Polygamy.....I Now Pronounce You Man and Wives

[RebeccaJ]

I agree. I don’t think a believing Latter-day Saint would have a problem with JS.

I’m sorry but that isn’t logical at all.

“Joe” and “Joey” and other such names are certainly uncharitable and demeaning, whether or not he was a fraud/liar/or whatever, since he still is considered to have been the founder of the Mormon faith and is revered by them as a prophet (regardless of whether or not he is) and religious leader. I think it’s common courtesy to refer to him as Joseph Smith, Joseph, or Smith (or JS) when discoursing with believing members of that faith, in accordance with the rules of this forum. I can see why someone would want to stop dialoguing with another if an important religious figure in their faith is demeaned as such. The same goes for religious figures in other faiths, whether it’s Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Witchcraft, or whatever. Especially if you’re trying to “plant a seed”, I think this is simple thing to do. I don’t think that’s too much to ask, and I don’t see why 3+ pages were spent discussing that.

it reminds me of Islam and Mohammed. I wonder how long it will take for LDS to take protection of their prophet to the extreme. It would make sense to do so.

Painting Smith translaing golden plates as he did, looking at rocks in a hat, would be a no no because it is diarespctful to the prophet.

There is such a thing as taking respect too far. For some of us, when it comes to Smith, any amount of respect is too much.

It’s taken up three pages because there are valid points to both sides.

 

[TexanKnight]

Right. I have referred to Pope John Paul and Pope JPII, and to the Holy Spirit as HS!

Shorthand is not the problem.

Point: If someone who is a guest here has very politely asked that we not refer to Joseph Smith as “Joe”, it seems the charitable thing to do. Especially when it is clearly being done as a form of disrespect, despite protestations to the contrary. “You want me to show respect for him. But I’m going to use his common given name!”

As I said, I never use the term “Protestant” as a pejorative. It is simply an understood label for any non-Catholic Christian. But if someone here asks me not to use it, well, I don’t use it with him.

It’s the nice thing to do.

And if there were a Catholic here on the forum who continued to use it with this Protestant, esp. if this Catholic were tussling with the Protestant, you can better believe I’d stand up for the polite Protestant, no matter how contrary his theology was.

While I applaud you for your beliefs on morality, I do not agree that it is your job to shove your ideals down anyone’s throats. If you have not been LDS, been harassed by them, or had an attempted kidnapping of your children, your ideals have not been tested.

This thread was about polgamy, We allowed a Mormon, who NEVER complained about Joe before, to make his comments, stop posting, and watch the polygamy thread be destroyed.

We all get you feel. I will not change you. You get how I feel. You will not change me. isn’t it time to move on and get back to the OP?

 

[PRmerger]

While I applaud you for your beliefs on morality, I do not agree that it is your job to shove your ideals down anyone’s throats.

Please stop the disrespectful tone.

“Shoving your ideals” is an inflammatory phrase and is not useful for fruitful dialogue.

We allowed a Mormon, who NEVER complained about Joe before, to make his comments, stop posting, and watch the polygamy thread be destroyed

'Tis a shame. Would that you had simply said, “If it is offensive to you for me to call him ‘Joe’ I will stop, so we can continue to dialogue.” Perhaps all of this could have been avoided.

 

[scipio337]

Don’t we mean “Polygyny”??

As far as I can tell, God never commanded gals to marry multiple guys. But wouldn’t what’s good for the gander also be good for the goose?

 

[TexanKnight]

Please stop the disrespectful tone.

“Shoving your ideals” is an inflammatory phrase and is not useful for fruitful dialogue.

'Tis a shame. Would that you had simply said, “If it is offensive to you for me to call him ‘Joe’ I will stop, so we can continue to dialogue.” Perhaps all of this could have been avoided.

perhaps. Or, after making your point, had you not continued to try to force your ideals down my throat, it could have been avoided,

Respect is earned. Joe has not earned mine.

 

[TexanKnight]

Now, back to our Op

Polygamy was probably a significant factor in the Utah War of 1857 and 1858, given the Republican attempts to paint Democratic President James Buchanan as weak in his opposition to both polygamy and slavery. In 1862, the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories (including Utah) and dis-incorporated the church.[3] In spite of the law, Mormons continued to practice polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States,[6] the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices.”[3]
In 1890, church president Wilford Woodruff issued a Manifesto that officially terminated the practice of polygamy.[7] Although this Manifesto did not dissolve existing plural marriages, relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state. After the Manifesto, some Mormons continued to enter into polygamous marriages, but these eventually stopped in 1904 when church president Joseph F. Smith disavowed polygamy before Congress and issued a “Second Manifesto” calling for all plural marriages in the church to cease.

 

[TexanKnight]

Today’s LDS Church would desperately want the world to think it no longer believes in polygamy. Whenever possible, LDS spokespeople always state that the LDS Church no longer practices polygamy and excommunicates those within the LDS Church who practice it. It repeatedly informs the media that the LDS Church discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890.

