidence to support yours and other's contention concerning a consummation of the marriage. And, it was not even his idea, as the mother and father, Elder Heber C. Kimball and his wife suggested it to Joseph as they loved the Prophet and wanted both of their families to be enter twined for eternity.
[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 4/6/2010 5:04p).]
quote:It was indeed against custom Diamond. Marrying at 16 was rare but not unheard of. Joseph's marrying 14 year old was completely out of the ordinary. In fact the average age of marriage in various regions of the United States at the time actually ranged from nineteen to twenty three years.
It was not against custom in that time period of the U.S.
Further, puberty occured much later 150 years ago than it does now. Age of menarche back then was around 16 and a half years old. So there is a high liklihood that Helen Kimbal hadn't even hit puberty yet when Smith married her.
And how did Helen Kimbal feel about having to marry Joseph Smith? Her own words from her autobiography make it pretty clear: "I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it."
[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 4/6/2010 5:24p).]
"The rest of the story" Petro! Learn about your "quote" of Helen Mars Kimball:
Helen Mar Kimball
Critics also provide a supposed "confession" from Helen, in which she reportedly said:
I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it.[7]
Compton (non-Mormon) properly characterizes this source, noting that it is an anti-Mormon work, and calls its extreme language "suspect." This was written in 1848. Yet, Helen was married in 1842, and was gone by 1845. So, at almost-15 she's "young," but by 1845 (by the latest) she's now "not young"? This sounds suspiciously like fabrication.
George D. Smith tells his readers only that this is Helen "confiding," while doing nothing to reveal the statement's provenance from a hostile source.[9] Newell and Avery tell us nothing of the nature of this source and call it only a "statement" in the Stanley Ivins Collection;[10] Van Wagoner mirrors G. D. Smith by disingenuously writing that "Helen confided [this information] to a close Nauvoo friend," without revealing its anti-Mormon origins.[11]
To credit this story at face value, one must also admit that Helen told others in Nauvoo about the marriage (something she repeatedly emphasized she was not to do) and that she told a story at variance with all the others from her pen during a lifetime of staunch defense of plural marriage...
Here is the link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Helen_Mar_Kimball
Some people have concluded that Helen did have sexual relations with Joseph, which would have been proper considering that they were married with her consent and the consent of her parents. However, historian Todd Compton does not hold this view; he criticized the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner for using his book to argue for sexual relations, and wrote:
The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage.[1]
In other words, polygamous marriages often had other purposes than procreation—one such purpose was likely to tie faithful families together, and this seems to have been a purpose of Joseph's marriage to the daughter of a faithful Apostle. (See: Law of Adoption.)
Critics who assume plural marriage "is all about sex" may be basing their opinion on their own cultural biases and assumptions, rather than upon the actual motives of Church members who participated in the practice.
Helen Mar "took pen and paper in hand before she died to describe vividly her ties as a member of the Latter-day Saint Church during its first two decades of existence in a series of articles published in the Woman's Exponent" in the 1880s.[2] Some of her articles dealt with plural marriage: "Her personal remembrances of those days constitute an important source that, taken together with other first-hand accounts by participants, provides a more complete view of the introduction of one of the most distinctive features of nineteenth-century Mormonism."[3] Helen Mar's writings, an important source of LDS history, were published by BYU's Religious Studies Center in 1997 in a book entitled A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History. The book also includes her 1881 autobiography to her children wherein, concerning her marriage to the Prophet Joseph Smith, she wrote:
I have long since learned to leave all with [God], who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises. (Holzapfel, 487)
I thought that you would find this interesting also concerning the ages of marriages in those days:
But this is a more modern attitude.
The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven!
It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.
In past centuries, women would often die in childbirth, and men often remarried younger women afterwards. Women often married older men, because these were more financially established and able to support them than men their own age.
Conclusion
Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages to young women may seem difficult to understand or explain today, but in his own time such age differences were not typically an obstacle to marriage. The plural marriages were unusual, to say the least; the younger ages of the brides were much less so. Critics do not provide this perspective because they wish to shock the audience and have them judge Joseph by the standards of the modern era, rather than his own time.
Your link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Marriages_to_young_women
Helen Mar Kimball
Critics also provide a supposed "confession" from Helen, in which she reportedly said:
I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it.[7]
Compton (non-Mormon) properly characterizes this source, noting that it is an anti-Mormon work, and calls its extreme language "suspect." This was written in 1848. Yet, Helen was married in 1842, and was gone by 1845. So, at almost-15 she's "young," but by 1845 (by the latest) she's now "not young"? This sounds suspiciously like fabrication.
George D. Smith tells his readers only that this is Helen "confiding," while doing nothing to reveal the statement's provenance from a hostile source.[9] Newell and Avery tell us nothing of the nature of this source and call it only a "statement" in the Stanley Ivins Collection;[10] Van Wagoner mirrors G. D. Smith by disingenuously writing that "Helen confided [this information] to a close Nauvoo friend," without revealing its anti-Mormon origins.[11]
To credit this story at face value, one must also admit that Helen told others in Nauvoo about the marriage (something she repeatedly emphasized she was not to do) and that she told a story at variance with all the others from her pen during a lifetime of staunch defense of plural marriage...
Here is the link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Helen_Mar_Kimball
Some people have concluded that Helen did have sexual relations with Joseph, which would have been proper considering that they were married with her consent and the consent of her parents. However, historian Todd Compton does not hold this view; he criticized the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner for using his book to argue for sexual relations, and wrote:
The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage.[1]
In other words, polygamous marriages often had other purposes than procreation—one such purpose was likely to tie faithful families together, and this seems to have been a purpose of Joseph's marriage to the daughter of a faithful Apostle. (See: Law of Adoption.)
Critics who assume plural marriage "is all about sex" may be basing their opinion on their own cultural biases and assumptions, rather than upon the actual motives of Church members who participated in the practice.
Helen Mar "took pen and paper in hand before she died to describe vividly her ties as a member of the Latter-day Saint Church during its first two decades of existence in a series of articles published in the Woman's Exponent" in the 1880s.[2] Some of her articles dealt with plural marriage: "Her personal remembrances of those days constitute an important source that, taken together with other first-hand accounts by participants, provides a more complete view of the introduction of one of the most distinctive features of nineteenth-century Mormonism."[3] Helen Mar's writings, an important source of LDS history, were published by BYU's Religious Studies Center in 1997 in a book entitled A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History. The book also includes her 1881 autobiography to her children wherein, concerning her marriage to the Prophet Joseph Smith, she wrote:
I have long since learned to leave all with [God], who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises. (Holzapfel, 487)
I thought that you would find this interesting also concerning the ages of marriages in those days:
But this is a more modern attitude.
The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven!
It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.
In past centuries, women would often die in childbirth, and men often remarried younger women afterwards. Women often married older men, because these were more financially established and able to support them than men their own age.
Conclusion
Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages to young women may seem difficult to understand or explain today, but in his own time such age differences were not typically an obstacle to marriage. The plural marriages were unusual, to say the least; the younger ages of the brides were much less so. Critics do not provide this perspective because they wish to shock the audience and have them judge Joseph by the standards of the modern era, rather than his own time.
Your link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Marriages_to_young_women
quote:
remember what Augustine, among others had to say about plural marriage?
You should know by now I'm going to ask, who are the others you are referring to and source of the Augustine quote please. I'm not disputing the quote but you should always give a source.
Although St. Augustine refrained from judging the patriarchs, he did not conclude from their practice the continued acceptability of polygamy.
quote:Of course ANY publication that provided facts that the Mormons didn't want to have revealed is considered anti-Mormon isn't it Diamond?
noting that it is an anti-Mormon work
The reality is that Helen Mar Kimball's quote about being deceived into thinking her marriage was ceremony only was included in several books including the book "Mormon Polygamy: A History" written by Richard S. Van Wagoner, who just happens to be a MORMON! Funny that Fairmormon doesn't quite get around to mentioning that point...
But let's take the research a step further and actually look at where Van Wagoner obtained the quote. He in turn, used as his source the book "Narrative of some of the Proceedings of the Mormons " written by Catherine Lewis, who ALSO happened to be a MORMON! In fact, we know that the author received her Temple Endowment in Nauvoo, Illinois on December 22, 1845.
Now could this Mormon author have simply made up what she claimed as the quote from Helen Mar Kimball? Sure. But we have zero evidence indicating that such occured and nothing to provide a motive for the author to make such a false claim. Instead, we have enough background information to conclude that she probably DID know Helen Mar Kimball and was in a position geographically, in gender and in age to have had such a conversation with Helen Kimball.
Now why don't you tell me what evidence that you have to make you think the quote false other than your desperate desire that it not be true...
quote:Not in the least. An 18 year old, even today, would easily view a 14 or 15 year old as 'young'. Even more so when considering not just chronological age but also considering that at the age of 14 she had been a daughter, most likely not even going through puberty yet. And compare that to her situation three years later when she was now married with a husband more than half her age. No Diamond...her quote doesn't sound like a fabrication but it certainly does convey her sadness at what she had been forced into.
This was written in 1848. Yet, Helen was married in 1842, and was gone by 1845. So, at almost-15 she's "young," but by 1845 (by the latest) she's now "not young"? This sounds suspiciously like fabrication.
quote:And the fact that she was embarrassed to tell others that she was married or told that she should keep such marriage secret is further validation of her qoutes in which she claimed to have been deceived into marriage and considered her marriage to be a 'sacrifice'. I wouldn't expect someone who was told not to aknowledge her marriage to turn around and trumpet it to everyone. Instead she did just what I would expect she would do....tell a close friend instead.
one must also admit that Helen told others in Nauvoo about the marriage (something she repeatedly emphasized she was not to do)
Of course Diamond, if you want to ignore the validity of that particular quote by Helen Mar Kimball, you should also then consider the statements that she made in the letter to be opened after her death (Which is part of LDS archives I believe) in which she states that Smith told her "If you will take this step, it will insure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father's household & and all of your kindred." It becomes clear that this 14 year old girl had to be talked into a marriage agreement with Smith and was lead to believe that the fate of her family in the afterlife hinged on her decision. Certainly seems to back up the earlier quote that she had made in 1848 doesn't it? Of course, because you don't like the content, I am sure that you will reject that letter as well won't you Diamond?
quote:Never mind that she most likely hadn't even yet hit puberty or begun menustrating.... Is there an age Diamond at which marriage shouldn't be allowed even with parental consent in your eyes?
Some people have concluded that Helen did have sexual relations with Joseph, which would have been proper considering that they were married with her consent and the consent of her parents.
quote:As you yourself aknowledge, his 14 year old wife did not want to discuss her marriage with others. Short of a pregnancy (which would have been difficult prior to puberty) what evidence of sexuality would you expect to find Diamond???
