Mormonism, Polygamy, and Warren Jeffs

[mwok]

I don’t know what judging has to do with children of the most high, but Jesus quoted two titles: Judges(gods) and children of the most high. I was addressing the title of “gods”.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

and you think that makes sense in the context that Jesus was responding to?

 

[Stephen168]

In the Mormon scripture, Doctrine & Covenants, Section 132, the introduction says: “Revelation given through Joseph Smith . . . relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives.”

D&C 132:4 - For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

Yes, the word everlasting appears a few times in D&C 132. However, reading it as a whole shows that JS is “receiving a revelation” warning ES that she had better accept all that are given to JS under pain of eternal damnation.

Also when read as a whole it shows that what all is given is eternal marriage AND polygamous marriage. The Brighamites decided Joseph Smith was wrong on the polygamy part.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Also when read as a whole it shows that what all is given is eternal marriage AND polygamous marriage.

Only to the extent that eternal marriage allows polygamous marriage. Only the the modern inbred pligs interpret section 132 as saying that you have to actually be a plig to get to heaven.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Seriously, Jesus was quoting the psalms “ye are gods, and children of the most high”

I can only infer that smaller-case “gods” means someone who has surrendered his or her will to God, and is one in mind with Him. Knows Him as he is known. I reckon that it means the same thing when John says “joint heirs with Christ.”

What’s your understanding of those Bible scriptures?

I’m curious if you’re capable of having a conversation about the Bible without going onto a mormon rant.

No, that’s not what “gods” means.

As Mwok wrote, it is a reference to the judges of Israel. The judges were called ‘gods’ by the Jews because they they had the right and the authority to judge – and these were divine prerogatives. (See Deuteronomy 1:17, Exodus 21:6, and Psalm 82:6 from which this citation in John 10:34-35 was taken: “I say, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.’”)

Again, the New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings. And again, a Mormon refuses to answer the question or ignores it. I’ll ask it again. Since you claim the Catholic Church became “apostate” at the end of the first century, and since the New Testament was not selected, collected, canonized and named until the very end of the fourth century, why do you accept the writings of an “apostate” Church as your Scripture?

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Only to the extent that eternal marriage allows polygamous marriage. Only the the modern inbred pligs interpret section 132 as saying that you have to actually be a plig to get to heaven.

What does “modern inbred pligs” mean?

Joseph Smith made polygamy a condition of ‘exaltation’ and getting to the highest heaven (as if there were more than one), thus polygamy was ‘everlasting.’ “Abide the law or be damned,” he said (D&C 132:6). It’s practiced in the Mormon afterlife, where Mormon males who have become Gods rule over their own kingdom and produce spirit children with their goddess wives (plural).

Warren Jeffs and his followers were/are living the original teachings of Joseph Smith, the Woodruff Manifesto notwithstanding.

Jim Dandy

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

What does “modern inbred pligs” mean?

Joseph Smith made polygamy a condition of ‘exaltation’ and getting to the highest heaven

Not true.

thus polygamy was ‘everlasting.’

According to section 132, only plural marriages sealed in the temple might be everlasting.

According to section 132 Monogamous marriages sealed in the temple are also everlasting.

This is all very obvious and AFAIK only the inbred pligs read it differently.

Section 132 also says specifically that the man cannot take plural wives unless the first wife consents. If Emma accepted plural wives (indeed the accounts claim that she actually chose some of Joseph’s wives for him) and then rejected them later, I believe that would be wrong.

Surely some Catholics on this board can sympathize with my position that marriage isn’t just something you can take back because you got cold feet after the fact.

Those issues notwithstanding, I’ve already said that I’m not comfortable with the language addressed to Emma in Section 132, and I can’t give a satisfactory answer. It seems to flout the language of Section 121:

… there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned…

If I was here to convert you, that would be a problem. Since I’m not, I can only ask that you consider the LDS folks that you know, and ask yourselves if you see your male LDS friends treating their wives this way. If your female LDS friends are doormats.

