Another Question for LDS

[why_me]

I would not say “pushed”. I would say that, after doing things that angered everyone around them, they left.

yes, tom, if only we could do that today. When our neighbors anger us, we can push them out and burn their homes or steal the property they left behind before burning their homes. Life would be great because they just ‘left’.

Or like what happened to sidney rigdon, we can take them out of their home, drag them down the street by their heels, and beat them senseless and leave them to die. I think that they might leave then. But I wouldn’t call it pushed, they just left. and in the process he was tarred and feathered…but yes, he did leave.

 

[Returning_Home]

In 1890 a Manifesto was issued stating that the Utah woudl observe the laws of the land, in this case, the USA. This is not surprising since the 12th Article of Faith is clear about LDS beliefs: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Once it was clear that the persecution of LDS Church would remain, though the saints had already moved four times en masse, they chose to stop plural marriage. For qualification, a Manifesto is not the equivalent of a Revelation. The prophet stated that the Lord showed him in vision what would happen to the people if they did not observe the laws the land and the prophet then chose to issue the Manifesto. Speaking out of ignorance and without studying the issue first. For goodness sakes, just read the bloody documents. This is difficult for literate people.

Yes, that’s what the Manifesto said, but the church didn’t bother to follow its own words, did it? They seemed to have thought that simply giving it lip service would make the government back down and they could continue with impunity.

The ‘persecution’ you speak of was the government enforcing the laws of the land that the church wasn’t following. Anti-polygamy legislation begins with the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act signed into law by Abraham Lincoln in 1862. If the church were following the laws of the land, the successive legislation wouldn’t have been necessary.

The church ‘chose’ to stop plural marriage because it was a move made strictly out of self-preservation on the eve of the government seizing the two temples, and the only choice Woodruff could’ve made.

You then try to show that it was voluntary, when, in reality, it wasn’t. They were forced and that much is clear but to say that the Manifesto isn’t the equivalent of revelation is nonsense. If the prophet speaks for God, he couldn’t possibly make a mistake, leading inevitably to the LDS version of papal infallibility.

"We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of his prophet: 'Thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet’s) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

‘For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith’ (D&C 21:4-5).

“The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (entire quote from Gospel Principles, pp 49-50)

So there we have it, the church, lead by Jesus Christ in Salt Lake City, UT, has made it clear thay the prophet’s words are to be heeded, like it or not. And therefore, if the prophet said that the church was to no longer practice polygamy, it was clearly the word of God, not a suggestion. In fact, nowhere in GP do I find any possibility for the prophet to be wrong at all.

This, then, leads to the next point: if the LDS prophets speak for God and God’s edicts cannot and do not change, and the prophet cannot lead the church astray, why did Joseph F. Smith plead guilty to Utah’s anti-polygamy laws? How is this following the laws of the land? And why don’t the edicts of God apply to him?

 

[why_me]

10% is OT, like cutting off the hands of a thief.

In the NT, Jesus just says to give. In fact, he praised the poor women. He did not say she gave 10%, He said she gave all could.

But, there is nothing that says you have to pay your way to heaven, like the LDS Church requires

It says to give 10 percent in the bible, tom. I did not write the bible. But that is what it says. What to do?

 

[SirThomasMore]

It says to give 10 percent in the bible, tom. I did not write the bible. But that is what it says. What to do?

The OT has over 600 commandments. Are you telling me that you comply with every single one?

I hope you do. Cuz, The OT testament commands you to do them

I did not write the Bible…what to do?

 

[Returning_Home]

The Church stated clearly it did not practice spiritual wifery. The correct term of what the Church practiced is polygny. What the Church never denied was plural marriage. These are not equivalent terms. It is similar to the difference bewteen montheism, polytheism, and henotheism.