However, historian Todd Compton does not hold this view; he criticized the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner for using his book to argue for sexual relations, and wrote:
The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage
quote:Oh I have no doubt that your early Mormon leaders recognized the perks of having multiple wives available to them that had NOTHING to do with procreation!
In other words, polygamous marriages often had other purposes than procreation
quote:Probably true. We have evidence that Smith lied and tried to hide his polygamy from others in the beginning. What better way to secure the allegiance of his followers than to make them complicit in polygamy as well?
one such purpose was likely to tie faithful families together, and this seems to have been a purpose of Joseph's marriage to the daughter of a faithful Apostle.
quote:And yet even more evidence that Helen Mar Kimball did NOT consider her marriage to Joseph Smith to have been a 'happy' event. Instead she was simply placing faith in God that such a marriage had been correct, no matter how she personally felt about it.
The book also includes her 1881 autobiography to her children wherein, concerning her marriage to the Prophet Joseph Smith, she wrote: I have long since learned to leave all with God, who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy.
quote:So what? Just because the age of consent was low doesn't mean that people were therefore marrying at such ages. Do you really think that there were a lot of seven year olds getting married in Delaware Diamond??? Instead it shows that in that time period, the law with regards to age of consent really wasn't a factor in determining marriages.
United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven!
You are hiding from the fact that the average age of marriage in all regions of the United States was well ABOVE 14 and actually ranged from 19 to 23 years of age. As such, Smith's desire to marry a 14 year old was in no way an ordinary event.
So tell me Diamond, which of these statements I made do you think are incorrect:
1) That the average women's age for marriage in the mid 19th century was between 19 and 23 years old?
2) That the average age of menarche during the mid 19th century in the USA was around 16.5 years old?
3) That Helen Mar Kimball was BELOW that age when she married Joseph Smith?
quote:And yet, even by nineteenth century social standards, Smith's marriage at the age of 37 to a pre-pubescent girl was not conventional or ordinary!
it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.
Petro -No facts, just unsupported writings from anti-Mormon sources that are totally at odds with every thing she ever said or how she lived her life. You will just have to deal with it Petro.
She would have talked about their intimacy with someone eventually Petro. Her travails was centered around the persecution that she and the Saints suffered in Ill. as well as moving west across the wilderness and settling in the wild Great Salt lake Basin. Life was very harsh and demanding. Too bad your theories do not play out because you cannot get away from this final statement:
(The book also includes her 1881 autobiography to her children wherein, concerning her marriage to the Prophet Joseph Smith, she wrote):
I have long since learned to leave all with (God), who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises. (Holzapfel, 487)
There were regular marriages that consisted of girls of age 14. But this was not a marriage as you would envision it, because you have nothing but the view of a natural man who thinks sexual perversion between same sexes is normal and acceptable to the Lord and with a most defective view of the next life (as you will find out)! It is interesting and significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.
I am not hiding from the fact that marriages were above the age of 14 nor below the age of 14. Talk to Jerry Lee Lewis as to why he married his 13 year old cousin in the 1950s and it was a "consummated" marriage. Remember, it was not Joseph's desire to marry Helen but to comply with the wishes of her father and mother. They knew that the "sealing" would only apply to the next life and Helen would be able to choose even then. Women will always have the right to the final choice in the resurrection. Thus, one does not want to abuse his wife in this life if he loves her and wants her companionship in the next life.
Your accusations fall flat and the quote you want to rely on is unverifiable and as I said, is totally at odds with everything she had to say about plural marriage, her sealing to the Prophet and the way she felt about and lived her religion!
She would have talked about their intimacy with someone eventually Petro. Her travails was centered around the persecution that she and the Saints suffered in Ill. as well as moving west across the wilderness and settling in the wild Great Salt lake Basin. Life was very harsh and demanding. Too bad your theories do not play out because you cannot get away from this final statement:
(The book also includes her 1881 autobiography to her children wherein, concerning her marriage to the Prophet Joseph Smith, she wrote):
I have long since learned to leave all with (God), who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises. (Holzapfel, 487)
There were regular marriages that consisted of girls of age 14. But this was not a marriage as you would envision it, because you have nothing but the view of a natural man who thinks sexual perversion between same sexes is normal and acceptable to the Lord and with a most defective view of the next life (as you will find out)! It is interesting and significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.
I am not hiding from the fact that marriages were above the age of 14 nor below the age of 14. Talk to Jerry Lee Lewis as to why he married his 13 year old cousin in the 1950s and it was a "consummated" marriage. Remember, it was not Joseph's desire to marry Helen but to comply with the wishes of her father and mother. They knew that the "sealing" would only apply to the next life and Helen would be able to choose even then. Women will always have the right to the final choice in the resurrection. Thus, one does not want to abuse his wife in this life if he loves her and wants her companionship in the next life.
Your accusations fall flat and the quote you want to rely on is unverifiable and as I said, is totally at odds with everything she had to say about plural marriage, her sealing to the Prophet and the way she felt about and lived her religion!
quote:Unsupported? Catherine Lewis who provided the quote was a Mormon female close in age to Helen Mar Kimball and living in the same area. SHE is the one who quoted Helen. What about Catherine Lewis makes you believe that her claim of such quote was not true?
Petro -No facts, just unsupported writings from anti-Mormon sources
We all recognize Diamond that it is the content of that quote rather than the support and backround of the one who recorded it that makes you so quickly want to reject it. If the statement had been more complimentary to Smith, you would have immediately accepted it without question wouldn't you?
And of course, as further corraboration, we also have Helen's statements that she herself wrote down in which she talked about being convinced to marry Smith in order that her family could obtain salvation.
quote:Sure. But that doesn't mean that such talk was written down. Especially with the realization that Smith was trying to hide his polygamy from public knowledge. To assume that such intimacy didn't occur simply because they didn't write about it is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.
She would have talked about their intimacy with someone eventually Petro.
quote:Again we see just what she thought of her marriage to Joseph Smith when she uses terms such as 'furnace of affliction'.
I have long since learned to leave all with (God), who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction
quote:She was told that marriage to Smith would mean salvation for her family. Not the least surprise that she would continue to cling to that hope to the very end. For to publicly reject such hope would mean accepting that her marriage had been for much more base and carnal reasons.
I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises.
No Diamond, the fact that she continued to hope that salvation would be obtained as a result of her 'sacrifice' in no way negates the fact that she DID consider her marriage to Smith as a sacrifice that she was decieved into making.
quote:There probably were. But such marriages were not at all common. And even more rare would have been such a marriage of such a young girl to someone more than twice her age.
There were regular marriages that consisted of girls of age 14.
quote:I certainly have less problem with two consenting adults entering a relationship than I do with a pedophile who would marry a pre-pubescent girl!
because you have nothing but the view of a natural man who thinks sexual perversion between same sexes is normal
quote:You certainly have zero evidence to suggest that Joseph's contemporaries condoned such age differences. The reason that we might not have any complaints is most likely because Smith went to such efforts to HIDE his polygamy with these young girls.
of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners.
quote:No it wasn't. I have already provided (and you have chosen to ignore) the fact that the average age for women to marry ranged from 19 to 23 years in age around the USA at the time.
This was simply part of their environment and culture;
quote:So because Jerry Lee Lewis did it, it makes it OK for Joseph Smith to have done similar??? No Diamond. It was wrong when Joseph Smith did it and it was wrong when Jerry Lee Lewis did it. And Lewis paid a price for such action as well didn't he? Let's also keep in mind that at least with Jerry Lee Lewis, the reason that his cousin agreed to marry him was because she loved him... not because he had told her that her family would obtain salvation if she played along.
Talk to Jerry Lee Lewis as to why he married his 13 year old cousin in the 1950s and it was a "consummated" marriage.
quote:Bull. Her parents were willing to go along because of the power that such a tie to Smith would bring. But it certainly isn't as though Smith wasn't an interested and willing participant!
Remember, it was not Joseph's desire to marry Helen but to comply with the wishes of her father and mother.
quote:Of course we have no evidence that Smith was concerned about either of the above. His desires were instead, much more 'immediate'.
Thus, one does not want to abuse his wife in this life if he loves her and wants her companionship in the next life.
She is a single source, assuming she heard it the way it was actually said, which no one else ever did at any time in her life. If she really felt that way she would have stated it more than once, particularly in her more mature years. Reread my misled friend:
... The first portion of the poem expresses the youthful Helen's attitude. She is distressed mostly because of the loss of socialization and youthful ideas about romance. But, as Helen was later to explain more clearly in prose, she would soon realize that her youthful pout was uncalled for—she saw that her plural marriage had, in fact, protected her. "I have long since learned to leave all with Him, who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy," she noted after the poem.
Thus, she would later write of her youthful disappointment in not being permitted to attend a party or dance:
I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow William to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with other of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl danced better than I did, and I really felt it was too much to bear. It made the dull school more dull, and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought to myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did not murmur.
I imagined that my happiness was all over and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes, which (by the by) were of short duration, my bump of hope being too large to admit of my remaining long under the clouds. Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience were exposed to though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them. A moral may be drawn from this truthful story. "Children obey thy parents," etc. And also, "Have regard to thy name, for that shall continue with you above a thousand great treasures of gold." "A good life hath but few days; but a good name endureth forever. So, despite her youthful reaction, Helen uses this as an illustration of how she was being a bit immature and upset, and how she ought to have trusted her parents, and that she was actually protected from problems that arose from the parties she missed...
And I assume you know that Catherine Lewis is considered to be a hostile witness to the Church, even though once a member. {i]In the prologue, Compton suggests that Joseph's marriages crossed over the line of propriety. He claims that Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball included sexual relations, even though this relies solely upon a hostile source: Catherine Lewis. Compton notes that Lewis' other assertions are obviously suspect, but allows that this most damaging claim has some basis in fact. There is reason to doubt that Joseph's marriage to Helen Kimball included sexual intimacy. We know that marriages of young girls during Utah's polygamous years were performed with the understanding that cohabitation would be postponed until the girl had arrived at a suitable, marriageable age.
Too bad Petro, no cigars!
She not only had that hope till the end but wanted her children to know that it would be a reality if she would qualify herself which she had done and would do until the day she dies, and so should her children.
It is amusing that you do not even know what a "pedophile is". 14 is an age is way beyond that classification.
I don't need any evidences because condemnation by ones contemporaries is always more prevalent than quiet acceptance. People living in monogamous marriage with girls that young received no condemnation either, Mormons or Non-Mormons. It was simply part of the culture. Averages mean that there were many much younger and many older. You can't have it both ways Petro, no mater how hard you try.
I used Jerry Lee Lewis as an example that it does happen, even in the 1950s. Eventually he dumped her. It was his drinking that did Jerry in.
And Lewis paid a price for such action as well didn't he? Let's also keep in mind that at least with Jerry Lee Lewis, the reason that his cousin agreed to marry him was because she loved him... not because he had told her that her family would obtain salvation if she played along.
