Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
Well someone has to be right, and someone has to be wrong. Truth and falsehood are black and white.Mindfields wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 8:01 am My blood oaths, secret signs, and chanting are of God. Your's aren't.
Why be baptised, then? Why not just say “yes I believe” like some Christians do? Why did God set out a very specific ordinance for the purpose of committing oneself to him?
Baptism involves no oaths. You do not swear by your head/life. Showing commitment to God is just fine, oath swearing is what the Lord condemns.
You just said anything more than "yay or nay" is evil.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 1:58 pmBaptism involves no oaths. You do not swear by your head/life. Showing commitment to God is just fine, oath swearing is what the Lord condemns.
They aren't "traditions and learned precepts". I believe these things were given by revelation to Joseph Smith.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 1:58 pm Luke, why are you still questioning this? You see it written in black and white in the Savior's own words. Don't swear by God, don't swear by heaven, don't swear any oaths at all.
This is your weak spot, you are always placing traditions and learned precepts above the written word.
You sure love sensationalism, don’t you?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 2:18 pm Marrying little girls is ok, why not blood oaths?
I’m doing nothing of the sort. Look, I’m not a young man by any stretch of the imagination. What WW did is like me marrying a girl the age of my youngest daughter (worse actually). He was 46, she was 15. That’s called pedophilia. And Lorenzo, he was 57, she was 15. These girls are barley hitting puberty.Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 9:42 pmYou sure love sensationalism, don’t you?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 2:18 pm Marrying little girls is ok, why not blood oaths?
And they were wife number?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 4:33 amI’m doing nothing of the sort. Look, I’m not a young man by any stretch of the imagination. What WW did is like me marrying a girl the age of my youngest daughter (worse actually). He was 46, she was 15. That’s called pedophilia. And Lorenzo, he was 57, she was 15. These girls are barley hitting puberty.Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 9:42 pmYou sure love sensationalism, don’t you?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 2:18 pm Marrying little girls is ok, why not blood oaths?
A 15 year old young woman is not a “little girl." All throughout human history young women at that age and even younger have been married. In the United States it’s still legal for young women and young men of that age to marry with parental permission and in some states without parental permission.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 4:33 amI’m doing nothing of the sort. Look, I’m not a young man by any stretch of the imagination. What WW did is like me marrying a girl the age of my youngest daughter (worse actually). He was 46, she was 15. That’s called pedophilia. And Lorenzo, he was 57, she was 15. These girls are barley hitting puberty.Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 9:42 pmYou sure love sensationalism, don’t you?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 13th, 2023, 2:18 pm Marrying little girls is ok, why not blood oaths?
You can justify your sensationalism any way you want to. Show me the commandment of God that says that it’s forbidden for an older man to marry a young woman who has reached child bearing age?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:41 am If you justify anything in this world if you think a 57 yr old man should be sleeping with a 15 yr old girl.
Between 1800 and 1900, women generally married for the first time between the ages of 20 and 22 years old, making the median age 21 years old for average brides. Less is known about the average age of first marriages for men during the 19th century. In 1890, when the U.S. Census Bureau started collecting marriage data, it was recorded that the average age of a first marriage for men was 26 years, and the average age of marriage for women was 22 years.Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:33 amA 15 year old young woman is not a “little girl." All throughout human history young women at that age and even younger have been married. In the United States it’s still legal for young women and young men of that age to marry with parental permission and in some states without parental permission.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 4:33 amI’m doing nothing of the sort. Look, I’m not a young man by any stretch of the imagination. What WW did is like me marrying a girl the age of my youngest daughter (worse actually). He was 46, she was 15. That’s called pedophilia. And Lorenzo, he was 57, she was 15. These girls are barley hitting puberty.
You can say it’s creepy for an older man to marry a 15 year old young woman, but labeling it marrying “little girls" and "pedophilia" is sensationalism.
So is calling a covenant with God to keep his commandments and keep his secrets or else be willing to symbolically suffer death “blood oaths."
You are using this type of sensationalized language for dramatic effect, even though it’s not accurate.