You’re wrong here, too. From 1835 until 1876, D&C 101 read: “In as much as this church of Christ has been reproached witht he crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband…” (published as D&C 101:4 from 1935 to 1876 and was deleted with the 1876 edition because section 132 was added)

 

[zaffiroborant]

Nothing will kill the libido more for men than being married to several women. It is a real killer for sure.

Please provide references for this statement, otherwise it is nothing more than your opinion stated as fact.

 

[Returning_Home]

The OT has over 600 commandments. Are you telling me that you comply with every single one?

I hope you do. Cuz, The OT testament commands you to do them

I did not write the Bible…what to do?

Have you ever heard the joke about the Pharisees having black eyes? They were so determined to learn the letter of the law that they were constantly running into things because they read while they walked.

Is really true? I doubt it, but it shows that we aren’t to be concerned with the legalism of the Gospel but with the spirit in which we act and speak.

 

[why_me]

So there we have it, the church, lead by Jesus Christ in Salt Lake City, UT, has made it clear thay the prophet’s words are to be heeded, like it or not. And therefore, if the prophet said that the church was to no longer practice polygamy, it was clearly the word of God, not a suggestion. In fact, nowhere in GP do I find any possibility for the prophet to be wrong at all.

This, then, leads to the next point: if the LDS prophets speak for God and God’s edicts cannot and do not change, and the prophet cannot lead the church astray, why did Joseph F. Smith plead guilty to Utah’s anti-polygamy laws? How is this following the laws of the land? And why don’t the edicts of God apply to him?

You missed something. I think that this says it best:

Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Church was well-known for its polygamous practices. Despite increasing legal pressure, the members continued their practice of civil disobedience. The announcement of the Manifesto of 1890 introduced a new set of problems. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

It is clear from the record of history that Joseph Smith introduced the doctrine and practice of polygamy to a select few in the 1830s and 1840s, but it was not announced publicly by the church until the revelation was read aloud at a Church conference in Salt Lake City in 1852. It is also clear that during the federal prosecutions of the 1880s, numerous Church leaders and faithful members were pursued, arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for violations of various laws forbidding polygamy or cohabitation. Some wives were even sent to prison for refusing to testify against their husbands, my grandfather’s oldest sister being one of them.

It is also clear that polygamy did not end suddenly with the 1890 Manifesto. Polygamous relationships sealed before that revelation was announced continued for a generation. The performance of polygamous marriages also continued for a time outside the United States, where the application of the Manifesto was uncertain for a season. It appears that polygamous marriages also continued for about a decade in some other areas among leaders and members who took license for the ambiguities and pressures created by this high-level collision between resented laws and reverenced doctrines.8

fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html

The above site gives a very comprehensive overview of mormon polygamy.

 

[Returning_Home]

yes, tom, if only we could do that today. When our neighbors anger us, we can push them out and burn their homes or steal the property they left behind before burning their homes. Life would be great because they just ‘left’.

Or like what happened to sidney rigdon, we can take them out of their home, drag them down the street by their heels, and beat them senseless and leave them to die. I think that they might leave then. But I wouldn’t call it pushed, they just left. and in the process he was tarred and feathered…but yes, he did leave.

I’ll take this opportunity to say that I in no way, shape, or form condone what was done to Mormons. It is wrong, no matter what someone’s faith is.

That said, the persecution rests squarely on the shoulders of one man, without who it would not have happened: Joseph Smith. It’s a shame that the early Mormons didn’t realize this, suffering for what they erroneously believed to be the truth.

Was Smith murdered? Yes he was and that was absolutely positively wrong. He, however, brought it on himself.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Whyme, Or, you can go out and burn homes like the Danites did. Or, you can act firendly and then kill every man, woman and child…then blame it on other people

 

[why_me]

Please provide references for this statement, otherwise it is nothing more than your opinion stated as fact.

Unless the guy is a super stud, he will certainly get tired. Not to mention the attempt to make several women sexually happy. And we need to remember that the men were not always young. As time moved on, and they got older, more problems develop with the body. Most men will understand where I am coming from. Back then, there was no viagra. And the ability to keep all the wives happy, well, that is also stressful and stress can kill the libido.

