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

[JLHPROF]

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.

Still no thoughts on the generally accepted age of Mary the Mother of Christ who would have been between 12-15 when she gave birth to the Son of God?

[Reluctant Watchman]

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.

Yes, how do you explain BY and Hinckley? Both of them worship your version of “God.” One extolling the practice as a prerequisite for exaltation, the other denying such doctrine. I used the lesser god form because I honestly think the god they were worshipping was not heavenly. That’s how bad the net result was of such a practice. I don’t believe a loving God would command blood oaths. I don’t think a loving God would have you make oath-like commitments to men.

[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.

Still no thoughts on the generally accepted age of Mary the Mother of Christ who would have been between 12-15 when she gave birth to the Son of God?

“Generally accepted”, when the scriptures give no age.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

how do you explain BY and Hinckley?

Jacob 2:30 and D&C 58:32

[Reluctant Watchman]

how do you explain BY and Hinckley?

Jacob 2:30 and D&C 58:32

58 does not apply in this instance. BY said it was necessary, Hinckley said it wasn’t. One of your prophets was wrong. You can’t apply the context of 58 to this scenario.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

how do you explain BY and Hinckley?

Jacob 2:30 and D&C 58:32

58 does not apply in this instance. BY said it was necessary, Hinckley said it wasn’t. One of your prophets was wrong. You can’t apply the context of 58 to this scenario.

Sure it applies. Hinckley didn’t say what you are claiming and neither did BY.

Hinckley said that the church didn’t permit a man to have more than one wife at the present time and BY said (during the time that plural marriage was authorized and commanded) that it was necessary to at least be a polygamist in your heart to be exalted.

And please don’t bother trying to produce isolated quotes by both men to try and create a contradiction. I’m very familiar with what both men taught.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Jacob 2:30 and D&C 58:32

58 does not apply in this instance. BY said it was necessary, Hinckley said it wasn’t. One of your prophets was wrong. You can’t apply the context of 58 to this scenario.

Sure it applies. Hinckley didn’t say what you are claiming and neither did BY.

Hinckley said that the church didn’t permit a man to have more than one wife at the present time and BY said (during the time that plural marriage was authorized and commanded) that it was necessary to at least be a polygamist in your heart to be exalted.

And please don’t bother trying to produce isolated quotes by both men to try and create a contradiction. I’m very familiar with what both men taught.

Oh, I forgot, you know everything these men said on the subject. How silly of me. Why bother indeed.

[Reluctant Watchman]

For those of you who are ignorant like myself:

Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy]?

Hinckley: I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

Something tells me Joseph wasn’t the only one “lying for the Lord.”

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

For those of you who are ignorant like myself:

Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy]?

Hinckley: I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

Something tells me Joseph wasn’t the only one “lying for the Lord.”

Enough of your sophistry.

What is the next line in the Hinckley quote you cut off? And what else has Hinckley said about the subject and what was the official position of the church during his time as church president?

[Reluctant Watchman]

For those of you who are ignorant like myself:

Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy]?

Hinckley: I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

Something tells me Joseph wasn’t the only one “lying for the Lord.”

Enough of your sophistry.

What is the next line in the Hinckley quote you cut off? And what else has Hinckley said about the subject and what was the official position of the church during his time as church president?

I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to the ignorant among us. And now you resort to calling the quoting of your “prophet” as sophistry? You can pull up the interview yourself. I thought you knew everything Hinckley said, I’m surprised you even asked. If anything, you are being deceptive by claiming your authoritative knowledge of what these men said. The “Appeal to authority” argument seems to be a common trait here.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

For those of you who are ignorant like myself:

Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy]?

Hinckley: I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

Something tells me Joseph wasn’t the only one “lying for the Lord.”

Enough of your sophistry.

What is the next line in the Hinckley quote you cut off? And what else has Hinckley said about the subject and what was the official position of the church during his time as church president?

I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to the ignorant among us. And now you resort to calling the quoting of your “prophet” as sophistry? You can pull up the interview yourself. I thought you knew everything Hinckley said, I’m surprised you even asked. If anything, you are being deceptive by claiming your authoritative knowledge of what these men said. The “Appeal to authority” argument seems to be a common trait here.

I didn’t appeal to any authority and you know it. But I do know what both BY and Hinckley actually taught in regards to plural marriage. And I also know what Hinckley said in the rest of the quote you cut off. So your sophistry isn’t going to work on me.

[TheDuke]

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.

According to Webster there never has been any blood oaths in the temple.
blood oath noun : an oath taken by two or more people in which they ceremonially use or exchange each other's blood.

That would require real exchange of blood. So you mean oaths of vengeance or something like that. Would be nice if you had access to an English dictionary. Seems so many people cannot read or write English but wish to post.

As, for the oaths of vengeance for the murder of Joseph, seems there is no place in the endowment for that. I will agree. That was long before any of us, but seems improper. A friend feels it was that oath that led to the Meadow Mountain Massacre as the Missourains claimed to have been part of the murders in Mo. Not sure if that is accurate.

As far as the gestures, which had no words of blood whatsoever, it just seems like old-time (1800's) approach to keeping secrets. I don't recall feeling it was bad or anything. Just to impress the level of sacredness. I don't miss them either, so I'm not saying they are necessary. I think just making a promise should be enough, But then again, seems most or at least half of those that made the promises, later changed their minds. Perhaps having those older memories would have kept the younger ones from making a mockery of the promises.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Enough of your sophistry.

What is the next line in the Hinckley quote you cut off? And what else has Hinckley said about the subject and what was the official position of the church during his time as church president?

