57 replies to this topic

[Stryyp]

redlion, on May 15 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

Did you even bother to check the facts?

Helen Mar Kimball was born in 1828 and was married to Joseph Smith in 1843. So they lied. It was fifteen. Besides that point, it was common for aranged marriages to happen at young ages in the 1800s.

In addition, I have reason to doubt the validity of this website. If you follow the directions in that essay, you'll come to a page about Joseph smith that includes his birth and death dates, as well as the dates of all of his marriages. Apparently, he married four people after he had already died. It says it right there on the page, he died in 1844, but married Amanda Melissa Barnes in 1852. How can this be considered acurate?

That kinda supports my Governer Boggs theory. (Sorry for one-liner post )

[redlion]

AliasXNeo, on May 15 2006, 10:32 PM, said:

http://www.apologeti...rg/f/f39aa.html

Also states that the youngest girl he married was 14 years old.

http://www.dummies.c...t-RELIGION.html
http://www.delsjourn...nd_polygamy.htm

How many do you want?

Quoted from your own website (the second) I give you this:

Quote

"Polygamy was all about sex." Not really. In fact, some of the plural marriages contracted in Utah were for eternity only, meaning that the wife would be on the man's rolls in heaven, but they would have no earthly rolls in the hay. In eternity-only marriages, conjugal relations weren't permitted, and the wife usually supported herself. In marriages for both time and eternity, the couple enjoyed conjugal relations, but the husband was bound to support his wives and any children they had.

[Stryyp]

AliasXNeo, on May 15 2006, 10:40 PM, said:

Your point is? I'm trying to get the story straight, not say anything is wrong. I'm not sure what you're trying to do. I think all of these sources differ from what Stryyp said.

And I am not afraid to say I am wrong, either. I have found sources saying the reason is because of lack of men (In many areas), so just because you found other sources saying the opposite you are right? For everything on the internet there is a counterpart claiming the opposite as fact.

I don't pretend to be highly educated on this church's history and affairs, but rather our doctrine. And heck, I don't usually pretend to exactly be a theologian, either

Edited by Stryyp, 15 May 2006 - 07:54 PM.

[redlion]

AliasXNeo, on May 15 2006, 10:40 PM, said:

Your point is? I'm trying to get the story straight, not say anything is wrong. I'm not sure what you're trying to do. I think all of these sources differ from what Stryyp said.

Well, if the article I quoted is true, than what does it matter that he married her? He didn't have any 'earthy rolls in the hay', so what difference does it make?

Besides that fact, we've already stated that marriage at such a young age was commonplace at the time.

[redlion]

WAY TO GRAVEDIG TREVOR. WAY TO GO.

[Ives]

My dad is very pro polygamy. He has TONS of kids, and I have yet to meet them all. It's a custom in his beliefs that is acceptable and condoned, which is fine for me. I certainly don't care for having seven wives, but I think it could be acceptable to legally allow two or three wives, but there is a time when it's going too far. If you work at a business, and end up wasting your bosses week because you have to attend to your twenty four wives isn't paticularly healthy.