How did the early members miss this? Blood oaths and the temple.

[Reluctant Watchman]

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?
Regardless of the manner of Christ's conception apparently according to most scholars 15 was plenty old enough to give birth to the Son of God.

oh, that’s right, I forgot all of Joseph’s concubines.

[JuneBug12000]

My blood oaths, secret signs, and chanting are of God. Your's aren't.

Well someone has to be right, and someone has to be wrong. Truth and falsehood are black and white.

It is often the case that both are wrong together.

Either/or fallacy is real.

Not laying claim to a side right now, just pointing out some additional room for thought.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I think certain things are black and white, and others do have some flexibility based on circumstance.

[Luke]

My blood oaths, secret signs, and chanting are of God. Your's aren't.

Well someone has to be right, and someone has to be wrong. Truth and falsehood are black and white.

It is often the case that both are wrong together.

Either/or fallacy is real.

Not laying claim to a side right now, just pointing out some additional room for thought.

I wasn’t necessarily getting at a certain subject — I was just pointing out that the attitude of Mindfields, the same sort of attitude atheists have, i.e. “everyone else is wrong, yet you’re right?!?!?” is incorrect. There is a black and white where truth is concerned. Of course someone is right while someone else is wrong.

[Luke]

I think certain things are black and white, and others do have some flexibility based on circumstance.

Not where truth is concerned.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I think certain things are black and white, and others do have some flexibility based on circumstance.

Not where truth is concerned.

You mean your “truth.” In many regards, truth allows for many circumstances. The Spirit may speak to your heart in a very different way than to mine. Many people think they know the truth. Some think they have none. I think we’d need to really peel back the layers and define the word “truth.” Considering we are mortal, even our best efforts in understanding the word are childish at best.

[Chip]

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.

And how did polygamy ever fly with the brick wall prohibition in Jacob 2?

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.

That interpretation is a lie that the church goes with to make its history look legit.

[Nevervaxxed]

And how did polygamy ever fly with the brick wall prohibition in Jacob 2?

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.

That interpretation is a lie that the church goes with to make its history look legit.

Ding ding ding we have a winner winner chicken dinner! Exactamundo! And you have to have some degree of cognitive dissonance to swallow it... I could not agree more with what you said

[Baurak Ale]

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.

haha, 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.

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!

Thank you for saying this. The lack of civility in this forum by those who want desperately to prove and justify their moral high ground that enables them to cast stones at those who disagree with them is honestly exhausting and part of the reason I’ve taken long breaks from this site at times. It’s childish at best and not very convincing that they have the right spirit. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for laughter, but debating the things of God is not one of them.As Joseph Smith said even in his day:

• “How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world!”

If you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of God, then I feel bad for you:

• “Do…things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance” (D&C 59:15).
• “Cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings” (D&C 88:121).

[Reluctant Watchman]

haha, 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.

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!

Thank you for saying this. The lack of civility in this forum by those who want desperately to prove and justify their moral high ground that enables them to cast stones at those who disagree with them is honestly exhausting and part of the reason I’ve taken long breaks from this site at times. It’s childish at best and not very convincing that they have the right spirit. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for laughter, but debating the things of God is not one of them.As Joseph Smith said even in his day:

• “How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world!”

If you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of God, then I feel bad for you:

• “Do…things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance” (D&C 59:15).
• “Cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings” (D&C 88:121).

You obviously didn’t find the irony very funny either. He literally used the Nephite justification. Or what we might call the “get into bed card.”

BTW, remember, we’re talking about the potential for sexual crimes here. This is a big deal in church history. The simple, provable, fact that church prophets have flip-flopped extremes on this should cause one to pause. At minimum, you have to believe that either Jospeh didn’t do it, or he was an extreme hypocrite and liar. You can’t have it both ways.

I choose to laugh, otherwise it’s that horrific.

And, I might add, this all has direct application to the temple oaths. It’s a lot easier to see the derelict and satanic elements to blood oaths when you realize who was responsible for them.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

haha, 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.

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!

Thank you for saying this. The lack of civility in this forum by those who want desperately to prove and justify their moral high ground that enables them to cast stones at those who disagree with them is honestly exhausting and part of the reason I’ve taken long breaks from this site at times. It’s childish at best and not very convincing that they have the right spirit. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for laughter, but debating the things of God is not one of them.As Joseph Smith said even in his day:

• “How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world!”