I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to the ignorant among us. And now you resort to calling the quoting of your “prophet” as sophistry? You can pull up the interview yourself. I thought you knew everything Hinckley said, I’m surprised you even asked. If anything, you are being deceptive by claiming your authoritative knowledge of what these men said. The “Appeal to authority” argument seems to be a common trait here.

I didn’t appeal to any authority and you know it. But I do know what both BY and Hinckley actually taught in regards to plural marriage. And I also know what Hinckley said in the rest of the quote you cut off. So your sophistry isn’t going to work on me.

Please, enlighten us w/ the rest of the quote.

[Reluctant Watchman]

[Would be nice if you had access to an English dictionary. Seems so many people cannot read or write English but wish to post.

This is why we don’t talk on the forum. You need to look at oaths from the viewpoint of the early endowment. Quoting a modern dictionary and applying this silly statement ^^^ is pointless and condescending.

[TheDuke]

[Would be nice if you had access to an English dictionary. Seems so many people cannot read or write English but wish to post.

This is why we don’t talk on the forum. You need to look at oaths from the viewpoint of the early endowment. Quoting a modern dictionary and applying this silly statement ^^^ is pointless and condescending.

So you're saying that your OP title was written in the 1800's? Seems like the title is in modern English. I don't accept the definition changed this year. You're AGAIN making up your own English terms. Sickening to me that you cannot accept even a dictionary! WOW much darkness and little enlightenment. Making up your own language, then in the posts using Modern English to refute centuries old terms? LOL, LOL, LOL Give it up Doug, at least use a common language that we all agree on. Want to try Spanish? I can do Spanish, when my wife comes home. I'm not so good at it. But, we can look it up in an old Spanish dictionary. Bet it is the same. And has been the same definition since Webster himself.

How much $$$$ you want to put on it? Are you game for the challenge?

[Reluctant Watchman]

*sigh*

[Reluctant Watchman]

BTW, it’s still “not doctrinal” per Hinckley. I think BY would disagree, so would the fake 132:

Doing your work for you Bjorn.

[Reluctant Watchman]

BTW, most LDS have such a screwed up interpretation of the AoF. Per Hinckley, the church will bend over backward for the government. In the early days of the poly world WW told the government the practice stopped… except it didn’t. Then President Smith had to issues a 2nd statement because they lied the first time.

We know governments the world over are become more and more corrupt. What does that mean for the LDS church? They’ll follow suit; hook, line, and sinker.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

So you do know what the rest of his quote says. He condemned polygamy because it’s not legal and per the articles of faith the doctrine of the church is that we honor and sustain the law.

That’s very different than what you were trying to pawn off on us when you cut off most of the quote.

[ransomme]

You sure love sensationalism, don’t you?

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.

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.

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.

Have you never noticed that we make covenants with God and only He makes an Oath?

Ever notice in the scriptures that only wicked humans make blood oaths?

And by the mid to late 1800s 15 y.o. is on the young side. Especially for old dudes picking up wife number 10+.

[Bjǫrnúlfr]

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.

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.

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.

Have you never noticed that we make covenants with God and only He makes an Oath?

Ever notice in the scriptures that only wicked humans make blood oaths?

And by the mid to late 1800s 15 y.o. is on the young side. Especially for old dudes picking up wife number 10+.

Actually there are several examples in the scriptures that specifically state that people made oaths to God.

But the point with the “blood oaths” is that this phrase is sensationalized and doesn’t accurately reflect the covenants made in the temple.

And no one is saying that by the mid to late 1830s 15 year old wives weren’t on the young side. But they weren’t "little girls” or “prepubescent.” Referring to them as such or labeling older men who married them as “pedophiles" is sensationalism.

[ransomme]

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.

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.

Have you never noticed that we make covenants with God and only He makes an Oath?

Ever notice in the scriptures that only wicked humans make blood oaths?

And by the mid to late 1800s 15 y.o. is on the young side. Especially for old dudes picking up wife number 10+.

Actually there are several examples in the scriptures that specifically state that people made oaths to God.

But the point with the “blood oaths” is that this phrase is sensationalized and doesn’t accurately reflect the covenants made in the temple.

And no one is saying that by the mid to late 1830s 15 year old wives weren’t on the young side. But they weren’t "little girls” or “prepubescent.” Referring to them as such or labeling older men who married them as “pedophiles" is sensationalism.

So you defend 50+ y.o. men taking 15 y.o. girls for wife number 10+? Otherwise you are only talking about degrees from wrong to sensationally wrong.

How much choice do you think such 15 y.o. had?

So they make blood oaths?

[Reluctant Watchman]

So you do know what the rest of his quote says. He condemned polygamy because it’s not legal and per the articles of faith the doctrine of the church is that we honor and sustain the law.

That’s very different than what you were trying to pawn off on us when you cut off most of the quote.

He said it’s not “doctrinal.” Talk about sophistry my friend. Hinckley is a known liar. He also lied to a Mexican journalist stating that the saints are the ones who are privy to the finances of the church. Hinckley is the sensationalist here. If we can’t agree on a simple thing like then… obviously we can’t move on to oaths of the flesh.

Also, see my comment about the AoF, if you subscribe to such beliefs, then when does the church ever stand up to the government? Oh, I know, anytime they come in conflict with the revealed word of God. And I did use the big “G”, just so we are clear on that.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Just so people don’t think I’m making things up:

[Reluctant Watchman]

And, another note about the AoF, and honoring obeying and sustaining the law, can anybody say “illegally hiding $32B from the government”? These men honor government only when it benefits them, or when they see no other course of action that would cause them to lose power or position over the members.

Hinckley was the one who began the shell companies to hide the money from the members. In many ways he’s a politician, saying what will appease the people, yet either blatantly lying or not aligning with what actually happens w/in the culture of the church.