However, despite all the talk of the 1890 Manifesto and excommunication, the LDS Church has NEVER renounced polygamy. Far from it, the LDS Church today continues to permit men to marry subsequent wives in LDS temples. Many of these subsequent marriages are sealings � intended to endure throughout eternity. Although the LDS Church does not permit cohabitation of a man with more than one wife, the LDS Church teaches that men sealed in LDS temples to more than one woman today will practice polygamy throughout eternity.

mormoncurtain.com/topic_polygamy_section2.html

 

[NeuroTypical]

Today’s LDS Church would desperately want the world to think it no longer believes in polygamy.

I don’t think that’s true. If you go to mormon.org, or lds.org, or places where mormons hang out and post, and search about polygamy, you will not find refutation of the practice. You’ll just find “we used to do that, then God ended the practice”. We continue to accept it as part of our history.

I could cut and paste a bunch of stuff from church leaders on the subject, but folks can go find it themselves easy enough.

However, despite all the talk of the 1890 Manifesto and excommunication, the LDS Church has NEVER renounced polygamy. Far from it, the LDS Church today continues to permit men to marry subsequent wives in LDS temples. Many of these subsequent marriages are sealings � intended to endure throughout eternity. Although the LDS Church does not permit cohabitation of a man with more than one wife, the LDS Church teaches that men sealed in LDS temples to more than one woman today will practice polygamy throughout eternity.

All true. And pretty much what I said in post 20 in this thread.

I find it important that people understand the difference between wierd mormon stuff that is true, and wierd mormon stuff that is false. Our views on, and history of, polygamy, is true. Of course, not everything people tell you about LDS polygamy is true, and there’s a lot of assuming motives and guessing at reasons with which I disagree. From my standpoint, if you’re a believing Christian of any stripe, looking for ammo to use in your arguments against my church, there’s enough real stuff to be found in our history and doctrines that there’s no reason to make anything up.

 

[TexanKnight]

I don’t think that’s true. If you go to mormon.org, or lds.org, or places where mormons hang out and post, and search about polygamy, you will not find refutation of the practice. You’ll just find “we used to do that, then God ended the practice”. We continue to accept it as part of our history.

I could cut and paste a bunch of stuff from church leaders on the subject, but folks can go find it themselves easy enough.

All true. And pretty much what I said in post 20 in this thread.

I find it important that people understand the difference between wierd mormon stuff that is true, and wierd mormon stuff that is false. Our views on, and history of, polygamy, is true. Of course, not everything people tell you about LDS polygamy is true, and there’s a lot of assuming motives and guessing at reasons with which I disagree. From my standpoint, if you’re a believing Christian of any stripe, looking for ammo to use in your arguments against my church, there’s enough real stuff to be found in our history and doctrines that there’s no reason to make anything up.

the good things the LDS Church is we do not have to make anything up. Looking at the lds "rophets’ teachings and quotes a fertile grounds to showing they were not led by God.

As to polygamy, the deception is that the LDS Church likes to act like they are now against polygamy, when that is not true. They are simply against the PRACTICE of it. And polygamous sealings still go on in the temples…or at least, they did when I was temple goer…

 

[ffg]

You’ll just find “we used to do that, then God ended the practice”. We continue to accept it as part of our history.

I’m confused here. I thought someone wrote that the reason was because the church is specific about following the law of the land.

 

[TexanKnight]

I don’t think that’s true. If you go to mormon.org, or lds.org, or places where mormons hang out and post, and search about polygamy, you will not find refutation of the practice. You’ll just find “we used to do that, then God ended the practice”. We continue to accept it as part of our history.

Do you? Having read your current version of history, the roots and practices have been whitewashed a great deal.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s the thing when talking about Mormon polygamy, LDS don’t look to the actual practice, the rules that were in place and taught, the actions of leaders, but have a romanticized version.

I have Mormon polygamist ancestors. When the father of one family died, there were all the wives and children, left fatherless in the middle of freaking nowhere. They were scattered and divided among several different families who took them in. The wives becoming plural wives of another man, their children spread out among several different families, not with their mother’s.

While the Utah LDS church calls the FLDS “not Mormon”, they in fact are the living Mormon polygamy. The families are very fluid, and women and children are treated like property.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Don’t we mean “Polygyny”??

As far as I can tell, God never commanded gals to marry multiple guys. But wouldn’t what’s good for the gander also be good for the goose?

LDS do not address this at all when it is brought up.

 

[SteveVH]

NeuroTypical;10836703:

From my standpoint, if you’re a believing Christian of any stripe, looking for ammo to use in your arguments against my church, there’s enough real stuff to be found in our history and doctrines that there’s no reason to make anything up.

I agree completely. We have enough differences in our official doctrines (although I still have a problem discerning what actually is a Mormon doctrine) to carry on discussions until the end of time. No need to make things up or go to the fringe elements in order to find a topic or make a point.

 

[lynnettejane]

I don’t think that’s true. If you go to mormon.org, or lds.org, or places where mormons hang out and post, and search about polygamy, you will not find refutation of the practice. You’ll just find “we used to do that, then God ended the practice”. We continue to accept it as part of our history.

I could cut and paste a bunch of stuff from church leaders on the subject, but folks can go find it themselves easy enough.