Some folks make a big deal about the LDS church emphasizing motherhood to women, and it does, and it also emphasizes fatherhood to men. Much beloved prophet David O McKay was speaking to the men of the church when he said: “No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” I don’t think that any of the motherhood stuff has been worded that strongly. An LDS feminist friend of mine had a big eye opener when she came and listened to a priesthood conference (they are online). She came away saying, without any reservation, that she was delighted to hear that the church leaders speak to the men that way.

One of the great spiritual poets of the LDS community, Sister Carol Lynn Pearson, wrote that “it takes two generations of women to civilize a man.” My wife is still working on me.

What does “modern inbred pligs” mean?

It refers to the folks that you seem to be plugging for:

Warren Jeffs and his followers were/are living the original teachings of Joseph Smith

I hope Mr. Jeffs is paying you well for your PR campaign, you plig-plugger.

So I take it that you don’t think that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon? Otherwise, wouldn’t the BoM be “Joseph Smith’s original teachings”? Section 132 was written 11 months before JS’ death. The BoM was translated more than a decade before that.

 

[Stephen168]

What does “modern inbred pligs” mean?

A pejorative used to “poison the well”.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

A pejorative used to “poison the well”.

Stephen168, I assure you that Warren Jeffs’ well was poisoned before I ever came around. Drink at your own risk.

Cheers.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168, I assure you that Warren Jeffs’ well was poisoned before I ever came around. Drink at your own risk.

Cheers.

A poisoned-well fallacy has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. (e.g., “Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he is an inbred polygamist.”)

1. Implicit conclusion: “Therefore, any claims made by person A cannot be relied upon”.

A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, **"That's my stance on D&C 132, and anyone who disagrees with me is an inbred polygamist."**) Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

In answer to Cowboy Pete’s previous question:

The Wives of Joseph Smith (one of several lists):

wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Emma Hale - Jan 1827
Fanny Alger - 1833
Lucinda Morgan Harris - 1838
Louisa Beaman - Apr 1841
Zina Huntington Jacobs - Oct 1841
Presendia Huntington Buell - Dec 1841
Agnes Coolbrith - Jan 1842
Sylvia Sessions Lyon - Feb 1842
Mary Rollins Lightner - Feb 1842
Patty Bartlett Sessions - Mar 1842
Marinda Johnson Hyde - Jun 1842
Elizabeth Davis Durfee - Jun 1842
Sarah Kingsley Cleveland - Jul 1842
Delcena Johnson - Jun 1842
Eliza R. Snow - Jul 1842
Sarah Ann Whitney - Aug 1842
Martha McBride Knight - Feb 1843
Ruth Vose Sayers - Spring 1843
Flora Ann Woodworth - Mar 1843
Emily Dow Partridge - Mar 1843
Eliza Maria Partridge - Apr 1843
Almera Johnson - May 1843
Lucy Walker - May 1843
Sarah Lawrence - May 1843
Maria Lawrence - May 1843
Helen Mar Kimball - Mid 1843
Hanna Ells - Jun 1843
Elvira Cowles Holmes - Jun 1843
Rhoda Richards - Jul 1843
Desdemona Fullmer - Mid 1843
Olive Frost - Sep 1843
Melissa Lott - 1843
Nancy Winchester - 1843
Fanny Young - Nov 1843

Joseph Smith can’t be charged with age discrimination! According to this list (and there are others, with more wives), his wives were ages 14 to 56.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

A pejorative used to “poison the well”.

Stephen, thanks!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I hope Mr. Jeffs is paying you well for your PR campaign, you plig-plugger.

So I take it that you don’t think that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon? Otherwise, wouldn’t the BoM be “Joseph Smith’s original teachings”? Section 132 was written 11 months before JS’ death. The BoM was translated more than a decade before that.

Name-calling is juvenile. I invite you to cease and desist.

You ask, don’t you think that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon?

