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

[lynnettejane]

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.

So then it would be an abuse for anyone else to practice it but LDS? We cannot argue that polygamy was not practiced in the Bible, it is there in black and white. But God doesn’t comment on it for or against I believe. The fact that ML claimed it was a legitimate practice does not necessarily make it so. I don’t know if Lutherans practiced polygamy, if they did based on his claim, it still would not make it any more right than for mormons based on JS claims. And in Christian history monogamy has been the norm as I pointed out in my previous post

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

But they didn’t accept it. See my post above.

Wanna try again?

 

[TheIrishman]

So then it would be an abuse for anyone else to practice it but LDS? We cannot argue that polygamy was not practiced in the Bible, it is there in black and white. But God doesn’t comment on it for or against I believe. The fact that ML claimed it was a legitimate practice does not necessarily make it so. I don’t know if Lutherans practiced polygamy, if they did based on his claim, it still would not make it any more right than for mormons based on JS claims. And in Christian history monogamy has been the norm as I pointed out in my previous post

Jesus makes it very clear. 1 man, 1 women. That’s it.

 

[mathonihah]

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

Wrong. It is illogical to argue that because God made one wife for Adam, that makes it illegitimate to have more than one. That is just bad logic. It is faulty reasoning.

 

[TexanKnight]

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.

Really? That is not what you said earlier. You said the Church abides by the laws of the land. Now you say they can pick and choose.

And to say it was stopped when the SC ruled is another lie.

Again

WRONG. Polygamy continued LONG past the date it was declared illegal. It was declared illegal in 1862.

That did not stop Mormons and their “abiding by the law of the land”. They continued. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled polygamy was not protected by the Constitution. Still, they Mormons continued. So much for “abiding by the laws of the land”.

In 1890, almost THIRTY YEARS after it was declared illegal, and 12 years after the Supreme Court declared it was not protected, a Manifesto came from Woodruff saying no NEW polygamous marriages would occur. Those existing could continue- so much for “abiding by the laws of the land”. Still, the LDS allowed new polygamous marriages. It was not till 1910, almost FIFTY years after it was declared illegal, that the LDS Church began excommunicating members for NEW marriages. The existing ones continued to exist…and those members were never ex’d.

So much for abiding by the law.

And they did not discontinue the practice because of the law…they discontinued because of the financial issues.

I do not know if Math made his comment because he just does not know his own LDS history, or if he is just being dishonest.

Either way, THIS is why we respond.

 

[mathonihah]

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.

God also told the prophets it was okay for them to have more than one wife.

 

[TexanKnight]

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

Not true

WRONG. Polygamy continued LONG past the date it was declared illegal. It was declared illegal in 1862.

That did not stop Mormons and their “abiding by the law of the land”. They continued. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled polygamy was not protected by the Constitution. Still, they Mormons continued. So much for “abiding by the laws of the land”.

In 1890, almost THIRTY YEARS after it was declared illegal, and 12 years after the Supreme Court declared it was not protected, a Manifesto came from Woodruff saying no NEW polygamous marriages would occur. Those existing could continue- so much for “abiding by the laws of the land”. Still, the LDS allowed new polygamous marriages. It was not till 1910, almost FIFTY years after it was declared illegal, that the LDS Church began excommunicating members for NEW marriages. The existing ones continued to exist…and those members were never ex’d.

So much for abiding by the law.

And they did not discontinue the practice because of the law…they discontinued because of the financial issues.

I do not know if Math made his comment because he just does not know his own LDS history, or if he is just being dishonest.

Either way, THIS is why we respond.

 

[TexanKnight]

God also told the prophets it was okay for them to have more than one wife.

Really? Where?

And I am still waiting for you to show us where Jesus said he approved in the NT

 

[Nicea325]

Wrong. It is illogical to argue that because because God made one wife for Adam, that makes it illegitimate to have more than one. That is just bad logic. It is faulty reasoning.

But having more than one wife is sound logic and sound reasoning? :ehh:

 

[Nicea325]

Really? Where?

And I am still waiting for you to show us where Jesus said he approved in the NT

Get ready to get no answer but to hear mindless rants:

Show me where Jesus disapproved of it.

 

[mathonihah]

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)?

They did disagree with the law and appeal against it. What else were they supposed to do? God is not going to force the government make the right decisions. If they make wrong decisions, they will be answerable for it in the day of judgement.