You know absolutely nothing of Joseph's interest in Helen Kimball. If you were to really study Joseph's life, you would know that these relationships in the next life was the most important thing to him in human relationships -wives and the reulting posterity. He did not believe in talking holograms or immaterial, formless "spirits that do not exist, even though that is what you believe in.
quote:And yet a quote from a single source has never stopped you before Diamond... as long as that single source was saying something that seemed to support your position.
She is a single source, assuming she heard it the way it was actually said
Yes indeed Catherine Lewis is a single source. And yes, the quote would have more validity if it had been stated in front of hundreds of people in the town square. And yet, as you have already pointed out Helen was want to do that as she desired to keep hidden her marriage to Joseph Smith. It certainly makes sense to expect that any comments Helen made would have occured in the manner that Catherine Lewis reported the quote rather than in a more public forum.
And keep in mind that based, on gender, age, and location, it IS highly likely that Catherine Lewis and Helen Mar Kimball DID have conversations with one another. So the opportunity for such a quote having been made by Helen is certainly there.
Furthermore, Catherine Lewis was a Mormon herself. Other than the fact that you don't like what she stated, what evidence or support do you have that would suggest that Catherine Lewis would have chosen to lie and turn against her fellow Mormons? No Diamond, the assumption remains valid that Catherine Lews was stating the facts when she reported Helen Mar Kimball's opinions regarding her marriage to Joseph Smith.
Let's also keep in mind that in the 48 years between when Lewis published her book and when Helen died, Helen never denied or refuted Catherine Lewis's claims as to what Helen had said. You would think that if she had, the various Mormon defenders would have immediately published or publicized such a refutation. And yet they never did. So the question then becomes this Diamond: If Helen Mar Kimball didn't make the statements claimed by Lewis, why didn't Helen ever issue a denial?
quote:And who is to say that she didn't? Just because it wasn't recorded doesn't mean that it wasn't said. Keep in mind that Helen remained surrounded by fellow Mormons and Joseph Smith worshippers who would have had no desire to record any statements made which portrayed Smith in a less than favorable light.
If she really felt that way she would have stated it more than once, particularly in her more mature years.
Finally, we have Helen's own words which I have previously posted in which she refers to her marriage as a 'furnance of affliction' and discusses having to have faith in God that what had occured was proper. Certainly further evidence indicating that she had less than favorable opinions about the marriage to Smith!
quote:And Joseph Smith certainly took those away from Helen didn't he?
... The first portion of the poem expresses the youthful Helen's attitude. She is distressed mostly because of the loss of socialization and youthful ideas about romance.
quote:Nothing in this statement suggests what you are claiming. Instead she appears to be suggesting that she was indeed NOT happy with the marriage and had to rely on her faith that God knew what was best. Yet MORE indication supporting the accuracy of Catherine Lewis' claim that Helen had refered to her marriage as a sacrifice!
she saw that her plural marriage had, in fact, protected her. "I have long since learned to leave all with Him, who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy," she noted after the poem.
quote:And what makes her a hostile witness Diamond other than the fact that she made statements that the Mormons don't want to hear?
And I assume you know that Catherine Lewis is considered to be a hostile witness to the Church, even though once a member.
quote:So are you suggesting that Helen Mar Kimball wasn't yet at a suitable, marriageable age when she was talked into marrying Joseph Smith? If not, then what is your point Diamond?
We know that marriages of young girls during Utah's polygamous years were performed with the understanding that cohabitation would be postponed until the girl had arrived at a suitable, marriageable age.
quote:Of course she had such a HOPE. Who wouldn't want to hope that the 'sacrifices' and 'abuse' and 'furnances of afflication' that one has encountered won't pay off in the end?
She not only had that hope till the end
quote:I consider a Pedophile to be someone who engages in a sexual relationship with a pre-pubescent child. As such, it probably doesn't include 14 year olds today although such a relationship between a 14 year old and a 37 year old is just as disgusting today as it was back then. However recognizing that the large majority of 14 year olds in the 1850s hadn't even begun menustrating yet, the label probably has more application to that age back then than it does today. But I do understand that you, Joseph Smith, and Warren Jeffs all probably have less problems with a 14 year old marrying a 37 year old than does American society in general.
It is amusing that you do not even know what a "pedophile is". 14 is an age is way beyond that classification.
quote:You never do Diamond.
I don't need any evidences
quote:Well we really don't know since 14 year olds marrying 37 year olds was so rare to begin with.
People living in monogamous marriage with girls that young received no condemnation either, Mormons or Non-Mormons.
quote:It was NOT part of the culture. I know how much you hate facts and research but you can go to the IPUMS website and pull up census data to see just how uncommon such a marriage was. Looking at the 1% sample for the 1880 census (the earliest census with thorough marriage age numbers)it shows that out of the 4,537 14 year old girls listed, only 24 were or had been married. That means that only 1/2 of 1 percent of 14 year olds were married Diamond! And although we can't tell from the census data, my guess is that the number of 14 year olds married to someone twice their age is much, much less than that 1/2 of 1 percent number. No Diamond Smith's marriage to someone so young was NOT part of the culture of 19th century America.
It was simply part of the culture. Averages mean that there were many much younger and many older.
quote:And it happens even today. Doesn't mean that it is any more correct, accepted or proper than it was back then!
I used Jerry Lee Lewis as an example that it does happen, even in the 1950s.
quote:Which is exactly what I had said previously. So who do you think was more enthusiastic about the idea of marriage? Jerry Lee's 13 year old bride who was in love with him, or Smith's 14 year old bride who was told that she had to marry Smith in order to obtain spiritual salvation for her family?
Let's also keep in mind that at least with Jerry Lee Lewis, the reason that his cousin agreed to marry him was because she loved him... not because he had told her that her family would obtain salvation if she played along.
quote:Nor do you. But what we DO know is that Smith most definitely DID have an interest in Helen Kimball which included a desire for marriage. And we certainly have evidence from Smith's previous polygamous marriages, that carnal pleasure WAS part of such a marriage (see Fanny Algier for example).
You know absolutely nothing of Joseph's interest in Helen Kimball.
quote:Your concept of Christianity is horribly skewed Diamond if you think we consider God to be nothing more than a talking 'hologram'!
He did not believe in talking holograms or immaterial, formless "spirits that do not exist, even though that is what you believe in.
[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 4/8/2010 10:19a).]
Remember, even in the 1950s, the singer, Jerry Lee Lewis (devout Pentecostal), married his 13 year old cousin,
**************
This would explain his need to sing, "great balls of fire."
**************
This would explain his need to sing, "great balls of fire."
Petro- How do you know that she did not? Her whole life is a living refutation of what Catherine has tried to claim and I doubt the Helen would only have shared that with one person her entire life. If she had, that would have come out. We don't "worship" Joseph but we do love and honor him. Her furnace of affliction was much more that a marriage "sealing" for what she and all of the other Saints went through. The bottom line, she was an active and faithful Latter-day Saint who lived her religion and wanted her posterity to know it was true. I know you don't know how to dismiss this but you really can not get past it. Remember what she said: "Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils,
I don't think that you grasped that she never was intimate with Joseph nor did she ever live with him. And since she even as the right to choose in the next life, there was no lasting penalty if she thought she had made a bad decision and wished to choose differently.
The point is that there were some young girls that were to be married in a temporal sense but they were not yet ready. A temporal marriage is entirely different from a Temple sealing. You should take the time to learn the real difference and its implications.
You have no idea as to who was "menstruating" and who was not, but it did not matter, it was not a temporal marriage. I am glad to see you admit that you were incorrect in referring to Joseph as a pedophile. The value of your "considerations" as to what a pedophile is plus .50 cents will get you the soft drink of your choice (if you shop wisely).
There were people that lived in monogamous marriages with 14 year olds and it was a non issue. Since that has been proven to be so, you want to focus on Joseph's age which does not matter as it was not a temporal marriage. It was an accepted part of the culture, regardless of the number that were married at that age. Did you not find it shocking what the legal age for marrying was back then in some of the states? The age of consent in the U.S. being 10! I know I was.
It was accepted today and back then for it was legal. That fact that you and I disapproved meant nothing.
Helen was very enthusiastic. She was disappointed that her social life was reduced but, unlike Jerry Lee Lewis's wife and her "love", Helen cherished her marriage to Joseph until the day she died. There is no evidence that Joseph had any prior interest in Helen for it is well established that her parents approached Joseph and asked her to have her sealed to him for the next life. There is very little known about Fanny Alger and she was 16. I find it so amusing that Joseph and Emma had many children but with all of Joseph's supposed intimacies with his other plural wives, he shot blanks. There is not a single proven child of a relationship that Joseph had.
No Petro, I think YOUR concept of Christianity is horribly skewed for a "talking hologram" is basically what you have described the god that you think you worship. But anyone who wants to follow after the murderer Henry as his Ecclesiastical leader needs more help that he knows. I do find it amusing that one of your former high profile Dallas Methodist ministers, Walker Railey murdered his wife (she is in a vegetative state), as did the rising star in the Baptist church in Waco who was convicted for murdering his wife and just denied a new trial. I guess they both spent to much time focusing on Henry and decided to follow his example. If wives are in the way, attempt to get rid of them with extreme prejudice!
As I said Petro, no cigars!
I don't think that you grasped that she never was intimate with Joseph nor did she ever live with him. And since she even as the right to choose in the next life, there was no lasting penalty if she thought she had made a bad decision and wished to choose differently.
The point is that there were some young girls that were to be married in a temporal sense but they were not yet ready. A temporal marriage is entirely different from a Temple sealing. You should take the time to learn the real difference and its implications.
You have no idea as to who was "menstruating" and who was not, but it did not matter, it was not a temporal marriage. I am glad to see you admit that you were incorrect in referring to Joseph as a pedophile. The value of your "considerations" as to what a pedophile is plus .50 cents will get you the soft drink of your choice (if you shop wisely).
There were people that lived in monogamous marriages with 14 year olds and it was a non issue. Since that has been proven to be so, you want to focus on Joseph's age which does not matter as it was not a temporal marriage. It was an accepted part of the culture, regardless of the number that were married at that age. Did you not find it shocking what the legal age for marrying was back then in some of the states? The age of consent in the U.S. being 10! I know I was.
It was accepted today and back then for it was legal. That fact that you and I disapproved meant nothing.
Helen was very enthusiastic. She was disappointed that her social life was reduced but, unlike Jerry Lee Lewis's wife and her "love", Helen cherished her marriage to Joseph until the day she died. There is no evidence that Joseph had any prior interest in Helen for it is well established that her parents approached Joseph and asked her to have her sealed to him for the next life. There is very little known about Fanny Alger and she was 16. I find it so amusing that Joseph and Emma had many children but with all of Joseph's supposed intimacies with his other plural wives, he shot blanks. There is not a single proven child of a relationship that Joseph had.