That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t make marrying a woman younger who has reached child bearing age “pedophilia" or marrying a "little girl." And while it tells us something about cultural norms in that time period, it doesn’t tell us anything about what God has to say about it.Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:48 amBetween 1800 and 1900, women generally married for the first time between the ages of 20 and 22 years old, making the median age 21 years old for average brides. Less is known about the average age of first marriages for men during the 19th century. In 1890, when the U.S. Census Bureau started collecting marriage data, it was recorded that the average age of a first marriage for men was 26 years, and the average age of marriage for women was 22 years.Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:33 amA 15 year old young woman is not a “little girl." All throughout human history young women at that age and even younger have been married. In the United States it’s still legal for young women and young men of that age to marry with parental permission and in some states without parental permission.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 4:33 am
I’m doing nothing of the sort. Look, I’m not a young man by any stretch of the imagination. What WW did is like me marrying a girl the age of my youngest daughter (worse actually). He was 46, she was 15. That’s called pedophilia. And Lorenzo, he was 57, she was 15. These girls are barley hitting puberty.
You can say it’s creepy for an older man to marry a 15 year old young woman, but labeling it marrying “little girls" and "pedophilia" is sensationalism.
So is calling a covenant with God to keep his commandments and keep his secrets or else be willing to symbolically suffer death “blood oaths."
You are using this type of sensationalized language for dramatic effect, even though it’s not accurate.
Yes, what God says does matter, I just don’t think God said anything to these men. In fact, if you believe God speaks to your prophets, then you have a very confused god:Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:48 amYou can justify your sensationalism any way you want to. Show me the commandment of God that says that it’s forbidden for an older man to marry a young woman who has reached child bearing age?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:41 am If you justify anything in this world if you think a 57 yr old man should be sleeping with a 15 yr old girl.
And common sense doesn’t cut it. Cultural norms change. It’s what God says that matters.
The LDS Church has always taught that Joseph Smith denied having more than one wife but that he was lying about it to protect the church.
8 Years after Joseph's death, in 1852, Brigham Young, as 2nd president of the church, announced that polygamy was necessary for exaltation. At that time he introduced a new revelation from Joseph about it, which Brigham said he had been storing in his desk. In 1876, BY added that revelation to the D&C as section 132.
As 3rd president of the church, John Taylor also taught that polygamy was necessary for exaltation.
As 4th president of the church, Wilford Woodruff received the manifesto in 1890 to end the practice of polygamy.
In 1911, John Taylor's son was an apostle in the church and was still practicing polygamy. The rest of the church leaders threatened him with excommunication. He then produced a revelation from his father stating that God would never revoke the law of polygamy. Taylor's son claimed to have found this revelation in his father's papers after he died and had been holding on to it.
While Gordon B. Hinckley was president of the church, he renounced the practice of polygamy and claimed the teaching that "polygamy is required for exaltation" was not doctrinal.
It will be fun to see the next president of the church who wants polygamy back to produce a new revelation from Hinckley with him actually supporting polygamy. I'm sure that revelation is hiding in someone's desk right now. That seems to be the pattern.
So because you don’t think God spoke to these men you feel like it’s perfectly alright to to use sensationalism to try and stick to those who do?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:53 am
Yes, what God says does matter, I just don’t think God said anything to these men.
I think what he's pointing out is the inconsistency that just happens to coincide with who is in charge here on earth. That inconsistency speaks to one of two things:Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 9:01 amSo because you don’t think God spoke to these men you feel like it’s perfectly alright to to use sensationalism to try and stick to those who do?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:53 am
Yes, what God says does matter, I just don’t think God said anything to these men.
No, he’s using sensationalized language like “marrying little girls," “pedophilia," and “blood oaths” for dramatic effect to try and stick it to people who believe that the endowment is a valid ordinance and that God commanded plural marriage.Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 10:33 amI think what he's pointing out is the inconsistency that just happens to coincide with who is in charge here on earth. That inconsistency speaks to one of two things:Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 9:01 amSo because you don’t think God spoke to these men you feel like it’s perfectly alright to to use sensationalism to try and stick to those who do?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 8:53 am
Yes, what God says does matter, I just don’t think God said anything to these men.