 

[lynnettejane]

God also told the prophets it was okay for them to have more than one wife.

where exactly? or do you mean mormon prophets, they seem to be the only ones to have received direct instructions regarding polygamy, and who commanded them to practice polyandry, I don’t believe that is anywhere in the Bible at all, but JS, BY seemed to think it was ok. Where is the scriptural evidence for that, outside the D&C and JoD of course

 

[Nicea325]

They did disagree with the law and appeal against it. What else were they supposed to do? God is not going to force the government make the right decisions. If they make wrong decisions, they will be answerable for it in the day of judgement.

How comical.

God in Heaven:

Why did you outlaw a direct revelation of mine: polygamy.

I am really starting to get amused here.

 

[twopekinguys]

Wrong. It is illogical to argue that because God made one wife for Adam, that makes it illegitimate to have more than one. That is just bad logic. It is faulty reasoning.

now there’s the pot calling the kettle black lol

 

[twopekinguys]

They did disagree with the law and appeal against it. What else were they supposed to do? God is not going to force the government make the right decisions. If they make wrong decisions, they will be answerable for it in the day of judgement.

they disagreed with the law so much they broke it

that makes the founding prophet as well as several others criminals

 

[Nicea325]

they disagreed with the law so much they broke it

Now…now…Math said Mormons are law abiding folks…

 

[twopekinguys]

Now…now…Math said Mormons are law abiding folks…

Ah, but did you see my post where their “prophets” admitted to breaking the law?

You are right, this is getting so comical it is sad.

He is obviously ignoring proof that his so called “prophets” lied about obeying the law of the land.

But hey, when all else fails, ignore it, and it will go away…lol

 

[pablope]

They did disagree with the law and appeal against it. What else were they supposed to do?

Continue opposing because it is God’s given law and principle…to the point of giving one’s life for it.

Have you looked at those Christian martyrs who did not give in to the roman rulers to bow to Roman gods?

Or those Christian missionaries who went out to Asia and gave their lives rather than denounce their beliefs?

Contrast this now with what the LDS did…

God is not going to force the government make the right decisions.

 

[RebeccaJ]

They did disagree with the law and appeal against it. What else were they supposed to do? God is not going to force the government make the right decisions. If they make wrong decisions, they will be answerable for it in the day of judgement.

I don’t think you are understanding pablope’s point. Perhaps Martin Luther King can help out here:

'One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

…]

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.’ (“Letter From Birmingham Jail”, 1963)

Evading and defying the law is anarchy, which is what both Smith and Young did, and encouraged. If LDS truly believed anti-bigamy laws are unjust, they should be willing to peacefully, openly, lovingly break them and face the consequences for doing so. Which included at the time, the seizure of church assets, denying polygamists to run for political office, etc.

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry Steve, that didn’t make a lot of sense. Exodus 34:6-7 is quite clear. It says that God is merciful, but also just, and will not let the guilty go unpunished. The sticking point was that it goes on to say that it punishes the guilty to the “third and fourth generation,” which on the face of it appears to be an obvious injustice. you asked how I would reconcile that with LDS doctrine. When I asked you how you would reconcile it with the justice of God, you couldn’t, and instead got round it by finding a translation which alters the meaning of the verse completely—which the overwhelming majority of translations disagree with. Now that I have given you a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation, you whine, and throw in a red herring called “salvation history” which bears no relationship to the context of the discussion. Are you being serious?

What have I not explained? Yes, the guilty are punished. If we are in covenant with GOD, which meant following the ten commandments at the time this was written, then we are no longer guilty. In Christian terms, we have been justified through the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ so that we are not among the guilty. Christ took the punishment of the guilty (all of us) upon himself so that the price has been paid and we are no longer subject to the punishment of the guilty.

The original point, however, was the fact that the word of God states that generations can indeed suffer from the sins of the father. That remains a true statement, and if true, is in conflict with the belief of Mormons that to suffer for the sins of another (lets say, Adam & Eve) is unjust and therefore not true. It has to do with original sin and the Mormon rejection of that doctrine, or at least the basis upon which it is rejected. So the question is, once again, how do you reconcile Mormon belief with the fact that people can and do suffer the consequences of sins they did not commit, in particular, original sin?