If you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of God, then I feel bad for you:

• “Do…things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance” (D&C 59:15).
• “Cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings” (D&C 88:121).

Okay. Agreed. But If you analyze the final part of your comment, there's just a smidgeon of stone throwing back as in "if you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of god then I fell bad for you." That's probably in the same category as LOL at someone. Cancel them. Demean them. Shame them. Different opinion. Same approach. It takes a lot of work to analyze your own comments and figure out how to keep from throwing stones.

[JLHPROF]

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?
Regardless of the manner of Christ's conception apparently according to most scholars 15 was plenty old enough to give birth to the Son of God.

oh, that’s right, I forgot all of Joseph’s concubines.

That's not an answer...

[4Joshua8]

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?
Regardless of the manner of Christ's conception apparently according to most scholars 15 was plenty old enough to give birth to the Son of God.

oh, that’s right, I forgot all of Joseph’s concubines.

That's not an answer...

Marriage to a 15 year old girl isn’t pedophilia anyways. Paedophilia relates to a specific disorder where there is a preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.

15 year olds aren’t prepubescent.

[Baurak Ale]

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!

Thank you for saying this. The lack of civility in this forum by those who want desperately to prove and justify their moral high ground that enables them to cast stones at those who disagree with them is honestly exhausting and part of the reason I’ve taken long breaks from this site at times. It’s childish at best and not very convincing that they have the right spirit. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for laughter, but debating the things of God is not one of them.As Joseph Smith said even in his day:

• “How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world!”

If you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of God, then I feel bad for you:

• “Do…things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance” (D&C 59:15).
• “Cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings” (D&C 88:121).

Okay. Agreed. But If you analyze the final part of your comment, there's just a smidgeon of stone throwing back as in "if you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of god then I fell bad for you." That's probably in the same category as LOL at someone. Cancel them. Demean them. Shame them. Different opinion. Same approach. It takes a lot of work to analyze your own comments and figure out how to keep from throwing stones.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will try to do better at analyzing my own comments. Thank you for the honest call out!

[Reluctant Watchman]

Ah, so a 15 yr old is no longer a child. How about Brigham’s 13 yr old wife? Too old, right?

From Wiki: Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

So yeah, pedophilia is still on the table.

*I can’t believe we’re still even discussing this as even being legitimate and ok, regardless the era, given the circumstances surrounding BY and the early and current historical data we have today.*

I know the OP is a few pages back, I think we need a refresher:

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.

[4Joshua8]

Ah, so a 15 yr old is no longer a child. How about Brigham’s 13 yr old wife? Too old, right?

From Wiki: Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

So yeah, pedophilia is still on the table.

*I can’t believe we’re still even discussing this as even being legitimate and ok, regardless the era, given the circumstances surrounding BY and the early and current historical data we have today.*

I’m not arguing whether it is or isn’t okay, but whether it is or isn’t pedophilia. Marriage to a 15 year old almost certainly would not be pedophilia. From my understanding and definition of pedophilia, marriage to a 13 year old may or may not be, depending on her status of pubescence. Marriage to a 10 year old almost certainly would be pedophilia. And by “marriage” I mean sexual relations.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

Ah, so a 15 yr old is no longer a child. How about Brigham’s 13 yr old wife? Too old, right?

From Wiki: Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

So yeah, pedophilia is still on the table.

Got any proof that Brigham Young consummated his marriage to Elizabeth Fairchild? They didn’t have any children together. She ended up marrying three other men. The first was two years after she married Brigham and she had 3 children with her other husbands. And if she had gone through puberty, she wasn’t prepubescent, regardless of what some wiki article says. And considering that she was Brigham’s youngest wife, you certainly don’t have an argument that Brigham was a pedophile who preferred prepubescent girls since the rest of his wives were older than that, most much older.

But keep that sensationalism going. If you beat on that drum long enough you’re sure to get through to us.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Ah, so a 15 yr old is no longer a child. How about Brigham’s 13 yr old wife? Too old, right?

From Wiki: Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

So yeah, pedophilia is still on the table.

Got any proof that Brigham Young consummated his marriage to Elizabeth Fairchild? They didn’t have any children together. She ended up marrying three other men. The first was two years after she married Brigham and she had 3 children with her other husbands. And if she had gone through puberty, she wasn’t prepubescent, regardless of what some wiki article says. And considering that she was Brigham’s youngest wife, you certainly don’t have an argument that Brigham was a pedophile who preferred prepubescent girls since the rest of his wives were older than that, most much older.