No Petro, I think YOUR concept of Christianity is horribly skewed for a "talking hologram" is basically what you have described the god that you think you worship. But anyone who wants to follow after the murderer Henry as his Ecclesiastical leader needs more help that he knows. I do find it amusing that one of your former high profile Dallas Methodist ministers, Walker Railey murdered his wife (she is in a vegetative state), as did the rising star in the Baptist church in Waco who was convicted for murdering his wife and just denied a new trial. I guess they both spent to much time focusing on Henry and decided to follow his example. If wives are in the way, attempt to get rid of them with extreme prejudice!
As I said Petro, no cigars!
quote:Well neither you nor any other Mormon has ever presented any evidence that Helen Kimball ever denied making those statements have you? I would think that if she had made such a denial it would be a pretty big deal. And I certainly know that if she had, you would have mentioned it...repeatedly. But the reality is that you haven't because she never made such a denial.
Petro- How do you know that she did not?
quote:Not in the least. In fact Helen's own statements tend to back up what Catherine Lewis stated with regards to Helen's view of her marriage at the age of 14.
Her whole life is a living refutation of what Catherine has tried to claim
quote:And we don't know that she WAS the only one. But she is the one that was willing to document the statement. You know as well as I do, that most Mormons wouldn't choose to document such a statement as Helen made to Catherine Lewis so it really is no surprise that we don't have more documentation of such an opinion by Helen.
I doubt the Helen would only have shared that with one person her entire life.
quote:Nope. Nothing in her statement suggests that she was talking about the overall Mormon experience. She was referencing her marriage to Smith and sacrifice of her childhood as a result Diamond.
Her furnace of affliction was much more that a marriage "sealing" for what she and all of the other Saints went through.
quote:In other ways! Yet MORE indication that she didn't view what her father and Joseph Smith had talked her into as a kind act. But because her father was kind 'in other ways' she therefore assumed that he was being kind in this act as well...even if, as seen by her statement, she didn't agree that the marriage was 'kind' to her.
Remember what she said: "Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils,
quote:You have no evidence to support your claim that he wasn't intimate with her. Just hopeful/wishful thinking on your part Diamond.
I don't think that you grasped that she never was intimate with Joseph nor did she ever live with him.
quote:Since there will be no such choice in the afterlife, you are correct that there was no 'lasting' penalty. But there certainly was a penalty at the time and her writings indicate that she certainly recognized that she was being subjected to such penalty.
And since she even as the right to choose in the next life, there was no lasting penalty if she thought she had made a bad decision and wished to choose differently.
quote:So are you admitting that there is a good likelihood that Helen Kimball was not yet ready for a temporal marriage? You are quickly walking yourself into yet another trap Diamond.
The point is that there were some young girls that were to be married in a temporal sense but they were not yet ready.
quote:No. But I DO know from the statistics that the average age of menarche was 16.5 years old, that Helen was still several years from that point when she was convinced to marry Smith, and that at the age of 14, only a small percentage of women had reached that level of puberty.
You have no idea as to who was "menstruating"
quote:Again, you have no evidence to support that claim.
but it did not matter, it was not a temporal marriage.
quote:Says who? Again, if Smith was having a sexual relationship with a pre-pubescent girl who had not even begun menustrating, then I DO consider that to be a pediophiliac action.
I am glad to see you admit that you were incorrect in referring to Joseph as a pedophile.
quote:And obviously MY definition of pedophilia is more strict than is the definition that you or Warren Jeff likes to use.
The value of your "considerations" as to what a pedophile is plus .50 cents will get you the soft drink of your choice
quote:There were probably a handful of such marriages. But as the stats have already shown, such relationships were EXTREMELY rare. Even MORE rare when the husband was more than twice the age of the child bride.
There were people that lived in monogamous marriages with 14 year olds and it was a non issue.
quote:More back pedaling by Diamond. Now that the numbers/statistics prove you wrong with regards to numbers....you suddenly start claiming that the numbers don't matter. They most certainly do Diamond but now that your earlier claims have been proven wrong, you wish to simply ignore those numbers. Typical Diamond!
It was an accepted part of the culture, regardless of the number that were married at that age.
quote:And the age of consent in Delaware was even lower at seven years of age. But that doesn't mean that seven year olds were suddenly getting married in Delaware or that it was therefore morally permissable for such a marriage to occur does it Diamond???
Did you not find it shocking what the legal age for marrying was back then in some of the states? The age of consent in the U.S. being 10! I know I was.
quote:Again, marrying a seven year old in Delaware was also legal Diamond. That doesn't mean such a marriage would therefore be accepted and you know it! In the same manner, just because a 37 year old marrying a 14 year old was legal, doesn't mean that it was accepted either. And the extremely small percentage of such marriages shows that it was indeed NOT considered acceptable or normal.
It was accepted today and back then for it was legal.
quote:She very well may have. Especially if she continued to hold out hope that as a result of her marriage, all of her family would obtain salvation as Smith had told her when trying to convince her. But cherishing the marriage and hoping Smith was correct doesn't mean that she still didn't consider her being married at 14 to have been a sacrifice, a 'furnace of affliction', or 'abuse' as she was quoted as saying.
Helen cherished her marriage to Joseph until the day she died.
quote:But we certainly have statements indicating that such a marriage was very much a 'temporal' marriage don't we Diamond? And we know how much 'choosing' Emma had in Smith's desiring to marry Fanny as well. And of course we also have the evidence that Smith lied and denied being a polygamist at the time.
There is very little known about Fanny Alger and she was 16.
quote:Not so hard at all. First, when sleeping with girls who haven't even reached or are just at the point of menarche, the chances of pregnancy are minimal. Plus we have evidence of Smith lying about his polygamist actions. Under those circumstances, he certainly wouldn have wanted to avoid pregnancies wouldn't he? And as the Catholics can tell you Diamond, lack of contraceptives doesn't mean that you can't control to a large degree when pregnancy occurs if you choose to practice such family planning.
I find it so amusing that Joseph and Emma had many children but with all of Joseph's supposed intimacies with his other plural wives, he shot blanks.
quote:Fortunately for us Christians, what you THINK is our concept of God is horribly skewed and therefore irrelevant.
No Petro, I think YOUR concept of Christianity is horribly skewed for a "talking hologram" is basically what you have described the god that you think you worship.
quote:Yeah no surprise that you would find such an attack to be 'amusing' anything that you think can be used as an attack against Christianity is fair game for you isn't it Diamond? The reality is that just because we are Christians and follow God doesn't mean that any one of us is perfect. And that applies to the ministers as well as the congregation. So when you choose to seek out only those who provide bad examples of Christianity Diamond, you will always be able to find some. But in the meanwhile, you will be ignoring the extreme majority who represent the GOOD exmamples of Christianity. But such are the actions that you are forced to take in order to attempt to validate your theology.
I do find it amusing that one of your former high profile Dallas Methodist ministers, Walker Railey murdered his wife
There is no need to provide "evidence" as her life and the way she lived it is the overwhelming evidence. You should have learned by now that your kids can tell you that "I can't hear what you say dad, because what you DO drowns it out. And an uncorroborated statement does not offset that life, no matter how much you wish to the contrary.
Life as a Mormon was very hard in the 1800s and could well be compared to a furnace. A furnace that burns away the dross.
Her father was kind to her in other ways but it was their encouragement to have her sealed to Joseph, she claimed that protected her, not in other kind acts. Sorry Petro, no cigars as usual! Even the non-Mormon historians are convinced that there was no intimacy between them. You have nothing to support your accusations other than you "natural" man thinking and behavior. And anyone who thinks sexual perversion is OK with God and the scriptures (that you like to claim so much), has no real ability to make a judgment on this matter. You have a moral center of Jell-O. No wishful thinking on my part, but there is on yours!
As you know nothing about the next life, other than your "unguided" conclusions, your conclusions as to what it the next life will be like are worthless. Whether she was physically ready for marriage or not is a moot question because that is NOT why her parents wanted her to be sealed to Joseph. By the way, Helen was almost 15, which is the age my mother was married. She became pregnant with me in 1937 within the year she was married. As usual, you know so little. At some point when you make accusations, you will figure out that YOU are the one who needs the proof to support them, which of course, you almost never do.
Your other problem is when you come to your considered opinions, they have to be validated with hard evidence which you also never have. Since kids under 7 or 8 fall into my definition and is what almost everyone thinks a pedophile is, the reference to Warren Jeff has no value. And you see what happens to the sects like that of the Jeff's and the Jim Jones of the world. Not really a "going concern."
Who cares or knows how rare monogamous marriages were with older men and young 14 year olds. It was not a big deal to the people at that time. Have you seen this before?
Plural marriage was certainly not in keeping with the values of "mainstream America" in Joseph Smith's day. However, modern readers also judge the age of the marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century.
Within Todd Compton's book on Joseph Smith's marriages, he also mentions the following monogamous marriages:
Wife Wife's Age Husband Husband's Age Difference in age
Lucinda Pendleton 18 William Morgan -44 26
Marinda Johnson 19 Orson Hyde 29 -10
Almira McBride 17 Sylvester Stoddard -40s >23
Fanny Young 44 Roswell Murray 62 -18
And, a variety of Mormon and non-Mormon historical figures had similar wide differences in age:
Husband Husband's Age Wife Wife's Age Difference
Johann Sebastian Bach 36 Anna Magdalena Wilcke 19 -17
Lord Baden-Powell (Founder of Scouting) 55 Olave Soames 23 -32[4]
William Clark (of the Lewis and Clark Expedition) 37 Julia Hancock 16 -21[5]
Grover Cleveland (22nd, 24th US President) 49 Frances Cleveland 21 -28
Martin Harris (1808) 24 Lucy Harris (1st cousin) 15 -9[6]
Levi Ward Hancock (7 April 1803) 30 Clarissa Reed 17 -13[7]
John Milton (Paradise Lost) 34 Mary Powell (1st wife) 17 -17
John Milton 55 Elizabeth Minshull (3rd wife) 24 -31
Alexander Smith 23 Elizabeth Kendall 16 -7[8]
David Hyrum Smith 26 Clara Hartshorn 18 -8[9]
Frederick Granger Williams Smith 21 Annie Maria Jones 16 -5[10]
Joseph Smith, III 66 Ada Rachel Clark 29 -37[11]
Almonzo Wilder 28 Laura Ingalls (Little House) 18 -10
Of note is that 41.7% of women married as teenagers compared to only 4.1% of men. The mean age for men was more than five years older than that for women (27.6 vs. 22.5). For young women, marriage in the early to mid teens was rare, but not unheard of as both the anecdotal and statistical evidence above show. Teenage brides married a husband that averaged 6.6 +/- 4.7 (std) years older. To put that in perspective, 13% of the time the husband was over 10 years older than his teenage wife.
