• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vs the Westboro Baptist Church

Which of these two religions is the most "benign"?

  • Westboro Baptist Church

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

    Votes: 20 83.3%

  • Total voters
    24

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Of course not! I haven't been following her so you might be right, but what is happening to her happened to me the same way and both situations seem to me to be just a matter of opinion...the same knowledge but viewed in a different light.
I think you're sympathetic to her situation because of your own experience, which is understandable. You should have seen all the support she was getting from the LDS posters on RF when she first revealed what had happened. None of us tried to justify the abuse or tell her she was over-reacting. It was just when she started posting flat-out inaccurate information, such as that her claim that Mormons believe that polygamy is required for Exaltation (i.e. the greatest heavenly reward possible), that Jane and I started to come down on her. She knows better than to say something that ridiculous.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Joseph Smith never slept with a prepubescent girl. The Prophet Muhammad consummated his marriage with his 12-year-old wife Aisha. Young ladies under Jewish Law were allowed at age 12 to consummate their marriages, so Mary could have been as young as 13 years old when she gave birth to Jesus Christ. Societies and cultures were way different before the 20th century, so then anybody who was past puberty was considered old enough to be married and have sexual intercourse.
Didn't Muhammad consummate his marriage with Aisha when she was only 9?
 

Jane.Doe

Active Member
I just wish you and that other one would think seriously about calling someone else, "in need of help". First of all, we are all. And secondly, it seems to me that saying so it like calling someone retarded or the n word.
Since when was urging a person to seek medical help after a soul-shattering trauma akin to "like calling someone retarded"???

NO!!!
Seeking medical help (and yes, professional therapy is a form of medical help) when you need it is a GOOD thing! It is a responsible thing that should be encouraged-- to treat with scorn or slur!! And yes, Idea has been through an extremely traumatic experience. I have too in my own life. And getting that help makes a WOLRD of difference in healing-- to stop being a victim, and move on healed.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That comparison is horrendous.
It's accurate. If it takes you aback... good.

Which do you think has more impact: words or actions?

As awful as the WBC is, all they do are words. The LDS Church, OTOH, has taken - and AFAIK continues to take - concrete steps to take away rights from LGBTQ people. The harm done by the WBC pales in comparison to the harm done by the LDS Church.

The LDS Church certainly isn't the worst offender in this regard - IMO, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention are much worse - but I'm still going to rank any organization that actively campaigns against against the rights of LGBTQ people as more harmful than any organization that condemns LGBTQ people without doing anything to actually affect their rights.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry, but I don't see that at all.

I see an intentional misrepresentation of LDS beliefs and quoting sources out of context.
You see the misrepresentation (intentional is judging) of LDS teachings. Someone else might personally and honestly interpret LDS teachings in ways that you do not like.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
You see the misrepresentation (intentional is judging) of LDS teachings. Someone else might personally and honestly interpret LDS teachings in ways that you do not like.
Here's an example that may help you understand our frustration and irritation with idea: Catholics believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Three practicing Catholics say, "We believe that the bread and wine, once consecrated, actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. We partake of these when we receive communion." One ex-Catholic says, "I was once a Catholic so I know the truth: Catholics are cannibals." Is the ex-Catholic's "interpretation" of the doctrine just an honest misunderstanding? You can say it's possible. I'd say it's highly improbable.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Here's an example that may help you understand our frustration and irritation with idea: Catholics believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Three practicing Catholics say, "We believe that the bread and wine, once consecrated, actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. We partake of these when we receive communion." One ex-Catholic says, "I was once a Catholic so I know the truth: Catholics are cannibals." Is the ex-Catholic's "interpretation" of the doctrine just an honest misunderstanding? You can say it's possible. I'd say it's highly improbable.
That might be a bad example because the second one would not fit the real definition of cannibalism. IMO

But, if someone read those old posts of the early Latter Day Saints Church it would be reasonable to see the similarities of modern-day pedophilia and what was believed about elder power and female subservience by some in the church back then. IMO But, I realize there is a big difference between a religion's core convictions and some teachings that change over time. I think it would be wrong to announce that the present church should be judged by past opinions therein.

I hold the same opinion about former Jehovah's Witnesses crying about the Watchtower's past mistakes. I judge the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses by their present ignorance. Just as they seem to be judging me. I call that fair.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Sorry, but I don't see that at all.