But keep that sensationalism going. If you beat on that drum long enough you’re sure to get through to us.

Hey, careful with those smiley faces. No levity here.

How about we use your same logic with Joseph? Did he have children with ANY of the women he was accused of marrying? Oh, that’s right, a big fat ZERO!! Not even modern DNA testing can conjure up results. The LDS church would pay big money if somebody could show DNA evidence. This is, after all, their claim to fame.

Still, can’t believe we are even talking about this. Your justification is astounding. Talk about “sensationalizing” something. Good grief. I don’t care the ages of any of the women, 1 more woman was 1 too many. Ok… I’m moving on.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Thank you for saying this. The lack of civility in this forum by those who want desperately to prove and justify their moral high ground that enables them to cast stones at those who disagree with them is honestly exhausting and part of the reason I’ve taken long breaks from this site at times. It’s childish at best and not very convincing that they have the right spirit. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for laughter, but debating the things of God is not one of them.As Joseph Smith said even in his day:

• “How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world!”

If you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of God, then I feel bad for you:

• “Do…things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance” (D&C 59:15).
• “Cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings” (D&C 88:121).

Okay. Agreed. But If you analyze the final part of your comment, there's just a smidgeon of stone throwing back as in "if you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of god then I fell bad for you." That's probably in the same category as LOL at someone. Cancel them. Demean them. Shame them. Different opinion. Same approach. It takes a lot of work to analyze your own comments and figure out how to keep from throwing stones.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will try to do better at analyzing my own comments. Thank you for the honest call out!

I make the same mistake all the time! Keep me honest too!!!

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

I don’t care the ages of any of the women

Says the guy who keeps bringing up the ages of the women and crying “little girls” and “pedophilia.”

[Reluctant Watchman]

I don’t care the ages of any of the women

Says the guy who keeps bringing up the ages of the women and crying “little girls” and “pedophilia.”

You missed my point Bjorn, God didn’t sanction it. Sure, the ages were awful, more than one was too many. And you still have to grapple with Joseph being one of the worst religious hypocrites on record.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

God didn’t sanction it.

We all get that this is what you believe. Some of us disagree. We believe God commanded it. And your use of sensationalized language for dramatic effect to try and stick it to us isn’t going to change our minds.

But I agree, that we should move on. No one is changing anyone’s mind about plural marriage here and we all know it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

God didn’t sanction it.

We all get that this is what you believe. Some of us disagree. We believe God commanded it. And your use of sensationalized language for dramatic effect to try and stick it to us isn’t going to change our minds.

But I agree, that we should move on. No one is changing anyone’s mind about plural marriage here and we all know it.

Then you have to believe your god also unsanctioned it.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

God didn’t sanction it.

We all get that this is what you believe. Some of us disagree. We believe God commanded it. And your use of sensationalized language for dramatic effect to try and stick it to us isn’t going to change our minds.

But I agree, that we should move on. No one is changing anyone’s mind about plural marriage here and we all know it.

Then you have to believe your god also unsanctioned it.

"your god”

Gotta love this kind of disrespect.

[Nevervaxxed]

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!

Thank you for saying this. The lack of civility in this forum by those who want desperately to prove and justify their moral high ground that enables them to cast stones at those who disagree with them is honestly exhausting and part of the reason I’ve taken long breaks from this site at times. It’s childish at best and not very convincing that they have the right spirit. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for laughter, but debating the things of God is not one of them.As Joseph Smith said even in his day:

• “How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world!”

If you need a temple covenant to tell you that levity is opposed to the spirit of God, then I feel bad for you:

• “Do…things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance” (D&C 59:15).
• “Cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings” (D&C 88:121).

You obviously didn’t find the irony very funny either. He literally used the Nephite justification. Or what we might call the “get into bed card.”

BTW, remember, we’re talking about the potential for sexual crimes here. This is a big deal in church history. The simple, provable, fact that church prophets have flip-flopped extremes on this should cause one to pause. At minimum, you have to believe that either Jospeh didn’t do it, or he was an extreme hypocrite and liar. You can’t have it both ways.

I choose to laugh, otherwise it’s that horrific.

And, I might add, this all has direct application to the temple oaths. It’s a lot easier to see the derelict and satanic elements to blood oaths when you realize who was responsible for them.

I've been arguing the exact same thing with another board member... but he refuses to see it. I'm done, it just isn't worth it. Cognitive dissonance at its finest..