Mormonism, Polygamy, and Warren Jeffs

[Cowboy_Pete]

Matthew 22:23-30

23 That day some Sadducees – who deny that there is a resurrection – approached him and they put this question to him,

24 'Master, Moses said that if a man dies childless, his brother is to marry the widow, his sister-in-law, to raise children for his brother.

25 Now we had a case involving seven brothers; the first married and then died without children, leaving his wife to his brother;

26 the same thing happened with the second and third and so on to the seventh,

27 and then last of all the woman herself died.

28 Now at the resurrection, whose wife among the seven will she be, since she had been married to them all?’

29 Jesus answered them, 'You are wrong, because you understand neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

30 For at the resurrection men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven.

Notice in this passage a brother died before the woman married the next.

I’ve bolded verse 30 to point out the celestial marriage debate.

I understand how you interpret this to contradict our beliefs that a family can be sealed together forever. I’d love to tell you why we read it differently, but I’m not confident that I could do so without violating my promise not to proselytize. (Proselytizing comes as naturally to a Mormon as breathing, so I hope you appreciate my self-restraint ).

Do I understand correctly that you’re only offering this to contradict the eternal marriage doctrine, rather than to demonstrate an NT ban on polygamy?

The closest thing I know about to a ban on polygamy in the NT is the arguable rule in Timothy that a Bishop in the church should only have one wife.

 

[mwok]

I thought that the passage would answer your question about an earlier referrence than the council in question.

 

[KathleenGee]

Peter,

Don’t you know…that all those who endure in Christ will be together in heaven???

And many more people prejudged and precondemned…

Only God can judge…

In heaven, we only grow in our love for God and each other!

We don’t need a planet to ‘do it’!..

 

[mwok]

Pete,

I would love to hear your take on verse 30 of Matt 22.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Do I understand correctly that you’re only offering this to contradict the eternal marriage doctrine, rather than to demonstrate an NT ban on polygamy?

The closest thing I know about to a ban on polygamy in the NT is the arguable rule in Timothy that a Bishop in the church should only have one wife.

The New Testament confirms Catholic doctrine but is not its source. The Church didn’t read the NT and then decide what to teach! Catholic doctrine comes to us from Christ through His Apostles to His Church. The NT is based on the living, believing, teaching Church that wrote it, during the first Christian century.

The New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings.

And – I have brought this up on other threads and never get an answer from Mormons – since you believe that the Catholic Church became apostate at the end of the first century, and the New Testament was not selected, collected, canonized, and named until the very end of the fourth century, why do you accept as Scripture the writings of an “apostate” Church? :whacky:

The teachings against polygamy and against divorce and remarriage are from the lips of Christ. The OT also condemns polygamy. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” Genesis 2:24.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

:crying:

No!

The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage is eternal marriage, i.e. the doctrine that one is married for time and all eternity. That you can do monogamously.

Yes, the same chapter goes on to say that it’s OK, if the first wife consents, for a man to take a second wife, but there were other limits on that historically, and the practice has been suspended indefinitely.

A “fundamentalist mormon” is a contradiction in terms. Fundamentalism in its essence is anathema to everything that the church teaches.

This is Mormon revisionism. The new and everlasting covenant was plural marriage. Joseph placed no limits on himself or others. The number of documented wives Joseph had stood at 48, the last figures I saw. Others have suggested the number is closer or 66 or 67 living women, and 149 dead women were sealed to him after his death.

The teaching is still believed, but has been “suspended indefinitely” – until Mormons are able to turn the U.S. into a polygamous nation.

We’ve already examined “God’s” (Joseph’s) threats against Emma, Smith’s first wife, if she did not accept his many wives. She had already thrown Fanny Alger, the teenager JS was sleeping with, out of her house.

Mormonism is trying to shed its skin – the teachings of its past – and become mainstream Christian. But it can never be accepted as a Christian denomination because of its polytheism.

Believe what you want to believe; I’ve no objection – just don’t call it Christian.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I’ve never seen that fact in any LDS source, btw. mormons don’t fill up blogs with anti-Catholic attacks, misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine, and gloatings over various inconsistencies and failings; when we get together, we mostly talk about our own doctrine and lives. I thought it was general knowledge … I’ll fish for the source.

In any event, I didn’t mean it as an attack on the Catholic church; I was questioning whether polygamy is inherently “unchristian.” Where do you get that connection? How is polygamy, say, less Christian than divorce? When did your church ban polygamy, and based on what canonical authority?

My understanding is that even today you will allow polygamous families in Africa to be baptized, which is a more liberal policy than what’s in my church.