I see an intentional misrepresentation of LDS beliefs and quoting sources out of context.
What's the correct context for, say, item #1?
1. Joseph Smith told his victims that HER FAMILY’S salvation was dependent on giving into his wishes.
Quote: "After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to him."
Source: BYU.edu - Autobiography of Helen Mar Kimball
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
That might be a bad example because the second one would not fit the real definition of cannibalism. IMO
Fair enough. But idea has claimed (on another thread) that the President of the LDS Church today is in a polygamous relationship because he was sealed in the temple to both his first wife (who died) and to his second (i.e. his current) wife. That doesn't fit the real definition of polygamy either.

But, if someone read those old posts of the early Latter Day Saints Church it would be reasonable to see the similarities of modern-day pedophilia and what was believed about elder power and female subservience by some in the church back then. IMO But, I realize there is a big difference between a religion's core convictions and some teachings that change over time. I think it would be wrong to announce that the present church should be judged by past opinions therein.
Yes, but as everybody knows, one can be telling "the truth" without telling "the whole truth." Out-of-context quotes may tell "the truth" but more often than not, they don't tell "the whole truth."

I hold the same opinion about former Jehovah's Witnesses crying about the Watchtower's past mistakes. I judge the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses by their present ignorance. Just as they seem to be judging me. I call that fair.
I call that fair, too, savagewind. And even today, the LDS leadership is not perfect. They make mistakes. Unfortunately, when people have been hurt, they don't always have the self-control to just address the issues at hand. Sometimes the only way they have to vent is to declare all out war.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
What's the correct context for, say, item #1?
Joseph married Helen Mar Kimball just a few months short of her 15th birthday. He had not been pursuing her. It wasn't even his idea to marry her. Her father, Heber C. Kimball, requested that she be sealed to Joseph. There is no evidence that the marriage was ever consummated. In point of fact, she continued to live at home with her parents after the sealing. Less than two years later, she married a young man she'd fallen in love with. They had eleven children together. In the same document you quoted from, Helen Mar Kimball stated many years later that God "[knows] better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises." Does this sound to you like it came from a woman who believed herself to be a victim of pedophilia? She also wrote a poem quoted in that same document, "The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone." She knew full well that the marriage was not to be for this life. Her life after the sealing was not impacted in any way by the event.
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Fair enough. But idea has claimed (on another thread) that the President of the LDS Church today is in a polygamous relationship because he was sealed in the temple to both his first wife (who died) and to his second (i.e. his current) wife. That doesn't fit the real definition of polygamy either.
That is right!

Yes, but as everybody knows, one can be telling "the truth" without telling "the whole truth." Out-of-context quotes may tell "the truth" but more often than not, they don't tell "the whole truth."
Such as that is called propaganda. Nobody who practices propaganda ever invites my respect for them.

I call that fair, too, savagewind. And even today, the LDS leadership is not perfect. They make mistakes. Unfortunately, when people have been hurt, they don't always have the self-control to just address the issues at hand. Sometimes the only way they have to vent is to declare all out war.
I have never imagined a good war.

I do not know much about the LDS church but it looks like to me that they do a very good job of making lemonade out of lemons. The world is lemons. LDS methods seem to be making some people (many people?) better people than they would be without their church.
99585325-if-life-gives-you-lemons-make-lemonade-handwritten-motivation-poster-modern-unique-lettering-vector-.jpg
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Joseph married Helen Mar Kimball just a few months short of her 15th birthday. He had not been pursuing her. It wasn't even his idea to marry her. Her father, Heber C. Kimball, requested that she be sealed to Joseph. There is no evidence that the marriage was ever consummated.
Is there evidence that it wasn't?

The source that the blog links to quotes Kimball as saying that her father "offered her to" Smith.

A quick googling finds me other LDS sources that excuse the marriage on the grounds that it wasn't unheard of at the time for 14-year-olds to be married off, not on the grounds that the marriage was never consummated.

From my perspective, the mere fact that a marriage happened is a strong sign that sex probably happened, too.

In point of fact, she continued to live at home with her parents after the sealing.
Not really surprising, since polygamy was illegal in Missouri.

Less than two years later, she married a young man she'd fallen in love with. They had eleven children together.
From what I read, it was about 2 years from her marriage to Smith until Smith's death, then about 2 years from Smith's death until Kimball's remarriage.

Remarriage of a widow isn't a sign that the widow's first marriage wasn't consummated.

