Why would anyone want to be a Mormon or Jehovah Witnesses? Part 2

[mathonihah]

That is interesting, that you doubt that the LDS church would not support the possible legalisation of polygamy. Why? Wouldn’t the church seize the opportunity to claim that God was working to restore it? No doubt there would be a convenient revelation from the prophet if that happened and heaven knows they are as rare as hen’s teeth nowadays. Maybe the LDS church realises that women are not the pushovers that they once were, and it could trigger widespread divorce, and even more members resigning, and a widespread feminist backlash and even more unwelcome controversy.

No, that is not the reason. The reason is that if polygamy was made legal in the US, it would have to be made legal for everybody, not just for Mormons, and that would leave it open to abuse.

As an aside, you might be interested to know that Martin Luther claimed polygamy was a legitimate biblical practice, and advocated it in one instance. I am no fan of Martin Luther; just saying that that if polygamy was made legal in the US, there would be nothing to prevent other Christians from practicing it based on biblical precedent.

 

[Nicea325]

No, that is not the reason. The reason is that if polygamy was made legal in the US, it would have to be made legal for everybody, not just for Mormons, and that would leave it open to abuse.

As an aside, you might be interested to know that Martin Luther claimed polygamy was a legitimate biblical practice, and advocated it in one instance. I am no fan of Martin Luther; just saying that that if polygamy was made legal in the US, there would be nothing to prevent other Christians from practicing it based on biblical precedent.

And if Luther claimed murder was a legitimate biblical practice and advocated it, does it truly make correct? You are one odd person…

 

[mathonihah]

But the race would have got started a whole lot quicker with a harem, and God was not restricted, he could have created such a harem, but maybe he was trying to tell us something.

If he had started a harem, how many should he have started? If he had made two, you would have said, Why didn’t he make three? If he had made three, you would have argued, Why didn’t he make four… So it looks like both God and Mormons cannot win.

 

[Nicea325]

If he had started a harem, how many should he have started? If he had made two, you would have said, Why didn’t he make three? If he had made three, you would have argued, Why didn’t he make four… So it looks like both God and Mormons cannot win.

Mormons at God’s level? I do not know who has more pride…Lucifer or Mormons?

 

[Stephen168]

If he had started a harem, how many should he have started? If he had made two, you would have said, Why didn’t he make three? If he had made three, you would have argued, Why didn’t he make four…
.

If he made two, he would have made a case for two, three a case for three, etc. Mormons can’t win because God only made one.

IFing is not a rational argument

 

[Nicea325]

If he made two, he would have made a case for two, three a case for three, etc. Mormons can’t win because God only made one.

IFing is not a rational argument

Let us not forget something here, Mormons want God to conform to their wacky man-made religion founded by a con man named Joey.

 

[TheIrishman]

If he had started a harem, how many should he have started? If he had made two, you would have said, Why didn’t he make three? If he had made three, you would have argued, Why didn’t he make four… So it looks like both God and Mormons cannot win.

for polygamy, the number of wives wouldn’t have mattered. The fact that it would have been more than 1 would be sufficient to justify the practice of polygamy.

You know that quote, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” the same can be applied here. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Eve’s.

 

[mathonihah]

That’s revisionist history.

An Illinois state law was enacted February 12, 1833, making all who practiced Mormon polygamy/polyandry in Illinois, criminals:

“Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within the State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offended shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years.” (Revised Laws of Illinois, Vandalia: Greiner & Sherman, 1833, pg. 198-199).

Young moved the polygamy-practicing Mormons from Illinois to Mexico in 1847. In 1848 the Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe was signed, which gave the United States ownership of what is now the state of Utah. This brought the Brighamite Mormons under U.S. law, which already included anti-bigamy laws.

Then you get into where TK posted regarding the Utah Mormon disregard for law. It was only when the US govt. began to seize assets of the LDS church that Young changed his mind, and decided that Mormons should follow the laws of the land. Up to that point, the concern for the laws of the land was how to best avoid prosecution for breaking them, by:

1. Avoid detection: Joseph Smith publicly denied he was practicing polygamy.
2. Move to a different land: Young moved his followers to Mexico
3. Disregard the law: Young declared that polygamy was a higher law which could not be bound by the state.

When the government makes laws, people have the right to disagree with and appeal against it, which is what the Church did, and finally accepted the decision of the Supreme Court.

 

[twopekinguys]

If he had started a harem, how many should he have started? If he had made two, you would have said, Why didn’t he make three? If he had made three, you would have argued, Why didn’t he make four… So it looks like both God and Mormons cannot win.

Well, you’re almost right, but mostly wrong, as usual.

The “mormon” god cannot win. The Christian God, now that’s a different story.

Where’s your red font?

 

[mathonihah]

Hmmm…well…if as you say, polygamy is a revealed principle from the Almighty God…why did the LDS not fight to keep this principle in place? Why did you not resist with all the LDS might to win over the goverment ruling banning polygamy?