The attacks on the Catholic Church are endemic to the LDS. Everything your organization teaches flows from the myth of the alleged “great apostasy” that never happened. The “restored church” came from the mind of Joseph Smith, whose occupation was “glass looker” as stated in the court records of Bainbridge, NY, where he was found guilty of fraud in 1826 for telling people he could find buried treasure on their property by looking through a magic peepstone in his hat – for a fee.

I don’t want to offend you, but that’s the truth.

Jim Dandy

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

This is Mormon revisionism. The new and everlasting covenant was plural marriage.

Only inbred pligs and olks with a political axe to grind read section 132 that way. Folks that can actually read realize that everlasting means everlasting, not plural. .

The number of documented wives Joseph had stood at 48, the last figures I saw.

And can you actually prove that more than 4 of them were actually sealed to Joseph during his lifetime? As opposed to female wannabes getting themselves sealed to him after his death?

The teaching is still believed, but has been “suspended indefinitely” – until Mormons are able to turn the U.S. into a polygamous nation.

Ri-ight. Think harder. And you reckon that we’re fighting tooth and nail against same-sex marriage, why exactly? Someone with a basic understanding of law and politics want to explain law 101 to this guy? Please read the following slowly and think about it: **If we wanted legal polygamy, all we’d have to do is sit on our hands and let the country eliminate every restriction on marriage. **

Believe what you want to believe; I’ve no objection – just don’t call it Christian.

Stop the brainwashing, Jim.

The attacks on the Catholic Church are endemic to the LDS.

Yes, our very existence is a personal threat to you.

 

[mwok]

Only inbred pligs and olks with a political axe to grind read section 132 that way. Folks that can actually read realize that everlasting means everlasting, not plural. .

And can you actually prove that more than 4 of them were actually sealed to Joseph during his lifetime? As opposed to female wannabes getting themselves sealed to him after his death?

Ri-ight. Think harder. And you reckon that we’re fighting tooth and nail against same-sex marriage, why exactly? Someone with a basic understanding of law and politics want to explain law 101 to this guy? Please read the following slowly and think about it: **If we wanted legal polygamy, all we’d have to do is sit on our hands and let the country eliminate every restriction on marriage. **

Stop the brainwashing, Jim.

Yes, our very existence is a personal threat to you.

Pete,

please understand that alot of us Catholics that post in these mormon threads, like myself, used to be mormon and can read passages as they are written. I’ve had others read D&C 132 in its entirety and for the most part females are offended by it and the rest have no idea what JS is trying to say. I can assure you that as a former mormon I know what its like to have a passage pointed out to me, to have that dreaded gut feeling of “okay, how do I explain this so they will understand that it doesn’t mean what they say it means”, then to push all those feelings of doubt away with “my testimony” at the next sacrament meeting. We aren’t here to bash your beliefs, we are here because we were where you are and now see the mormon faith for what it is from a “birds-eye” view. But I know that you probably don’t see it that way, rather that you are protected by the Spirit from false doctrine and that the truth is being hidden from us by that same Spirit because we reject “the truth”.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I’ve had others read D&C 132 in its entirety and for the most part females are offended by it and the rest have no idea what JS is trying to say.

Yes, there’s a lot of stuff in section 132 that really bothers and offends me. That doesn’t change the fact that pretending that “everlasting” means polygamy instead of everlasting, is a crock of rubbish that only an inbred plig could believe in. So please stop trying to change the subject to distract that someone’s been caught in an obvious fib.

I’m not crazy about Lot offering to turn his daughters over to a rape mob, either. Or Sarah kicking Hagar and Ishmael out to die in the desert. Or Abraham having to show God that he was willing to commit an atrocity to prove his faith. I’m not even sure I’m supposed to feel comfortable with these things. And yet Genesis is my favorite book of scripture other than the Gospels.

 

[mwok]

Yes, there’s a lot of stuff in section 132 that really bothers and offends me. That doesn’t change the fact that pretending that “everlasting” means polygamy instead of everlasting, is a crock of rubbish that only an inbred plig could believe in. So please stop trying to change the subject to distract that someone’s been caught in an obvious fib.

I’m not crazy about Lot offering to turn his daughters over to a rape mob, either. Or Sarah kicking Hagar and Ishmael out to die in the desert. Or Abraham having to show God that he was willing to commit an atrocity to prove his faith. I’m not even sure I’m supposed to feel comfortable with these things. And yet Genesis is my favorite book of scripture other than the Gospels.

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. I’m not sure what you are getting at with the OT referrences, and I would also appreciate if you would stop using words such as “inbred plig”.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Yes, the word everlasting appears a few times in D&C 132. However,

However nothing. Nice try to change the subject again, but the issue was, does the term “everlasting marriage” mean polygamy That’s what Jim Dandy said:

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy View Post
This is Mormon revisionism. The new and everlasting covenant was plural marriage…

Need to see it again? Here it is:
Jim Dandy:

The new and everlasting covenant was plural marriage.