In the same document you quoted from, Helen Mar Kimball stated many years later that God "[knows] better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises." Does this sound to you like it came from a woman who believed herself to be a victim of pedophilia?
It's certainly consistent with something from someone who agreed to sex at an age we now recognize as too young for informed consent and who spent the whole rest of her life steeped in an environment that reinforced the idea that she made the right decision.

She also wrote a poem quoted in that same document, "The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone." She knew full well that the marriage was not to be for this life. Her life after the sealing was not impacted in any way by the event.
Either that or she was referring to her reasons for agreeing:

I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of [p. 1] Celestial marrage-after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.

This promise was so great that I will-ingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.
I see no reason to assume that this line in her poem must have meant "my marriage wasn't supposed to really begin until after my death" and couldn't have meant "the only reason I married him was to secure my family's eternal salvation."
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Fair enough. But idea has claimed (on another thread) that the President of the LDS Church today is in a polygamous relationship because he was sealed in the temple to both his first wife (who died) and to his second (i.e. his current) wife. That doesn't fit the real definition of polygamy either.
It's not actual polygamy now, but I do think it's fair to say that he's tried to set up a polygamous relationship in his future.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
It's not actual polygamy now, but I do think it's fair to say that he's tried to set up a polygamous relationship in his future.
I believe it's a moot point for anyone who does not believe in Mormonism. Most people don't believe marriage will exist at all after death, in the first place. Atheists don't believe we will exist at all after death. Honestly, if President Russell M. Nelson ends up with two wives in Heaven, and if non-Mormon Joe Blow remarries every time one of his 5 wives die and ends up with none of them, it will mean Mormonism was right about that all along. If he doesn't, it will prove that we were wrong. Meanwhile, what's the point of the debate, when polygamy, as society understands it, means a man is married to two or more living women.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I believe it's a moot point for anyone who does not believe in Mormonism. Most people don't believe marriage will exist at all after death, in the first place. Atheists don't believe we will exist at all after death. Honestly, if President Russell M. Nelson ends up with two wives in Heaven, and if non-Mormon Joe Blow remarries every time one of his 5 wives die and ends up with none of them, it will mean Mormonism was right about that all along. If he doesn't, it will prove that we were wrong. Meanwhile, what's the point of the debate, when polygamy, as society understands it, means a man is married to two or more living women.
I don't have to believe that Mormon beliefs are true to recognize the intent behind the actions of someone else - e.g. Nelson - who does believe that they're true. I don't think he's actually a polygamist, but I think he's tried to create the conditions that will end up with him being a polygamist after he dies.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I don't have to believe that Mormon beliefs are true to recognize the intent behind the actions of someone else - e.g. Nelson - who does believe that they're true. I don't think he's actually a polygamist, but I think he's tried to create the conditions that will end up with him being a polygamist after he dies.
Fair enough but I don't know why that should bother anyone. My point was that when idea was saying he's a polygamist, she was using the word to mean something quite different than you or I or anyone else would use it. If he were truly a polygamist, he'd be breaking the law. Nobody (Mormon or non-Mormon) would be so completely naive as to think he could be charged with bigamy. Idea's intent was to mislead. Period.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Fair enough but I don't know why that should bother anyone. My point was that when idea was saying he's a polygamist, she was using the word to mean something quite different than you or I or anyone else would use it. If he were truly a polygamist, he'd be breaking the law. Nobody (Mormon or non-Mormon) would be so completely naive as to think he could be charged with bigamy. Idea's intent was to mislead. Period.
If you're going to complain about misrepresentation, it's important not to do it yourself. Here's what @idea actually said:

The current President - Nelson is sealed to more than one wife. Marriage vows in the temple are polygamy vows.

She didn't actually say that Nelson is married to two living women. She did say that Nelson has vowed to engage in polygamy, which is true.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
If you're going to complain about misrepresentation, it's important not to do it yourself.

She didn't actually say that Nelson is married to two living women. She did say that Nelson has vowed to engage in polygamy, which is true.
And her very next statement was, "Marriage vows in the temple are polygamy vows." 99.99% of all marriage vows in the temple are not polygamy vows, and she said nothing about Nelson's vows in particular. She made a blanket statement that is quite simply false. I'm sorry, but I'm finding this whole debate a big waste of time. For the life of me, that you are so invested in this topic at all baffles me. You want to have the last word? Be my guest.
 
Top