 

[paulp1002]

The ten percent tithe comes from the bible. And many churches are attempting to implement it because of the financial trouble they are in. It is too bad that the catholic church does not require it. The churches would be better off if they did and catholics would follow it. If god says give 10 percent and the person will be blessed, well, god does not lie.

My parish actually takes 10% tithe, however they don’t require it from every person to secure their salvation, they take 10% from the total offerings of the parish.

Which I believe is the better way to go. If someone is strugglng financially, they don’t have to worry about their salvation because they can’t afford the 10% tithe of the income, instead they can give what they can afford. God is not greedy.

 

[paulp1002]

Whyme, Or, you can go out and burn homes like the Danites did. Or, you can act firendly and then kill every man, woman and child…then blame it on other people

i.e…, Mountain Shadows Massacre

 

[Returning_Home]

You missed something. I think that this says it best:

Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Church was well-known for its polygamous practices. Despite increasing legal pressure, the members continued their practice of civil disobedience. The announcement of the Manifesto of 1890 introduced a new set of problems. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

It is clear from the record of history that Joseph Smith introduced the doctrine and practice of polygamy to a select few in the 1830s and 1840s, but it was not announced publicly by the church until the revelation was read aloud at a Church conference in Salt Lake City in 1852. It is also clear that during the federal prosecutions of the 1880s, numerous Church leaders and faithful members were pursued, arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for violations of various laws forbidding polygamy or cohabitation. Some wives were even sent to prison for refusing to testify against their husbands, my grandfather’s oldest sister being one of them.

It is also clear that polygamy did not end suddenly with the 1890 Manifesto. Polygamous relationships sealed before that revelation was announced continued for a generation. The performance of polygamous marriages also continued for a time outside the United States, where the application of the Manifesto was uncertain for a season. It appears that polygamous marriages also continued for about a decade in some other areas among leaders and members who took license for the ambiguities and pressures created by this high-level collision between resented laws and reverenced doctrines.8

fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html

The above site gives a very comprehensive overview of mormon polygamy.

With that quote, it’s pretty clear that someone is pretending to be a martyr because I don’t know of anyone that claim polygamy to be an act of civil disobedience. Frankly, that disgusts me because it equates the Civil Rights struggle of the 1960s with Mormon sex.

I also see that you’re now heading in the direction of claiming that polygamy was a limited practice, like Gordon B. Hinckley tried to pass off as fact to Larry King. In reality, this isn’t true. My wife’s family converted to LDS in England in the 1860s and moved to America, ending up as miners in Wyoming. In her white hardback geneology book, the one with the circle of Mormon temples on the cover, shows that there were three polygamists in her family. They had two, three, and four wives respectively.

Not only that, but since we already know that the prophet speaks for God, that his words are to be followed without question, and that he can never lead the church astray, we know that polygamy is essential for exaltation: “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy…” (Brigham Young, JOD 11:269, Aug 19, 1866)

 

[Returning_Home]

fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html

The above site gives a very comprehensive overview of mormon polygamy.

I’ve already read through that several times. The question is this: why would I ask FAIR the reasons that the church is what it claims to be? That’s the same thing as me asking Tom Cruise why Scientology is correct; both have reasons to lie and that is to protect their own interests and views.

 

[paulp1002]

I also see that you’re now heading in the direction of claiming that polygamy was a limited practice, like Gordon B. Hinckley tried to pass off as fact to Larry King. In reality, this isn’t true. My wife’s family converted to LDS in England in the 1860s and moved to America, ending up as miners in Wyoming. In her white hardback geneology book, the one with the circle of Mormon temples on the cover, shows that there were three polygamists in her family. They had two, three, and four wives respectively.