I pointed out the obvious fact that “everlasting” means everlasting, i.e. refers to the LDS doctrine of marriage for eternity.

Then you hopped in waving the magic exmormon wand, trying to change the subject. Sorry, I’m not budging until you acknowledge the obvious. Everlasting means everlasting. Everlasting does not mean plural.

if you would stop using words such as “inbred plig”.

Nice. If you can’t handle the truth, declare it offensive. Is there anyone on this forum other than myself who had polygamous ancestors? My great-great-grandmothers got into plural marriage in order to give their kids a father after their husbands died. They did NOT do it in order to gain eternal life.

The original LDS polygamists didn’t teach that polygamy was necessary to be saved. It’s only the modern inbred ones that teach that.

Comparing the original pligs to the modern ones is like comparing the Donner Party survivors to Jeffrey Dahmer.

 

[mwok]

However nothing. Nice try to change the subject again, but the issue was, does the term “everlasting marriage” mean polygamy That’s what Jim Dandy said:

Need to see it again? Here it is:

I pointed out the obvious fact that “everlasting” means everlasting, i.e. refers to the LDS doctrine of marriage for eternity.

Then you hopped in waving the magic exmormon wand, trying to change the subject. Sorry, I’m not budging until you acknowledge the obvious. Everlasting means everlasting. Everlasting does not mean plural.

Nice. If you can’t handle the truth, declare it offensive. Is there anyone on this forum other than myself who had polygamous ancestors? My great-great-grandmothers got into plural marriage in order to give their kids a father after their husbands died. They did NOT do it in order to gain eternal life.

The original LDS polygamists didn’t teach that polygamy was necessary to be saved. It’s only the modern inbred ones that teach that.

Comparing the original pligs to the modern ones is like comparing the Donner Party survivors to Jeffrey Dahmer.

Okay, I admit:

Everlasting means everlasting.

But that’s not what D&C 132 is about.

I don’t know why you fly to such a rage, but change your attitude or get reported.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Okay, I admit: Everlasting means everlasting.

But then the other shoe drops:

But that’s not what D&C 132 is about.

D&C 132 is about a number of things. Up through verse 33, it’s about the eternal duration of marriage. That’s the everlasting covenant of marriage without which mormons believe there is no exaltation in what Paul calls the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:2). Beyond that, I don’t like it much, and doesn’t relate to us since the Official Proclamation.
**There is no mention of polygamy until verse 34. **

you fly to such a rage,

Rage? My wife thought the Donner to Dahmer analogy was hilarious. Ask SteveVM to explain it to you … he seems to get my jokes.

I don’t know why

You brag of being an exmo and you don’t understand why it annoys me when people equating my ancestors to Warren Jeff’s Inbred pligs? Well think about it. And read what I said.

but change your attitude or get reported.

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.

 

[mwok]

But then the other shoe drops:

D&C 132 is about a number of things. Up through verse 33, it’s about the eternal duration of marriage. That’s the everlasting covenant of marriage without which mormons believe there is no exaltation in what Paul calls the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:2). Beyond that, I don’t like it much, and doesn’t relate to us since the Official Proclamation.

But there is some misinformation in D&C 132

 

[mwok]

But then the other shoe drops:

D&C 132 is about a number of things. Up through verse 33, it’s about the eternal duration of marriage. That’s the everlasting covenant of marriage without which mormons believe there is no exaltation in what Paul calls the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:2). Beyond that, I don’t like it much, and doesn’t relate to us since the Official Proclamation.

But there is some misinformation in D&C 132:34-35

Apparently God commanded Abraham to take Hagar as a wife. That is incorrect, Sarah told Abraham to take Hagar, because she doubted God which was why Ishmail was not the “firstborn”. Otherwise Islam would have a legitimate case as being the true faith from Abraham’s firstborn. Isaac was firstborn because he was the child promised to Abraham and Sarah, if they would act in faith.

 

[mwok]

I apologize for the double post. I hit the submit button by accident.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied mwok, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered mwok, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?

“If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken–”



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.

 

[mwok]

My understanding of those passages is that whenever Jesus quotes the scriptures to the Pharisees he is usually mocking them.

In the passage you quoted he his mocking them of their misuse of their authority as judges, which was also called god with a little g.

And by what do you mean by rant? Have I said anything intentionally insulting? Have I thrown any durogatory comments in my posts?

On the other hand, all I have received from you are backhanded compliments. And I don’t appreciate it at all.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

My understanding of those passages is that whenever Jesus quotes the scriptures to the Pharisees he is usually mocking them.

In the passage you quoted he his mocking them of their misuse of their authority as judges, which was also called god with a little g.

What does judges have to do with being children of the most high?