The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate...
You can find this on F.A.I.R.
I never knew that you were concerned with what was morally permissible, particularly with your support of sexual perversion, that over the centuries was subject to the death penalty, even when the U.S. Was formed.
Helen had much "guidance" that her hopes were valid and would be realized. With her courage and honesty, she would have counseled her children to take another course if she had had any doubts.
I am sure that in some of his plural marriages that he was intimate with some. But the evidence indicates it was only a few and infrequent, for there were no children produced and contraceptives were not in vogue in those days.
The attack was not amusing Petro, but the fact that it was one of your most high profile ministers with a lavish life style. Like I said. "All show and no go", simply a dead form. Again by the typical minister who draws near to the Lord with his lips, but his heart is far removed from Him. Just as the Lord revealed to Joseph. I did not have to seek them out. They continuously fill the newspapers. In my youth, ministers were held to a very high standard which went with the greater respect and deference. But you and others, forced to deal with their secret acts being revealed try to give them a pass by explaining they are just "human" and like everyone else. If that is the case, why should anyone give any real consideration to what they have to say because it is obvious that there is no "guidance" in their lives. In their ecclesiastic duties it is either on or it is not.
Your biggest problem is that you are a product of what the Great English Essayist described in the 15th Century, particularly as it applies to sexual perversion.
Sin has a visage of so hideous mien,
As to be hated, needs but to be seen.
But, seen to oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity and then embrace"!
You have moved well beyond the "pity" phase Petro.
[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 4/9/2010 12:34a).]
Life as a Mormon was very hard in the 1800s and could well be compared to a furnace. A furnace that burns away the dross.
Her father was kind to her in other ways but it was their encouragement to have her sealed to Joseph, she claimed that protected her, not in other kind acts. Sorry Petro, no cigars as usual! Even the non-Mormon historians are convinced that there was no intimacy between them. You have nothing to support your accusations other than you "natural" man thinking and behavior. And anyone who thinks sexual perversion is OK with God and the scriptures (that you like to claim so much), has no real ability to make a judgment on this matter. You have a moral center of Jell-O. No wishful thinking on my part, but there is on yours!
As you know nothing about the next life, other than your "unguided" conclusions, your conclusions as to what it the next life will be like are worthless. Whether she was physically ready for marriage or not is a moot question because that is NOT why her parents wanted her to be sealed to Joseph. By the way, Helen was almost 15, which is the age my mother was married. She became pregnant with me in 1937 within the year she was married. As usual, you know so little. At some point when you make accusations, you will figure out that YOU are the one who needs the proof to support them, which of course, you almost never do.
Your other problem is when you come to your considered opinions, they have to be validated with hard evidence which you also never have. Since kids under 7 or 8 fall into my definition and is what almost everyone thinks a pedophile is, the reference to Warren Jeff has no value. And you see what happens to the sects like that of the Jeff's and the Jim Jones of the world. Not really a "going concern."
Who cares or knows how rare monogamous marriages were with older men and young 14 year olds. It was not a big deal to the people at that time. Have you seen this before?
Plural marriage was certainly not in keeping with the values of "mainstream America" in Joseph Smith's day. However, modern readers also judge the age of the marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century.
Within Todd Compton's book on Joseph Smith's marriages, he also mentions the following monogamous marriages:
Wife Wife's Age Husband Husband's Age Difference in age
Lucinda Pendleton 18 William Morgan -44 26
Marinda Johnson 19 Orson Hyde 29 -10
Almira McBride 17 Sylvester Stoddard -40s >23
Fanny Young 44 Roswell Murray 62 -18
And, a variety of Mormon and non-Mormon historical figures had similar wide differences in age:
Husband Husband's Age Wife Wife's Age Difference
Johann Sebastian Bach 36 Anna Magdalena Wilcke 19 -17
Lord Baden-Powell (Founder of Scouting) 55 Olave Soames 23 -32[4]
William Clark (of the Lewis and Clark Expedition) 37 Julia Hancock 16 -21[5]
Grover Cleveland (22nd, 24th US President) 49 Frances Cleveland 21 -28
Martin Harris (1808) 24 Lucy Harris (1st cousin) 15 -9[6]
Levi Ward Hancock (7 April 1803) 30 Clarissa Reed 17 -13[7]
John Milton (Paradise Lost) 34 Mary Powell (1st wife) 17 -17
John Milton 55 Elizabeth Minshull (3rd wife) 24 -31
Alexander Smith 23 Elizabeth Kendall 16 -7[8]
David Hyrum Smith 26 Clara Hartshorn 18 -8[9]
Frederick Granger Williams Smith 21 Annie Maria Jones 16 -5[10]
Joseph Smith, III 66 Ada Rachel Clark 29 -37[11]
Almonzo Wilder 28 Laura Ingalls (Little House) 18 -10
Of note is that 41.7% of women married as teenagers compared to only 4.1% of men. The mean age for men was more than five years older than that for women (27.6 vs. 22.5). For young women, marriage in the early to mid teens was rare, but not unheard of as both the anecdotal and statistical evidence above show. Teenage brides married a husband that averaged 6.6 +/- 4.7 (std) years older. To put that in perspective, 13% of the time the husband was over 10 years older than his teenage wife.
The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate...
You can find this on F.A.I.R.
I never knew that you were concerned with what was morally permissible, particularly with your support of sexual perversion, that over the centuries was subject to the death penalty, even when the U.S. Was formed.
Helen had much "guidance" that her hopes were valid and would be realized. With her courage and honesty, she would have counseled her children to take another course if she had had any doubts.
I am sure that in some of his plural marriages that he was intimate with some. But the evidence indicates it was only a few and infrequent, for there were no children produced and contraceptives were not in vogue in those days.
The attack was not amusing Petro, but the fact that it was one of your most high profile ministers with a lavish life style. Like I said. "All show and no go", simply a dead form. Again by the typical minister who draws near to the Lord with his lips, but his heart is far removed from Him. Just as the Lord revealed to Joseph. I did not have to seek them out. They continuously fill the newspapers. In my youth, ministers were held to a very high standard which went with the greater respect and deference. But you and others, forced to deal with their secret acts being revealed try to give them a pass by explaining they are just "human" and like everyone else. If that is the case, why should anyone give any real consideration to what they have to say because it is obvious that there is no "guidance" in their lives. In their ecclesiastic duties it is either on or it is not.
Your biggest problem is that you are a product of what the Great English Essayist described in the 15th Century, particularly as it applies to sexual perversion.
Sin has a visage of so hideous mien,
As to be hated, needs but to be seen.
But, seen to oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity and then embrace"!
You have moved well beyond the "pity" phase Petro.
[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 4/9/2010 12:34a).]
quote:And yet there is nothing in her life or statements that refute her beliefs that being asked to marry at the age of 14 was both a 'sacrifice' and a 'furnace of affliction'.
There is no need to provide "evidence" as her life and the way she lived it is the overwhelming evidence
quote:But her own statements along with her lack of denial as to the statement that she is alleged to made to Catherine Lewis certainly appear to corroborate that statement to Lewis.
And an uncorroborated statement does not offset that life
quote:However there is nothing in her statement that suggested that she was talking about life in general. Instead, she made it pretty obvious that it was her marriage to Joseph Smith as a 14 year old that she was referencing.
Life as a Mormon was very hard in the 1800s and could well be compared to a furnace.
quote:Kind in OTHER ways. But certainly not with regards with his willingness to give her to Joseph Smith in order to increase his own power within the Mormon organization.
Her father was kind to her in other ways but it was their encouragement to have her sealed to Joseph, she claimed that protected her, not in other kind acts.
quote:Wrong again. Compton didn't say that he was convinced that there was no intimacy. Instead he simply says that there is no evidence. Surely even you Diamond recognize the difference between those two statements???
Even the non-Mormon historians are convinced that there was no intimacy between them.
Again, just what sort of documentation would you expect Smith to have provided to show intimacy with Helen Mar Kimball??? We already know that he was intimate in his other polygamous marriages AND that he was willing to lie about his polygamist marriages. As such, why in the world would you expect him to do anything but try and hide any intimacy he had with a 14 year old girl?
quote:And of course the evidence that Smith WAS intimate in other polygamist marriages as were other Mormon leaders. Even you have attempted to hedge your bets by previously stating that 'even if he was intimate, it would have been OK'. You in turn Diamond, have nothing to support your claim that his marriages were non-intimate other than your desperate desire to believe that such was true!
You have nothing to support your accusations other than you "natural" man thinking and behavior.
quote:And your knowledge and claims are every bit as worthless Diamond. At least what I DO believe and know is based on scripture rather than the promises of a false prophet who was simply telling you what you wanted to hear. AND at least I have the faith in God to trust him to provide for me in the afterlife without having to demand total knowledge of the afterlife while a mortal here on Earth!
As you know nothing about the next life, other than your "unguided" conclusions, your conclusions as to what it the next life will be like are worthless.
quote:In other words, you have realized your inconsistency and now are unwilling to answer the question.
Whether she was physically ready for marriage or not is a moot question
quote:Probably not. Instead it was about power in the organization and trying to keep Joseph Smith happy.
because that is NOT why her parents wanted her to be sealed to Joseph.
quote:Which does nothing to refute your false claim that marriage at 14 was accepted in the mid 18th century. By the way Diamond, how old was your father when he married your mother?
By the way, Helen was almost 15, which is the age my mother was married.
quote:And as usual, I DID provide such proof in the form of the census numbers which showed that less than 1/2 of one percent of all 14 year olds were married. But as is typical for you, you chose to ignore that evidence which proved your own claims wrong.
At some point when you make accusations, you will figure out that YOU are the one who needs the proof to support them, which of course, you almost never do.
quote:So you are OK with Warren Jeffs marriage to a 12 year old? Why am I not surprised that you would throw such support to one of your breatheren?
Since kids under 7 or 8 fall into my definition and is what almost everyone thinks a pedophile is, the reference to Warren Jeff has no value.
quote:Obviously you don't since it proves you wrong in your previous claims as to how accepted and customary such relationships were!
Who cares or knows how rare monogamous marriages were with older men and young 14 year olds.
quote:Apparently it WAS a big deal based on how rare such an event was.
It was not a big deal to the people at that time.
quote:If I recall correctly, it is part of a study done by the Mormon apologist, David Keller.
Have you seen this before?
quote:How convenient that not a single one of those marriages you listed involves girls getting married at the age of 14. I doubt that many cared about WOMEN who chose to marry men of a greater age. But that doesn't mean that they didn't care about 15 year old GIRLS who married much older men!
Within Todd Compton's book on Joseph Smith's marriages, he also mentions the following monogamous marriages:
quote:And of even greater note is that only 1/2 of one percent of women married at the age of 14 or earlier!