As you say, with God’s approval of the practice, and with the grace of God…and with firm resistance and will, the LDS could have won have they continued the fight for polygamy.

But why did they give up?

They did it to abide by the law of the land; see my previous post.

 

[lynnettejane]

If he had started a harem, how many should he have started? If he had made two, you would have said, Why didn’t he make three? If he had made three, you would have argued, Why didn’t he make four… So it looks like both God and Mormons cannot win.

I expected a better reply than that…the point you are ignoring is that God did not give Adam a harem, just one woman, the example that Christians live by.

 

[pablope]

They did it to abide by the law of the land; see my previous post.

I understand what you posted…but if it was indeed a principle from God…why did the LDS not fight tooth and nail for it?

Why did you not resist? Did the LDS not trust God that God will not help them triumph in winning over the law of the land to their side, which is God’s side (as you claim)?

 

[TheIrishman]

They did it to abide by the law of the land; see my previous post.

Every member knows that didn’t stop the church from performing plural marriages. TexanKnight showed a very valid comment on the duration of the law being made against polygamy and when the church “officially” stopped practicing it.

you can’t ask others to see your previous posts and expect them to believe it when someone else debunks your previous posts and asks for an explanation.

 

[TheIrishman]

I understand what you posted…but if it was indeed a principle from God…why did the LDS not fight tooth and nail for it?

Why did you not resist? Did the LDS not trust God that God will not help them triumph in winning over the law of the land to their side, which is God’s side (as you claim)?

Isn’t there some quote that states that the laws of God outweigh the laws of man?

 

[twopekinguys]

They did it to abide by the law of the land; see my previous post.

It doesn’t appear as though they did abide by the law now does it?

“But before that, I’ll summarize the public position of the L.D.S. Church from 1890 to 1907. In September of 1890, the Manifesto of Wilford Woodruff officially ends the practice of plural marriage and unauthorized new plural marriages. In October, the General Conference sustained that. In October 1891, the First Presidency testified in court and at stake conferences and in the Deseret News, that the Manifesto prohibited new plural marriages, but it also prohibited cohabitation with plural wives married before the Manifesto, and that this applied anywhere in the world, and that any Church member who violated either one of these prohibitions either marrying new plural wives or sexually cohabiting with wives married before the Manifesto; such Church members were subject to excommunication. So in October 1891, that becomes the law of the Church. A person is liable to be excommunicated either for polygamous cohabitation, or for marrying in new plural marriage.
**
Then in 1904, the U.S. Senate published testimony by the Church President. and other General Authorities that they admitted violating the 1891 Church law by having cohabited with their wives since 1890, and by fathering children for them during the previous twelve to thirteen years. **”

You’re slipping.

You do see where the testimoy was from the “church president and other general authorities” right?

Who’s wrong or lying? You, or them?

Let’s not forget these little tid bits shall we?

"In April 1906, the Quorum of Twelve formally and publicly drooped Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley for “being out of harmony” with the Manifesto.

In November of 1906, and this is all in the public record, Joseph F. Smith plead guilty to unlawful cohabitation and paid a fine in a court"

This smith was a direct decendent of js wasn’t he? Seems the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Nice to see he was so upstanding.

 

[mathonihah]

Your attraction and focus on this subject matter is rather worrisome.

It is not my “attraction and focus,” it is other people’s, including yours. I am merely responding to your posts.

You also have contradicted yourself now multiple times.

Says you.

I think it’s about time you ask a question on this Catholic Answers website, or powerdown and return to your wives.

That is funny. I don’t have any questions. I am responding to your criticisms.

 

[RebeccaJ]

When the government makes laws, people have the right to disagree with and appeal against it, which is what the Church did, and finally accepted the decision of the Supreme Court.

More revisionist history. Smith broke bigamy laws numerous times, publicly denied he was practicing polygamy, and then incited a riot that focused on destroying a printing press that had been used to print the truth. Anarchy shouldn’t be confused with just opposition.

 

[pablope]

Isn’t there some quote that states that the laws of God outweigh the laws of man?

That is what I am trying to get at! If it is from God…why not fight tooth and nail for it…and with trust in God, and God behind you…they should expect to triumph and win over the law of man…but why did the LDS give in?

 

[pablope]

When the government makes laws, people have the right to disagree with and appeal against it, which is what the Church did, and finally accepted the decision of the Supreme Court.

So…what you are saying then…with the LDS accepting the decision of the Supreme Court…the LDS is not under God’s law…but under the rule of the US government/Constitution?

 

[twopekinguys]

So…what you are saying then…with the LDS accepting the decision of the Supreme Court…the LDS is not under God’s law…but under the rule of the US government/Constitution?

Neither one.

There were plenty of plural marriages going on after the supreme court decision, and the manifesto.