As I am reviewing the latest polygamy essay, there is one big elephant in the room that (1) is not addressed at all because (2) it undermines virtually every argument in the essay, and that is that the only scriptural (BoM only) justification for polygamy is raising up a righteous seed.
All the effort they put into presenting their case that Joe didn't boink the teenagers or the married women (e.g. by inventing the non-scriptural distinction between marriage for time & eternity and marriage for eternity only) defeats the one stated purpose of polygamy.
The entire essay is nothing but one big ex post facto fallacy.
Once again the Mormon fluffers of facts have massaged church history into an engorged state with the hope of poking holes in the orifices of critical thought.
But truth doesn't lie down like a plural wife. It won't be seduced with celestial promises. It can't be bullied with threats of armed angels. Truth needn't be prayed about or defined by ritual. It can't be harmed by information from any source.
Also, D&C 132 clearly states that the women are supposed to be virgins. Yet, Mormon men took on additional wives that were widows, as well as women who already had living husbands (polyandry).
Clearly, Joseph Smith was not adhering to the "revelations" that he himself produced.
Not only are they supposed to be virgins, but once they are espoused to the guy they're given to, they cannot be with another man or they will be destroyed. Where does polyandry fit with that? Why can't they just admit the truth that Joseph Smith couldn't keep his pecker in his pants.
Possibly because they can't say "pecker" on the lds.org site. I would suggest they use "willy," which is a far friendlier term and sometimes used in mixed company.
Yes, of course. Slam dunk. The other slam dunk that is not addressed is why they openly lied and disavowed practicing polygamy until 1852 and why the openly lied and disavowed practicing polygamy after god told them to stop until the 1910's.
Clearly "even" the least made up of gods had nothing to do with this bureaucratic nightmare they created.
"But truth doesn't lie down like a plural wife." - Unfortunately it does. If this were true, there would be no CULT.
"Why can't they just admit the truth that Joseph Smith couldn't keep his pecker in his pants." - If they admit that, NO MORE CULT! I think even the hard core TBMs will say enough is enough if they all find out that the entire CULT is only based on JSs pecker.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2014 04:13PM by verilyverily.
It's amazing how Mormons can dance around this subject, because it seems to me that if JS did *not* have sex with these women to produce offspring, he was breaking God's commandment, and with this raging sword and threat of death that "forced" JS into polygamy in the first place, then JS would have *had* to have fulfilled the commandment to also procreate; otherwise, there's no point in marrying these women at all. If polygamy was created only for salvation, that's one thing, in which case a woman can be sealed to just about anyone, and this person could also be their father. If JS wasn't going to "bring up seed," with these women, there was no point in marrying them.
Another thing TSCC does not address in the essay (which is also a big elephant):
Why has TSCC portrayed to its "millions of members" over the past hundred years that JS was married only to Emma? They have mislead everyone into believing it was just the two of them alone.
They can't pull the "but they didn't have sex" card. The other polygamists were having kids all over the place. JS obviously saw this. I don't remember reading there was anything like a reprimand from JS saying,
"Brother X, I see your 2nd, 3rd, and 5th wife had a child this year. Didn't you know you weren't supposed to actually have sex with them?"
Honestly, anyone who doesn't get that polygamy was created to justify access to sexual privilege for men and for women to tap into resources is naive. The essays are laughable mental gymnastics.