Clueless in Primary

Red Ryder · Post by **Red Ryder** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:45 am

Without going into details, I found myself sitting in primary on Sunday during the 3rd hour. The PP was talking innocently about pioneers and asked for one of the girls to come up and wear her pioneer bonnet. All the girls in the room raised their hands and she coincidently chose one of the oldest girls from the 11 year old class.

The PP placed the bonnet on the girls head And had her pose and parade around for a few seconds. Then she started to tell the primary that this girl was Mary Elizabeth Rollins who worked as a seamstress for Governor Boggs. She goes on to tell the story how MER was approached by Boggs and told her religion was phony and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. The PP went on to tell the kids that Mary defended her faith and kept her testimony strong.

What the PP didn't seem to know was that Mary Elizabeth Rollins was 12 years old when the Prophet Joseph Smith received "revelation" that Mary was to be his first polygamous wife. Mary put off the prophets advances until a few years later when she became the sixth polygamous wife to Joseph Smith while already married to Adam Lightner.

All I could do was sit there and wonder how the hell anyone can stay mormon knowing that the founder of the church was trying to marry 12 year old girls.

jfro18 · Post by **jfro18** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:50 am

They literally ignore it... you have to.

I was walking the dog with my wife last night and we were talking about the differences in age between people in relationships. I was telling her about a neighbor growing up who was 18 and was dating a 14 year old and she told me how disgusting it was. I mentioned how everyone thought it was creepy at the time and she quickly said "and illegal." I made a comment about how it being illegal hasn't stopped people before, and I have a feeling she knew what I was getting at but of course we blew by it.

The point is that she told me JS never had sex with the 14 year olds so it's pure. We all know it's not pure, but that's how they stay mormon... you just reinvent the church as often as you need to in order to keep your brain from really digging into what is behind it. It really sucks being on the other side of it and watching them do it, but here we are...

Linked · Post by **Linked** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:47 am

Sharing Time can be the worst as a NOM. Modesty lessons for little kids, telling false stories to reinforce the LDS worldview, forcing little children to sit still for an hour and telling them they are bad if they don't. So bad.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:50 am ...that's how they stay mormon... you just reinvent the church as often as you need to in order to keep your brain from really digging into what is behind it. It really sucks being on the other side of it and watching them do it, but here we are...

It has been interesting watching people reinvent the church with the change from Home/Visiting Teaching to Ministering. Talking about the problems with Home/Visiting Teaching went from taboo to encouraged overnight. So now my mormons rip on the old way and extol the new way. But they would not have ripped the old way when it was the current way.

Corsair · Post by **Corsair** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:10 pm

This is the chronic pain of being the undercover unbeliever. We have to sit in church under this passive aggressive assault on our intellect and not tell anyone about it. Mary Elizabeth Rollins is credited with other imporant LDS historical points like rescuing the Book of Commandments from the mobin Missouri. But being a polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith simply does not come up.

slavereeno · Post by **slavereeno** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:24 pm

When Elder Ballard was in AZ he answered the question like this "We don't know what kind of relationship JS had with those women" Or something along those lines. Members then believe that there was no "sex" so it was just a spiritual thing that God commanded JS to do. We really don't have any decent proof that he did have sex with any of them. So we only "know" it was about that as much as they "know" it wasn't.

I believe there was a few games of "adjust the priesthood antenna" going on, but I would never enter into an argument with a TBM over it because there is no smoking gun there, just some off hand remarks or glancing blows in journals that we are left to draw conclusions from. If JS DNA could be found somewhere that would be awesome.

AllieOop · Post by **AllieOop** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:42 pm

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:50 am The point is that she told me JS never had sex with the 14 year olds so it's pure.

Does she acknowledge though that even if Joseph didn't have sex with these young girls, it was definitely not "pure"? He was married to Emma and approached young teens and asked them to become another one of his plural wives. Sex or no sex.....that is not moral and he was cheating, hiding it, and lying about it. That was dishonest and it was a huge betrayal of Emma.

If any married man did this today, there is no one who would think that behavior was "pure" (and defend it because there was no sex involved).

Linked · Post by **Linked** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:06 pm

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:24 pm When Elder Ballard was in AZ he answered the question like this "We don't know what kind of relationship JS had with those women" Or something along those lines. Members then believe that there was no "sex" so it was just a spiritual thing that God commanded JS to do. We really don't have any decent proof that he did have sex with any of them. So we only "know" it was about that as much as they "know" it wasn't.

I believe there was a few games of "adjust the priesthood antenna" going on, but I would never enter into an argument with a TBM over it because there is no smoking gun there, just some off hand remarks or glancing blows in journals that we are left to draw conclusions from. If JS DNA could be found somewhere that would be awesome.

There is little proof that any married couple without children have sex, but it is still assumed. Also, the subsequent practice of polygamy has proof of sex, so why wouldn't the founder? I think the meter leans towards sex personally, even if I'm trying to be unbiased.

jfro18 · Post by **jfro18** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:12 pm

AllieOop wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:42 pm
jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:50 am The point is that she told me JS never had sex with the 14 year olds so it's pure.
Does she acknowledge though that even if Joseph didn't have sex with these young girls, it was definitely not "pure"? He was married to Emma and approached young teens and asked them to become another one of his plural wives. Sex or no sex.....that is not moral and he was cheating, hiding it, and lying about it. That was dishonest and it was a huge betrayal of Emma.

If any married man did this today, there is no one who would think that behavior was "pure" (and defend it because there was no sex involved).

I've made that argument - I was told Joseph was imperfect, and that if we expect a perfect prophet how could any of us ever hope to find joy and salvation?

It makes no sense, but that's what she falls back on...

And the LDS essay on polygamy in Kirtland/Nauvoo pretty much admits Joseph had sex with at least some of his wives as do a lot of apologists. They *used* to deny it ever happened, but they've since shifted it to "Yeah they had sex. So what? They were married and he left the 14 year olds alone as far as we know."

The goalposts will never stop moving.

MalcolmVillager · Post by **MalcolmVillager** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:01 pm

I am glad I am not the only one. I am actually at trek right now with 2 daughters. Bored out of my mind. Not buying any of it. So hard to look the other way. I can't even get myself to go to the spiritual stuff to keep an eye on what the leaders are teaching my kids.

Going a bit crazy!

slavereeno · Post by **slavereeno** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:57 pm

You are on trek, my sympathies.

IT_Veteran · Post by **IT_Veteran** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:54 pm

The part that bothers me most about members dismissing Joseph’s actions with “none of the prophets throughout history were perfect” is, I think, that it greatly downplays the actions he took.

This isn’t Joseph having some wine or liquor after the WoW revelation, which would be easily explained as him being imperfect. He didn’t just yell at his wife. He used his purported revelatory power to further his own interests. He threatened Emma’s life and salvation if she didn’t submit. He coerced teenage girls into marrying him by tying it to his, their, or their families’ eternal salvation.

He was a hypocrite, a liar, and a charlatan - at least when it came to marriage(s). I’m simply unwilling to overlook that. There were plenty of people on the earth that any god could have used to restore his church. Instead he chose some guy convicted of fraud (or something like it) who attempted, at seemingly every opportunity, to convince attractive women (regardless of their age) to marry him.

That god is an asshole. I’ll have no part of that eternal plan.

NOM

Clueless in Primary

Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary

Re: Clueless in Primary