1) either God changes his instructions in very short periods of time based on events on the ground which are also changing relatively rapidly and does not mean that god is changing his mind, but that He is reacting to the changing circumstances created by men and its only coincidence that they coincide with the change in church leadership
OR
2) these men are teaching doctrine based on there own interpretation, their experience, their motivations, or their best guess (which implies a certain amount of trial and error).
That’s a big if, considering that God sanctioned polygamy in Biblical times. And if he didn’t, it still wouldn’t be pedophilia. So you can drop the sensationalism.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:02 am
If the Lord didn’t sanction it, it was a pure abomination, including sexual abuse and pedophilia.
haha, you are literally using the same justification the Nephites did. History repeats. LOLOL…Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:08 amThat’s a big if, considering that God sanctioned polygamy in Biblical times. And if he didn’t, it still wouldn’t be pedophilia. So you can drop the sensationalism.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:02 am
If the Lord didn’t sanction it, it was a pure abomination, including sexual abuse and pedophilia.
I'm not sure that "laughing" at someone, even if it's metaphorically, is a good way to win a debate or carry on a considerate search for truth. When you LOL at someone, you're essentially cancelling them. Attacking their credibility. Making them irrelevant. I don't think you want to do that to anyone. Even those who hold opinions that make you laugh out loud. And you can call me out when I do the same!Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:10 amhaha, you are literally using the same justification the Nephites did. History repeats. LOLOL…Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:08 amThat’s a big if, considering that God sanctioned polygamy in Biblical times. And if he didn’t, it still wouldn’t be pedophilia. So you can drop the sensationalism.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:02 am
If the Lord didn’t sanction it, it was a pure abomination, including sexual abuse and pedophilia.
God never did. To believe this, you either have a confused god or confused leaders. Make your pick. You can’t have both.
Oh, and hell yeah it would be pedophilia. For a 57 year old man to marry a 15 yr old. The dudes got some screws loose.
I thought the ironing was LOL. I also don’t consider this a debate. Bjorn and I… we don’t agree much.Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:15 amI'm not sure that "laughing" at someone, even if it's metaphorically, is a good way to win a debate or carry on a considerate search for truth. When you LOL at someone, you're essentially cancelling them. Attacking their credibility. Making them irrelevant. I don't think you want to do that to anyone. Even those who hold opinions that you may deplore.Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:10 amhaha, you are literally using the same justification the Nephites did. History repeats. LOLOL…
God never did. To believe this, you either have a confused god or confused leaders. Make your pick. You can’t have both.
Oh, and hell yeah it would be pedophilia. For a 57 year old man to marry a 15 yr old. The dudes got some screws loose.
Just curious, do you have an opinion on the age of Mary when she gave birth to our Savior? What about Joseph and Mary's age difference?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 14th, 2023, 11:10 am Oh, and hell yeah it would be pedophilia. For a 57 year old man to marry a 15 yr old. The dudes got some screws loose.
Jacob 2:30 is what has been quoted to me as "evidence" that God condons polygamy "at appropriate times"... I personally don't see it, but there it is.Chip wrote: ↑October 9th, 2023, 8:23 pmAnd how did polygamy ever fly with the brick wall prohibition in Jacob 2?Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 9th, 2023, 8:18 am How did the early saints pass off this story in the BoM? Can anyone say “blood oaths”?
Ether 8
14 And it came to pass that they all sware unto him, by the God of heaven, and also by the heavens, and also by the earth, and by their heads, that whoso should vary from the assistance which Akish desired should lose his head; and whoso should divulge whatsoever thing Akish made known unto them, the same should lose his life.
15 And thus they did agree with Akish. And Akish did administer unto them the oaths which were given by them of old who also sought power, which had been handed down even from Cain, who was a murderer from the beginning.
16 And they were kept up by the power of the devil to administer these oaths unto the people, to keep them in darkness.