All true. And pretty much what I said in post 20 in this thread.

I find it important that people understand the difference between wierd mormon stuff that is true, and wierd mormon stuff that is false. Our views on, and history of, polygamy, is true. Of course, not everything people tell you about LDS polygamy is true, and there’s a lot of assuming motives and guessing at reasons with which I disagree. From my standpoint, if you’re a believing Christian of any stripe, looking for ammo to use in your arguments against my church, there’s enough real stuff to be found in our history and doctrines that there’s no reason to make anything up.

Thanks NT, but how do you discern between the truth and falsehood. You know, one of the most wearisome things we hear from LDS is that those critics especially those who have gone into print are branded as liars. How many liars can there be, and when we hear this, it almost sounds hysterical. I would imagine almost all the contributors to Mormonthink for example are branded liars, especially Grant Palmer. Just what have they gained by lying, ok it could be argued that they have sold a book, but that is hardly compensation for losing friends and family, and having to accept that your heritage is based on falsehood. What are your thoughts?

 

[NeuroTypical]

but how do you discern between the truth and falsehood.

What, you mean about stuff you hear about mormons? You could find a knowledgeable mormon yout trust and ask them. Or find the occasional author that both ‘sides’ respect (for example, they tell me the book Rough Stone Rolling is pretty universally hailed by both LDS and critics).

You know, one of the most wearisome things we hear from LDS is that those critics especially those who have gone into print are branded as liars.

Having been branded a liar here on these forums a few times, I know how wearisome it can get.

But there’s a difference between hearing someone’s opinion about some published work, and reading a professional review. I don’t care whether people like or hate this or that church critic, I am more interested to see how their criticisms are addressed. If it’s an invalid criticism, I don’t really care if the person is lying, deluded, uncharitable, or just wrong, I am more interested to see the criticism addressed.

And after following and participating in LDS apologetics since the mid '90’s, I’ve pretty much heard it all. There is still the occasional new thing, but just about everything I’ve heard on this board, I’ve heard, researched, and resolved to my own satisfaction.

I would imagine almost all the contributors to Mormonthink for example are branded liars, especially Grant Palmer.

I don’t get Grant Palmer. The only thing I know about him, was his recent outlandish claim about how a General Authority comes to his house frequently, to talk about how all the apostles in my church know everything is a lie, but they keep quiet because they were each given a million dollars. That’s just goofy beyond goofy. Folks have done the research on which GA, based on his hints, and the story even gets goofier.

I don’t follow him closely enough to know why he said what he said. I don’t care if he’s a liar, deluded, wrong, etc. But I’ve researched and resolved his criticism - it falls into the same bucket as Krakauer’s claims about how Utah is so heavily inbred that a sizeable percentage of emergency room visits in SLC relate to congenital defects. Just not really worth a second glance.

Just what have they gained by lying, ok it could be argued that they have sold a book, but that is hardly compensation for losing friends and family, and having to accept that your heritage is based on falsehood. What are your thoughts?

I can’t really answer, because I really don’t know enough about the authors.

I know Chick Tracts are published against both Catholics and Mormons. I’m thinking whatever you folks’ response is to Jack Chick, is ok with me.

 

[NeuroTypical]

I agree completely. We have enough differences in our official doctrines (although I still have a problem discerning what actually is a Mormon doctrine) to carry on discussions until the end of time. No need to make things up or go to the fringe elements in order to find a topic or make a point.

Like accuse mormons of being liars, cowards, intentional deceivers, or deluded, brainwashed, brain dead, blind followers? I’d agree.

(I just noticed your location - maybe the air here in Colorado makes us more agreeable to valid disagreements.)

 

[twopekinguys]

But what do you call it when your church leaders put out a manifesto saying that polygamy would not be practiced, but yet, they admit to the Senate that it continued?

Intentional deception? Lying?

There has to be a description for it.

Even some of the so called prophets were guilting of doing it while it was supposedly banned.

I’ve already provided a link showing where your leadership admitted to disobeying the law and the manifesto.

 

[twopekinguys]

Having been branded a liar here on these forums a few times, I know how wearisome it can get.

Who’s called you a liar? Please provide a link.

 

[SteveVH]

But what do you call it when your church leaders put out a manifesto saying that polygamy would not be practiced, but yet, they admit to the Senate that it continued?

Intentional deception? Lying?

There has to be a description for it.

Even some of the so called prophets were guilting of doing it while it was supposedly banned.

I’ve already provided a link showing where your leadership admitted to disobeying the law and the manifesto.

I think it’s the broad brush approach that isn’t fair. I don’t believe that Mormon posters come here to lie to us. Yes, obviously I could not disagree with their theology more. The fact that some Mormons continued practicing polygamy after it was officially banned says something about those folks, but not all Mormons. I just think the dialogue runs a lot smoother if we can treat each other with some respect. It is the constant personal jabs, the “what’s the matter, are you afraid of me…” type language that is inappropriate and which does not lend itself to the purpose of this forum. Everyone just needs to lighten up a little and not use these forums as a mechanism to work out their own anger.