My ex-wife’s mom told us a story about how her grandparents moved from Utah to Mexico so they can still practice polygamy. If I remember correctly, they didn’t agree with the church changing their stance on polygamy just because the US Govt made them.

 

[why_me]

Whyme, Or, you can go out and burn homes like the Danites did. Or, you can act firendly and then kill every man, woman and child…then blame it on other people

The danites were organized to defend mormons after all the house burnings and murders commited by the mobs. You need to read the history of the danites in the lds church. Joseph Smith was not happy with them because of their excesses. However, without the persecutions the mormons experienced, there would be no danites.

Background

The Danites were a brotherhood of church members that formed in Far West, Missouri in mid-1838. By this point in time, the Saints had experienced serious persecution, having been driven out of Kirtland by apostates, and driven out of Jackson County by mobs. Sidney Rigdon was publicly preaching that the Saints would not tolerate any more persecution, and that both apostates and mobs would be put on notice. The Danite organization took root within this highly charged and defensive environment.

The Danites are sometimes confused with the “Armies of Israel,” which was the official defensive organization that was tasked with defending the Saints. This is complicated by the fact that members of the Danite organization also served in the “Armies of Israel.”

en.fairmormon.org/Danites

Notice how the apostates drove the saints out of kirkland. It is usually the apostates that become the greatest enemy of the lds church. It is hard for them to reconcile their apostacy. Not much as changed since that time. But not all apostates becomes enemies. But that few that do, attempt to sow trouble for the lds.

 

[Javl]

originally Posted by zerinus
Receiving testimonies and bearing testimonies is not part of the Catholic tradition. The Catholic Church does not tell people to read the Bible or the Catechism, pray about it, and accept it if the Holy Ghost tells you it is true. That is in the Mormon tradition, not the Catholic one.

Your statement about testimonies is true but you’re misinformed about the Bible and the Catechism. The one thing the Catholic Church does, both Eastern and Western, is to exhort its people to read and study the Bible and the Catechism and to pray before and after reading and studying them. As for the Holy Spirit, He is always in a Catholic’s prayers and the Catholic always depends upon Him for guidance. Whether or not they listen to Him is another story. I know I always do, and He has never let me go astray.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[why_me]

My parish actually takes 10% tithe, however they don’t require it from every person to secure their salvation, they take 10% from the total offerings of the parish.

Which I believe is the better way to go. If someone is strugglng financially, they don’t have to worry about their salvation because they can’t afford the 10% tithe of the income, instead they can give what they can afford. God is not greedy.

Your parishes idea is not a bad idea at all. I don’t pay tithing. But I know what the bible says. I remember when I and my exwife paid tithing when we were married. It was actually 20 percent of our income. And we were just average people. But I don’t remember us being in financial trouble at all. It was a struggle sometimes but we never had a money shortage. Maybe god was blessing us.

 

[why_me]

I’ll take this opportunity to say that I in no way, shape, or form condone what was done to Mormons. It is wrong, no matter what someone’s faith is.

That said, the persecution rests squarely on the shoulders of one man, without who it would not have happened: Joseph Smith. It’s a shame that the early Mormons didn’t realize this, suffering for what they erroneously believed to be the truth.

Was Smith murdered? Yes he was and that was absolutely positively wrong. He, however, brought it on himself.

You are almost there. But not quite. Mormons were in the frontier surrounded by frontier mentality. These people on the frontier were often not the smartest people. In fact, they had their prejudices and bigotry. Catholics would not fair well on the frontier also. The mormons were different and they did make mistakes. But because of difference they expeienced persecution. They also moved like swarms of bees into an area. This threatened the balance of power of local communities. Thus, the persecution.

It is easy to blame Joseph Smith if one thinks he is a conman. But…if one thinks that he is not a conman, how can he be blamed?

The indians were also forced out and as the frontier moved westward, the indians were also burned out and killed. Such was american frontier mentality. And I must say, that the protestant churches that existed at that time did nothing about it.