Let me ask you,

Are we to believe that over a thousand years before the KJV in English existed, the prophet Mormon carefully engraved on the golden plates a translation of the KJV into “Reformed Egyptian”? Does it seem likely that passages on the gollden plates would appear in their 16th century English translation in a language style and phraseology exactly identical to the English used for the King James translation? The KJV was produced in London in 1611. Moroni, the last survivor of the Nephite race, is supposed to have buried the plates in a hill in Western New York around 425 A.D. – l,186 years before the KJV existed! And the plates were so valuable, they were taken to heaven by an angel, so (of course) they can’t be examined. And while on earth they were so precious, no human – other than Joseph Smith – could see them, or God would strike them dead.

In additon to the language and phraseology of the BoM being copied from the KJV, an estimated 10% is a direct quote or a paraphrase from it.



Joe Smith’s “revelations” about polygamy occurred after the BoM was supposedly “translated.” The D&C gives the date of the “revelation” as 1831, though it was not “recorded” until July 12, 1843. The BoM was published in 1830.

Jim Dandy

 

[PaulDupre]

Milk that system, mwok. But eventually folks are going to wonder about the sheer number of people claiming to be exmo Catholics on this site. Heck, if the XmoCat:Catholic proportions on this site held true for the whole Catholic population, we would have run out of Mormons decades ago.

Now he’s calling us liars. I’ll have you know, Pete, that the ex-Mos on this forum really are. I am one of them.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[BartBurk]

Now he’s calling us liars. I’ll have you know, Pete, that the ex-Mos on this forum really are. I am one of them.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that ex-Mormon Catholics like us are more likely to be commenting on Mormon questions than Catholics who aren’t ex-Mormon. Most Catholics don’t think about Mormonism unless they have Mormon relatives or live in Mormon country.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Now he’s calling us liars. I’ll have you know, Pete, that the ex-Mos on this forum really are.

I imagine many of them are. Some of them make very accurate statements about our doctrine and community. Others, not so accurate. I don’t recall calling you a liar. Nor do I remember you parroting the Evangelical anti-cult script. Or calling Mormons liars when they represent their own religious beliefs.

JimDandy:

an estimated 10% is a direct quote or a paraphrase from it.

Yes, I’ve seen Chabadniks accuse Jesus of plagiarizing the Old Testament, too.

JimDandy:

Name-calling is juvenile. I invite you to cease and desist.

I invite you to stop plugging for notorious pedophile Warren Jeffs. Remember what Jesus said about people that harm little children? Think about the company you keep. You may hate me, but are you willing to sink so low as to promote Warren Jeffs, just to spite me?

 

[hosemonkey]

Now he’s calling us liars. I’ll have you know, Pete, that the ex-Mos on this forum really are. I am one of them.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

And no matter how they twist and turn, mormons are still faced with the fact that they are the victims of a scam, with a false “prophet”, false and manufactured “scriptures”, a false “religion” that has and continues to dupe the gullible. A confidence game of monumental proportions. And in spite of mainstream mormonism’s protestations, the Old Men of Salt Lake City know that Warren Jeffs and his ilk have just carried mormonism to it’s logical conclusion. If Utah statehood had not been the issue, mormons would still be practicing the “true faith” as outlined by JS and Brigham Young.

 

[KathleenGee]

These last posts reflect why I pray for the good Mormon people…even their scholars lie in misinterpreting Catholic teachings to them and refuse to use our Bibles.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, I’ve seen Chabadniks accuse Jesus of plagiarizing the Old Testament, too.

Which part of the New Testament did your Chabadnik friend claim Jesus wrote?
And how does it change what Joseph Smith did?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

These last posts reflect why I pray for the good Mormon people…even their scholars lie in misinterpreting Catholic teachings to them and refuse to use our Bibles.

Thank you again for your prayers, sister Kathleen. I’m praying really hard right now that someone will grant my request for a link to a good online Catholic Bible that I can read.

God bless,

Peter