Of note is that 41.7% of women married as teenagers compared to only 4.1% of men.
quote:And the 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century leaders would all be in agreement that a 14 year old marrying, even more so to a man more than double her age, was not normal, common, or acceptable.
The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate..
quote:Of course I have opinions as to what is morally permissible. And the fact remains that just because the age of consent in Delaware was only seven, that doesn't mean that marriage to a seven year old was therefore morally permissible. In the same manner, just because a 37 year old was legally allowed to marry a 14 year old girl, doesn't mean that it is morally acceptable.
I never knew that you were concerned with what was morally permissible
quote:Sure. She had the promises of Smith who was trying to talk her into marrying him. Of course she continued throughout her life to hold out hope that her 'sacrifice' had been done for valid reasons!
Helen had much "guidance" that her hopes were valid and would be realized
quote:When a man has 33 wives, I have no doubt that intimacy with any one of them could be infrequent. That's what happens when a man has so many choices as to who he is allowed to sleep with!
I am sure that in some of his plural marriages that he was intimate with some. But the evidence indicates it was only a few and infrequent
quote:And yet 'amusing' is exactly how you chose to describe the attack. Freudian slip Diamond?
The attack was not amusing Petro, but the fact that it was one of your most high profile ministers with a lavish life style.
quote:And yet again, you choose to concentrate on that extreme minority of fallen Christians while ignoring the extreme majority of Christians who do not do such criminal acts.
Again by the typical minister who draws near to the Lord with his lips, but his heart is far removed from Him.
quote:And they still are. But ministers are still men Diamond and as such subject to the same temptations and failures of every man. Again, if you look only for those who fail, you will always be able to find a few who fit your agenda.
In my youth, ministers were held to a very high standard which went with the greater respect and deference.
quote:They ARE just humans like everyone else.
try to give them a pass by explaining they are just "human" and like everyone else.
quote:I would agree for those who have fallen such as Railey.
If that is the case, why should anyone give any real consideration to what they have to say because it is obvious that there is no "guidance" in their lives.
quote:And for the extreme majority of Christian ministers, it is indeed 'on'. But you choose to ignore all those positive examples don't you Diamond?
In their ecclesiastic duties it is either on or it is not.
quote:Good! You on the other hand apear to remain well locked into the 'hatred' and 'intolerance' phases!
You have moved well beyond the "pity" phase Petro.
[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 4/9/2010 2:02a).]
quote:
Rab - A couple of things. It was not against custom in that time period of the U.S. Remember, even in the 1950s, the singer, Jerry Lee Lewis (devout Pentecostal), married his 13 year old cousin, claiming that although only 13, she was "all woman". I am sure he learned that fact before they were actually "married".
Let me interrupt the Forever War to offer one small correction -- by the time Jerry Lee was known as a singer outside Louisiana and east Texas, he was most definitely not a "devout Pentecostal". His entire life was characterized by rebellion and extreme spiritual confusion. You might as well call "devout" every money/cash/hoes rapper who thanks God at the Grammy Awards.
Petro, that is your erroneous interpretation of what she said or meant. Notice that no member of the Church including any Church leaders ever felt the need to comment on what was claimed or alleged she said. If she had tried to clarify her statement, you would simply claim she was pressured or forced into she an act. There is a great chance, based on Lewis's hostility towards the church at the time that she simply lied. It has happened many times. All of the Mormons at that time new about the furnace of affliction as they went through it also. As one of the women said, concerning the trek west, "I only lived, because I could not die". Try freezing day after day for over a month because of having to leave Nauvoo in the dead of winter. There was no such thing aas a "heated" wagon. That statement was quoted from this woman's journal on the PBS special "Trail of Hope" narrated by Hal Holbrook .
Helen felt but a short time later that it was an act of great kindness her parents had done for her by having her sealed to Joseph as it protected her from many evils that she would have been faced with. President Kimball could have no more power or influence than any Apostle and as First Counselor in the First Presidency, he could gain nothing. You have not a clue how LDS Church Government works. It is unlike anything that you have ever been exposed to!!
Compton was convinced because there was no evidence, and he criticized the Tanners for claiming something that was unfounded. But, if Joseph had been intimate with Helen, there would have been no need to lie or attempt to hide it. It was expected that temporally married 14 year old girls were intimate with their husbands.
I have all the evidences that I need and even you should have to wonder how Joseph could have been so successful in avoiding pregnancies with so many wives, for he certainly was not with Emma. He had the law of averages working against him. But, because you desire to believe a lie, even when the truth is more obvious, I am not surprised in the least.
My knowledge and claims are most correct as they are based on the teachings of the scriptures and their proper interpretations by modern Apostles and Prophets! You have only your uninspired and defective views of deity and the scriptures, which leads you into a morass that make you look so ridiculous. Of course anyone who can believe that the parent is the Child and the Child is also the Parent, has checked his reasoning at the door and is a candidate to believe anything but the truth!
If you knew the scriptures, on the subject of sexual perversion alone, it would disqualify your "tolerance" and acceptance of their acts of perversion. Your 'trust' is based on a foundation of sand for it is the conclusions of uninspired men with NO guidance but simply based on their reasoning and desires. Fortunately for the Latter-day Saints, we did not have to "demand" from God the knowledge of what was to be, if we were willing to freely qualify ourselves, He wanted us to "know" so that we would raise our level of conduct toward all mankind and begin the development of a Christ like character.
There is no inconsistency for you are the one who wishes to raise a "straw man". We can argue all day as to how ready Helen was for intimacy in her marriage, but since that was never the purpose, it is immaterial. It is so laughable about your conclusions on power and favor with any President of the Church at any time. You are so truly ignorant as to how Church Government works. You don't even understand that the most important calling in the Lord's Church is the one an individual might have; Apostle or primary teacher. One is rewarded the same for his faithfulness over what he has been made a steward. Therefore no one ever tries to postion themselves for a "higher" calling. It always involves more work and tie but the same reward.
Your proofs are not iron clad and fall under speculations more than anything. 1/2% is still a significant number for marriages that were meant to be consummated. Helen's was not.
Warren Jeff and Jim Jones were both corrupt professors of religion and none of Jeff's young wives were ever given a real choice, isolated as they were.
How and when have all of the corrupt ministers lost their "guidance". Why do you think they ever had any? You really need to learn about the priesthood and the conditions upon which authority can be exercised. It is not just a few ministers Petro as you well know. You and others try to give them a free pass on the basis of the "human" card. Sadly, you are nothing but a religious humanist. The Lord found all of the Nicene Christian creeds an abomination before him, as you will find out.
Well, since it is "good" that you have moved beyond the "pity" phase, then does this mean you have embraced this perverted style of life; that you are coming "out"? At least you are honest enough to admit it.
You are right as I have absolutely no tolerance for that perverted life style and obviously hate it. One can only pray that those so engaged might repent and forsake that which will take them down to hell. Now you can try to dismiss Luther and the other reformers on their views of homosexuality as if they were never asked about the subject. The following might start you on a quest to learn more for yourself on the subject. Martin Luther correctly identified homosexuality with the sin of Sodom. Commenting on Genesis 19:4-5 he writes:
I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy. (Luther's Works, Vol. 3, 251-252)
And then in the same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to:
the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom " as "extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature. (Luther's Works, Vol. 3, 255)
You can google up the rest of the reformers and their "guidance" on the subject of homosexuality.
Your biggest problem is that you claim tolerance but what you really want is for this life style to be accepted and not to judge them for it. But aligned against you is God, the scriptures, history and the vast majority of people around the world. God found them and their actions so abominable he had them killed in the OT. Because of his Atonement they now have the opportunity to repent and forsake their perverted lifestyle. If they don't, they will suffer spiritual death at their resurrection of the filthy and unjust, also called the 2nd resurrection. I promise you it is the party to which you don't want to be invited to!
Helen felt but a short time later that it was an act of great kindness her parents had done for her by having her sealed to Joseph as it protected her from many evils that she would have been faced with. President Kimball could have no more power or influence than any Apostle and as First Counselor in the First Presidency, he could gain nothing. You have not a clue how LDS Church Government works. It is unlike anything that you have ever been exposed to!!
Compton was convinced because there was no evidence, and he criticized the Tanners for claiming something that was unfounded. But, if Joseph had been intimate with Helen, there would have been no need to lie or attempt to hide it. It was expected that temporally married 14 year old girls were intimate with their husbands.
I have all the evidences that I need and even you should have to wonder how Joseph could have been so successful in avoiding pregnancies with so many wives, for he certainly was not with Emma. He had the law of averages working against him. But, because you desire to believe a lie, even when the truth is more obvious, I am not surprised in the least.
My knowledge and claims are most correct as they are based on the teachings of the scriptures and their proper interpretations by modern Apostles and Prophets! You have only your uninspired and defective views of deity and the scriptures, which leads you into a morass that make you look so ridiculous. Of course anyone who can believe that the parent is the Child and the Child is also the Parent, has checked his reasoning at the door and is a candidate to believe anything but the truth!
If you knew the scriptures, on the subject of sexual perversion alone, it would disqualify your "tolerance" and acceptance of their acts of perversion. Your 'trust' is based on a foundation of sand for it is the conclusions of uninspired men with NO guidance but simply based on their reasoning and desires. Fortunately for the Latter-day Saints, we did not have to "demand" from God the knowledge of what was to be, if we were willing to freely qualify ourselves, He wanted us to "know" so that we would raise our level of conduct toward all mankind and begin the development of a Christ like character.
There is no inconsistency for you are the one who wishes to raise a "straw man". We can argue all day as to how ready Helen was for intimacy in her marriage, but since that was never the purpose, it is immaterial. It is so laughable about your conclusions on power and favor with any President of the Church at any time. You are so truly ignorant as to how Church Government works. You don't even understand that the most important calling in the Lord's Church is the one an individual might have; Apostle or primary teacher. One is rewarded the same for his faithfulness over what he has been made a steward. Therefore no one ever tries to postion themselves for a "higher" calling. It always involves more work and tie but the same reward.
Your proofs are not iron clad and fall under speculations more than anything. 1/2% is still a significant number for marriages that were meant to be consummated. Helen's was not.
Warren Jeff and Jim Jones were both corrupt professors of religion and none of Jeff's young wives were ever given a real choice, isolated as they were.
How and when have all of the corrupt ministers lost their "guidance". Why do you think they ever had any? You really need to learn about the priesthood and the conditions upon which authority can be exercised. It is not just a few ministers Petro as you well know. You and others try to give them a free pass on the basis of the "human" card. Sadly, you are nothing but a religious humanist. The Lord found all of the Nicene Christian creeds an abomination before him, as you will find out.
Well, since it is "good" that you have moved beyond the "pity" phase, then does this mean you have embraced this perverted style of life; that you are coming "out"? At least you are honest enough to admit it.
