Sex in the temple?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

The lady regarding polygamy said that the young girls were choked, and beat all the time. Can you show where in the early church, we would choke and beat young girls in to submissivness? Thanks in advance.

Lame. You're splitting hairs. However, I'm quite sure that in a heavily paternalistic, agrarian society like early Mormonism corporal punishment of women was not unheard of.

[MikeWaters]

The only polygamy in my family was when my great-great grandmother's husband fell ill and he asked his best friend to take on his wife and kids as his second family. The husband died, and the second man stepped in. She was no teenager.

It was a noble thing. They had kids together, but the kids all took the first husband's name.

Btw, this was in God-forsaken St. Joseph, AZ.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So has anyone that gives early Mormon history the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't give FLDS the benefit of the doubt, explained their position?

Why are we even comparing the two. Times were different. Perfectly acceptable societal norms were much different back then compared to now througout society.

Somehow are we supposed to expect people back then should have acted in accordance with todays standards and norms.

It kind of pisses me off that the people weren't smart enough to have cars, planes and airplanes and that they trekked across the plains in wagons.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So has anyone that gives early Mormon history the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't give FLDS the benefit of the doubt, explained their position?

Is it requisite for me to justify the practices of the early church in order for me to support the state of Texas in their actions thus far?

Or can I have faith in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ without exploring those issues, and while denouncing the practices that seem to be standard in the FLDS church?

Am I allowed to believe that the FLDS are apostates from the true Church of Christ, and that their practices are both immoral and sinful, without equating their actions to those of the early church?


Personally, I don't find this issue very compelling, and deny the position that I can have an opinion on the matter that is unclouded by my personal beliefs and the history of my religion.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Is it requisite for me to justify the practices of the early church in order for me to support the state of Texas in their actions thus far?

Or can I have faith in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ without exploring those issues, and while denouncing the practices that seem to be standard in the FLDS church?

Am I allowed to believe that the FLDS are apostates from the true Church of Christ, and that their practices are both immoral and sinful, without equating their actions to those of the early church?


Personally, I don't find this issue very compelling, and deny the position that I can have an opinion on the matter that is unclouded by my personal beliefs and the history of my religion.

This is an ethically immature stance. You don't understand ethics.

"because my god is right and your god is wrong" is not ethics.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Why are we even comparing the two. Times were different. Perfectly acceptable societal norms were much different back then compared to now througout society.

Somehow are we supposed to expect people back then should have acted in accordance with todays standards and norms.

It kind of pisses me off that the people weren't smart enough to have cars, planes and airplanes and that they trekked across the plains in wagons.

What are you talking about? The "revelation" came after the federal government was about to send the troops to Utah and do the same thing that's happening in Texas now because most the country was so appalled at marital and sexual practices in Utah. Polygamy was not the norm in our culture since the barbarians were converted to Christianity. This is about the lamest apologetics I've ever seen.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Why are we even comparing the two. Times were different. Perfectly acceptable societal norms were much different back then compared to now througout society.

Somehow are we supposed to expect people back then should have acted in accordance with todays standards and norms.

It kind of pisses me off that the people weren't smart enough to have cars, planes and airplanes and that they trekked across the plains in wagons.

what were the accepted norms back then? Were 15 year old girls married to 50 year old men, and no one would bat an eye?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Why are we even comparing the two. Times were different. Perfectly acceptable societal norms were much different back then compared to now througout society.

Somehow are we supposed to expect people back then should have acted in accordance with todays standards and norms.

It kind of pisses me off that the people weren't smart enough to have cars, planes and airplanes and that they trekked across the plains in wagons.

Wasn't it the norm for girls to marry at fifteen (or even younger) in the mid-1800's? It seems to me the ONLY correlation between the FLDS compound issue & the early-church issue is the polygamy angle.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what were the accepted norms back then? Were 15 year old girls married to 50 year old men, and no one would bat an eye?

No. That was considered a bad thing in the civilized places in our country. BYU71's argument could be used to exculpate slavery too. The fact is, though, that the majority of the country knew slavery was wrong and that's why we fought a terrible civil war and the abolitionists ultimately won. But back then 50 year old men taking adolescents as concubines wasn't even as close a call as slavery to most Americans in terms of right and wrong.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So has anyone that gives early Mormon history the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't give FLDS the benefit of the doubt, explained their position?

Certainly there are cultural issues at play here. The FLDS compound has girls 14 and under being married off against their will to older men, some of whom are apparently also related. The reasons this shouldn't be allowed in the US today are too many to count, and going through them is a waste of time.

However, in other societies, a girl getting married at 14 isn't the same problem, even today. In Africa, many 14 year old kids are married (and many through polygamy). The girls mature faster, possibly due to a shorter life span in Africa which requires they mature faster. They also have a society where having a child at 14 is often acceptable, if not the norm, and there are societal benefits to having a child that young. It is impossible to compare the situation to the US today.

I often view what happened with the early LDS church in somewhat of the same lens as what is happening in Africa right now. There were reasons for what happened, some good, some not so good, but an apples to apples comparison is virtually impossible to draw.

While the LDS today are, ironically, harsher on polygamy than most others I come across, the comparison to the FLDS is yet another poor comparison. Beating women and children, raping them, marrying them to close relatives, etc all seem a far cry from the typical experience in the early church to me, even if some of those practices may have occurred in the minority.