You are right as I have absolutely no tolerance for that perverted life style and obviously hate it. One can only pray that those so engaged might repent and forsake that which will take them down to hell. Now you can try to dismiss Luther and the other reformers on their views of homosexuality as if they were never asked about the subject. The following might start you on a quest to learn more for yourself on the subject. Martin Luther correctly identified homosexuality with the sin of Sodom. Commenting on Genesis 19:4-5 he writes:
I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy. (Luther's Works, Vol. 3, 251-252)
And then in the same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to:
the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom " as "extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature. (Luther's Works, Vol. 3, 255)
You can google up the rest of the reformers and their "guidance" on the subject of homosexuality.
Your biggest problem is that you claim tolerance but what you really want is for this life style to be accepted and not to judge them for it. But aligned against you is God, the scriptures, history and the vast majority of people around the world. God found them and their actions so abominable he had them killed in the OT. Because of his Atonement they now have the opportunity to repent and forsake their perverted lifestyle. If they don't, they will suffer spiritual death at their resurrection of the filthy and unjust, also called the 2nd resurrection. I promise you it is the party to which you don't want to be invited to!
wannaggie - Or who on TV beging for money with bizzare promises.
quote:No Diamond. Her statements were pretty clear and obvious when she used words such as 'abuse' and 'sacrifice' in describing her marriage to Joseph Smith.
Petro, that is your erroneous interpretation of what she said or meant.
quote:I understand fully why they choose to ignore her statements and pretend that the statements had never been made. They certainly never denied that the words 'abuse' or 'sacrifice' had been used by Helen Mar Kimball.
Notice that no member of the Church including any Church leaders ever felt the need to comment on what was claimed or alleged she said.
quote:Only God and the corrupt ministers could tell you that.
How and when have all of the corrupt ministers lost their "guidance".
quote:As you suggest, I have never claimed that just a few ministers have priesthood authority. Instead the authority to preach in God's name resides within each of us.
You really need to learn about the priesthood and the conditions upon which authority can be exercised. It is not just a few ministers Petro as you well know.
quote:No one has a 'free pass' Diamond. But through the sacrifice of Christ, each of us, has an opportunity for salvation. And that applies to ALL men who have sinned including priests.
You and others try to give them a free pass on the basis of the "human" card.
quote:Perhaps the dieties that you worship did so Diamond. But the Christian GOD has done no such thing.
The Lord found all of the Nicene Christian creeds an abomination before him, as you will find out.
quote:What it means is that I love my neighbor as God demanded of us and that I recognize that there is no one who is such a sinner that God wouldn't welcome them into his house of worship. Unlike the Mormons who are so worried about perception, I welcome anyone into the church I attend if they desire to worship God.
Well, since it is "good" that you have moved beyond the "pity" phase, then does this mean you have embraced this perverted style of life
quote:Typical Diamond. When you are losing the argument, you resort to attempts at personal attacks. No Diamond, just because I don't share the same hatred and intolerance of gays that you do, doesn't mean that I therefore must be homosexual.
that you are coming "out"? At least you are honest enough to admit it.
quote:And the people who have such inclinations as well.
You are right as I have absolutely no tolerance for that perverted life style and obviously hate it.
You keep talking about this 'sexual perversion' Diamond and then refuse to answer any questions about just how you define this term beyond the one concept of homosexuals. Why are you so unwilling to tell us what else you consider to be sexual perversion?
quote:Nah. Tolerance doesn't mean that you personally have to accept the lifestyle or that you don't have to make judgements about it. Instead it simply means that you recognize that such a lifestyle is, from a legal point, an issue to be decided by each consenting adult with final judgement coming from God.
Your biggest problem is that you claim tolerance but what you really want is for this life style to be accepted and not to judge them for it.
quote:God called for all sorts of people to be killed in the OT didn't he Diamond? Are you suggesting that we should put those same laws in place today??? What say you Diamond?
God found them and their actions so abominable he had them killed in the OT.
quote:And I ask again since you refused to answer the first time: If a person has sexual feelings only for someone of their own gender but never commits a sexual act, are they also perverted and unworthy in God's eyes?
Because of his Atonement they now have the opportunity to repent and forsake their perverted lifestyle.
quote:You spend so much time singling out homosexuals. Pedophiles and adulterers...not so much! The reality is that ANY sinner who doesn't repent and embrace God prior to that event risks spiritual death.
If they don't, they will suffer spiritual death at their resurrection of the filthy and unjust, also called the 2nd resurrection.
Funny that you should mention spiritual 'death' since you were so insistent in a previous thread your belief that God is incapable of destroying spirits. Once again, you exhibit your typical inconsistencies...
[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 4/11/2010 7:04p).]
[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 4/11/2010 7:22p).]
"Pretty clear" is not clear and you can try to read whatever you want into them. The fact remains, it was a hostile Mormon, who was hostile for whatever reson,but as a source, has no corroborating evidence. On the other hand you have a most faithful Latter-day Saint whose whole life is above reproach- a most faithful Mormon! Did you read her testimony given many years later with other women defending plural marriage? Someday, you will learn that every comment is not written down, and those particular words had no meaning to those who knew her and knew what their real context was. For them it was nothing. But they all knew about abuse by Nicene Christians and the sacrifices that were required of them in escaping them.
The real truth is your corrupt ministers never lost their "guidance" as they never had any. I am amazed though, that with all of your theological insights you don't "preach" the Gospel according to Petro. Don't you think you could benefit so many and maybe you could make some good money on the side. At least write a book.
An attraction of sexual feeling towards someone of their own gender are perverted feelings. The same as lusting in one's heart toward someone else outside of marriage is declared adultery by the Savior. Repentance is required and God will judge the validity of their repentance. But, remember, first the thought and then the deed. It is not necessary to kill them today because now they have an opportunity to repent, which also means to turn completely away from this sin. Pedophiles and adultery fall into the same category.
Spiritual death means to be cut of from the presence of God. That was one of the two deaths that Adam and Eve suffered because of the fall. Not the destruction of the spirit into nothingness.
Petro, I know you think you are well versed on the scriptures but you are guilty to putting a different spin on them when you don't agree. Because I am your friend and would like to save you from yourself, I thought that we might examine the subject of Homosexuality more closely.
First, you must understand and accept the fact that the Lord is the Supreme Court on moral matters! He has made his position clear on abortion, adultery, fornication, and homosexuality, both in the Primitive Church, as recorded by the early Christian writers, and through modern prophets today. His message has not changed; they are egregious sins. God has decreed it, and history will vindicate it. Any suggestion to the contrary by counselors, teachers, legislators, or even clerics are but the opinions of the "lower courts" and they are of no weight whatever if they contravene the Supreme Deity in any way! Any deviation from these doctrines unitedly taught in the Primitive Church, or "ecclesiastical winking" (preaching it, but not requiring abstinence from its practice among the lay membership), is simply one more manifestation of the Great Apostasy.
I know you know Petro that from the earliest times that homosexuality has been condemned by the Lord. One of the reasons Sodom and Gomorra was destroyed by fire was because homosexuality was so prevalent among its citizens (Genesis 19:5-9; Jude 1:7). I would think you are also aware how serious this offense was under the Law of Moses (given to him by God) in that capital punishment was the judgment for its offenders! Lev. 20: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I am sure you want to look for wiggle room in the NT, but Paul clearly spelled out the fact that the command against homosexuality was clearly continued in the NT Church as he wrote in Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God agave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Now Origen wrote in regards to this scripture that these individuals were engaged in such UNCHRISTIAN conduct: "Those who call themselves wise (sounds like you Petro) have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, 'men with men working that which is unseemly." Do you remember that Paul warned the people of Corinth not to be "effeminate, nor abusers of [yourselves] with mankind. (1 Cor. 6:9) He also warned Timothy not to "defile themselves with mankind". (1 Tim 1:10) Petro, this injunction was clear and repeated -homosexuality was an abomination before God!
Now some Nicene Christians have attempted to rationalize away the foregoing scriptures, suggesting they referred only to men who lusted after other men, not men who "loved" other men, but in the end it is no more than a futile attempt to circumvent the unambiguous word of God. There is NO such exception, no such twisted interpretations EVER offered by the early Christian leaders!!
In the Constitution of the Holy Apostles (3rd or 4th century) it spoke of the divinely ordained relationship between man and woman. Then it commented: "But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature...For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature. You read Aristides (125 AD) who wrote of "those who polluted themselves by lying with males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God". Origen also spoke of the "great sins" that "are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate, idolaters, murders". You can also read what Polycarp, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement and others wrote on this subject. No where will you find any support or endorsement of this great sexual perversion! There is no suggestion, no intimation, no crack in the door that would offer any possibility, any proof that homosexuality was ever approved by the Lord. The evidence of its condemnation, as voiced by the early Church leaders, is staggering.
The Historian William Durant wrote about the subject stating: "homosexual practices were condemned with an earnestness rare in antiquity". The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity agreed by stating: "The Church fathers universally condemned male homosexual behavior ...They clearly regarded it as contrary to the created constitution and function of men and women ...All the evidences that the teaching mind of the early church unreservedly condemned homosexual activity. This conduct was so unacceptable that the early Church leaders "deemed homosexuality an index of the moral disorder of humanity"! (Official Declaration -2) This why Paul spoke of those "without natural affection" as one of the signs preceding Christ's second coming. When "perilous times shall come" 2 Tim. 3:3
But, with the passage of time, abhorrence of this practice eventually evolved into acceptance by many Christian leaders. A defiant attitude even arose in that in spite of scriptures, in spite of the clear mandate of the early Christian writers, that somehow it was uncharitable, un-Christ like not to condone homosexuality. This position is a retreat to Sodom. I agree that homosexuality has gained a tolerance and then with some an acceptance, until there were many homosexuals, even in the "ongoing church", who had infiltrated the ranks of the clergy. It is obvious that there is staggering number of homosexuals in certain ranks of the clergy, as documented by recent events. But interesting enough, the The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity noted that such problems (perhaps on a lesser scale) existed as early as the 5th Century. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) attacked this problem with great frequency as even monks indulged in it. The emergence of homosexuality within the church Petro, whether you want to admit it or not, is yet another sign of the Great Apostasy!
The real truth is your corrupt ministers never lost their "guidance" as they never had any. I am amazed though, that with all of your theological insights you don't "preach" the Gospel according to Petro. Don't you think you could benefit so many and maybe you could make some good money on the side. At least write a book.
An attraction of sexual feeling towards someone of their own gender are perverted feelings. The same as lusting in one's heart toward someone else outside of marriage is declared adultery by the Savior. Repentance is required and God will judge the validity of their repentance. But, remember, first the thought and then the deed. It is not necessary to kill them today because now they have an opportunity to repent, which also means to turn completely away from this sin. Pedophiles and adultery fall into the same category.
Spiritual death means to be cut of from the presence of God. That was one of the two deaths that Adam and Eve suffered because of the fall. Not the destruction of the spirit into nothingness.
Petro, I know you think you are well versed on the scriptures but you are guilty to putting a different spin on them when you don't agree. Because I am your friend and would like to save you from yourself, I thought that we might examine the subject of Homosexuality more closely.
First, you must understand and accept the fact that the Lord is the Supreme Court on moral matters! He has made his position clear on abortion, adultery, fornication, and homosexuality, both in the Primitive Church, as recorded by the early Christian writers, and through modern prophets today. His message has not changed; they are egregious sins. God has decreed it, and history will vindicate it. Any suggestion to the contrary by counselors, teachers, legislators, or even clerics are but the opinions of the "lower courts" and they are of no weight whatever if they contravene the Supreme Deity in any way! Any deviation from these doctrines unitedly taught in the Primitive Church, or "ecclesiastical winking" (preaching it, but not requiring abstinence from its practice among the lay membership), is simply one more manifestation of the Great Apostasy.
I know you know Petro that from the earliest times that homosexuality has been condemned by the Lord. One of the reasons Sodom and Gomorra was destroyed by fire was because homosexuality was so prevalent among its citizens (Genesis 19:5-9; Jude 1:7). I would think you are also aware how serious this offense was under the Law of Moses (given to him by God) in that capital punishment was the judgment for its offenders! Lev. 20: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I am sure you want to look for wiggle room in the NT, but Paul clearly spelled out the fact that the command against homosexuality was clearly continued in the NT Church as he wrote in Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God agave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Now Origen wrote in regards to this scripture that these individuals were engaged in such UNCHRISTIAN conduct: "Those who call themselves wise (sounds like you Petro) have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, 'men with men working that which is unseemly." Do you remember that Paul warned the people of Corinth not to be "effeminate, nor abusers of [yourselves] with mankind. (1 Cor. 6:9) He also warned Timothy not to "defile themselves with mankind". (1 Tim 1:10) Petro, this injunction was clear and repeated -homosexuality was an abomination before God!
Now some Nicene Christians have attempted to rationalize away the foregoing scriptures, suggesting they referred only to men who lusted after other men, not men who "loved" other men, but in the end it is no more than a futile attempt to circumvent the unambiguous word of God. There is NO such exception, no such twisted interpretations EVER offered by the early Christian leaders!!
In the Constitution of the Holy Apostles (3rd or 4th century) it spoke of the divinely ordained relationship between man and woman. Then it commented: "But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature...For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature. You read Aristides (125 AD) who wrote of "those who polluted themselves by lying with males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God". Origen also spoke of the "great sins" that "are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate, idolaters, murders". You can also read what Polycarp, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement and others wrote on this subject. No where will you find any support or endorsement of this great sexual perversion! There is no suggestion, no intimation, no crack in the door that would offer any possibility, any proof that homosexuality was ever approved by the Lord. The evidence of its condemnation, as voiced by the early Church leaders, is staggering.
The Historian William Durant wrote about the subject stating: "homosexual practices were condemned with an earnestness rare in antiquity". The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity agreed by stating: "The Church fathers universally condemned male homosexual behavior ...They clearly regarded it as contrary to the created constitution and function of men and women ...All the evidences that the teaching mind of the early church unreservedly condemned homosexual activity. This conduct was so unacceptable that the early Church leaders "deemed homosexuality an index of the moral disorder of humanity"! (Official Declaration -2) This why Paul spoke of those "without natural affection" as one of the signs preceding Christ's second coming. When "perilous times shall come" 2 Tim. 3:3
But, with the passage of time, abhorrence of this practice eventually evolved into acceptance by many Christian leaders. A defiant attitude even arose in that in spite of scriptures, in spite of the clear mandate of the early Christian writers, that somehow it was uncharitable, un-Christ like not to condone homosexuality. This position is a retreat to Sodom. I agree that homosexuality has gained a tolerance and then with some an acceptance, until there were many homosexuals, even in the "ongoing church", who had infiltrated the ranks of the clergy. It is obvious that there is staggering number of homosexuals in certain ranks of the clergy, as documented by recent events. But interesting enough, the The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity noted that such problems (perhaps on a lesser scale) existed as early as the 5th Century. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) attacked this problem with great frequency as even monks indulged in it. The emergence of homosexuality within the church Petro, whether you want to admit it or not, is yet another sign of the Great Apostasy!
all boring
quote:It is in the case of Helen Mar Kimball where her statements make it obvious as to how she felt about her marriage to Joseph Smith. When she describes her marriage as a 'sacrifice' and a type of 'abuse', you really don't have to 'read' anything into it to understand her opinion.
"Pretty clear" is not clear and you can try to read whatever you want into them.
quote:In other words, you have ZERO reason to consider her hostile other than the fact that you don't like what she said....
The fact remains, it was a hostile Mormon, who was hostile for whatever reson,
quote:The fact that Helen Mar Kimball herself made similar statements and the fact that Helen never denied making such statements to Catherine Lewis is corroborating evidence. Would it be even more significant if Helen Mar Kimball had made the statement to a group of reporters or in front of a public assembly? Of course. But under the circumstances, we can certainly all understand why she would have been hesitant to criticize her marriage to Joseph Smith in such a manner. Instead it makes perfect sense that she would have revealed her opinion to a friend such as Catherine Lewis in just the manner that she did.
but as a source, has no corroborating evidence.
quote:First, we have already discussed her stated HOPE that salvation would be available to her because of such a marriage. That doesn't mean that she still didn't consider such a marriage to be 'abuse' or a 'sacrifice' as she had stated. Second, in those writings, she is referencing the general concept of polygamy. She certainly never attempted to condone or defend the concept of a a 37 year old marrying a 14 year old girl!
Did you read her testimony given many years later with other women defending plural marriage?
quote:More Diamond back pedalling. Now you are suggesting that the words WERE used but that the words didn't really mean anything or were somehow taken out of context.... Typical Diamond. No matter how much evidence you are presented with, you'll try and reject and ignore it if it isn't in agreement with your opinion!
Someday, you will learn that every comment is not written down, and those particular words had no meaning to those who knew her and knew what their real context was.
quote:And that has NOTHING to do with the travesty of a 14 year old being talked into marriage to a man more than twice her age by being told that it would mean salvation for her family!
But they all knew about abuse by Nicene Christians and the sacrifices that were required of them in escaping them.
quote:And of course you have zero evidence of that. I have no doubt that some of them did not ever truly have such guidance while others did but later strayed from the path of God.
The real truth is your corrupt ministers never lost their "guidance" as they never had any.
quote:Well I would like to think that such is exactly what I am doing out here on this board and elsewhere in my life when I talk about my faith and beliefs.
I am amazed though, that with all of your theological insights you don't "preach" the Gospel according to Petro.
quote:Not being my full time job, I wouldn't be that interested in making money from my sharing of theological beliefs with others.
Don't you think you could benefit so many and maybe you could make some good money on the side. At least write a book.
quote:Then do you also believe that someone who has such feelings should be banned from the Mormon church?
An attraction of sexual feeling towards someone of their own gender are perverted feelings.
quote:God will indeed judge the value of any person's repentance. Which is why it is such a shame that the Mormon organization insists on taking over the role of judge instead of leaving it up to God!
Repentance is required and God will judge the validity of their repentance.
quote:And if they don't, you still support that they should then be stoned to death? If you are going to insist that all of the Old Testament rules still apply today, then you need to be consistent Diamond. The reality is that you instead want to pick and choose which of those rules to follow based on your own personal beliefs and desires.
It is not necessary to kill them today because now they have an opportunity to repent
quote:Spiritual death means by definition, the end of the spirit. And that is something that you previously had stated that God was incapable of doing. I am glad that you have changed your mind however in that position.
Spiritual death means to be cut of from the presence of God.
quote:Pot meet kettle.
Petro, I know you think you are well versed on the scriptures but you are guilty to putting a different spin on them when you don't agree.
quote:You are not a friend, and you may want to spend some time worrying about the path that you have led yourself and your family down before you start trying to convert others.
Because I am your friend and would like to save you from yourself
quote:Of course. I have never claimed otherwise have I?
First, you must understand and accept the fact that the Lord is the Supreme Court on moral matters!
quote:I don't necessarilly disagree Diamond. I think all of those ARE deemed to be sins in the eye of God. However, let's consider a few of those points in more detail:
He has made his position clear on abortion, adultery, fornication, and homosexuality
First, you refuse to accept that there is a difference between a person who might have a sexual attraction to a person of the same gender and someone who actually commits a homosexual act. Yes, Christ said lusting is by itself adultry. But in that regards, EVERY ONE of us is an adulter most likely as we are all sinful people whose thoughts aren't pure 100% of the time. And yet you desire to focus only on very specific types of adulterous thinking don't you?
Second, since you mentioned adultry in the same breath as homosexuality, consider Matthew's statement concerning the definition of adultry: "whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." So again, the question must be asked of you Diamond: Why are you quick and eager to judge and ban some people from your religion while so eagerly willing to give other adulterers a free pass? Again it is a matter of you picking and choosing what you want to follow and believe from scripture.
The reality Diamond is that we are all sinners in various ways. And only God has the power and right to decide whether our sins and level/desire for repentance is enough to gain salvation. But in the meanwhile, that doesn't mean that even the sinners aren't capable of preaching Christ's message to others; it doesn't mean that they aren't also capable of showing love to others as Christ commanded; and it certainly doesn't mean that any person has the right to judge whether a sinner should not be allowed to worship in the house of the Lord here on Earth if they so desire...
Joseph Smith was guilty of numerous sins throughout his life, including adultery with dozens of women. And God would not be at all happy with the way Smith attempted to revise God's message through Scripture and the millions of people that Smith has led astray. However, even with all of that, I wouldn't think for even a second of banning Smith from entering a Christian church if he was around today and desired to worship God in that church. I can't think of a single person in this world who has ever lived that I would feel qualified to place such a ban on! Of course, I am not nearly as concerned as you are Diamond about how others view I and my religious beliefs. For you, perception is obviously everything.
Oh and I am still waiting Diamond for you to let us know what your belief is regarding sexual acts within a heterosexual marriage that you consider to be OK or that you consider perverse... Is anything allowed as long as it is between a man and a woman Diamond?
[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 4/12/2010 1:02p).]
Petro, why do you think Joseph never had offspring with any of his other wives?
There are many possibilities. Which ones do you think are most plausible?
There are many possibilities. Which ones do you think are most plausible?
Featured Stories
See All
Texas A&M adds former Tulsa LB Ray Coney via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
19:20
18h ago
5.3k
5 Thoughts: Texas A&M 75, Louisiana State 72
by Luke Evangelist
Saturday (1/3) Portal Storylines: Thomas commits, weekend visits & more
by TexAgs Recruiting
Texas A&M adds former UTSA TE Houston Thomas via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger