Suburban Polygamy

[Pahoran]

Huh? Have you been smoking some of that peyote, Pahoran?

No. Nor, in fact, did I bring it up. Why did you?

In Yme's case, the exception was in direct contradiction to the established rule.

No, it was an exception thereto. If it in no way varied from "the established rule," it wouldn't be an exception, would it?

Following your logic, every exception "contradicts" a rule, and so there is no distinction between an exception and a contradiction. IOW, you can't tell the difference, either.

So I shall explain it to you by an example.

Contradiction

Father: All children get ready for bed!

Mother: All children go wash the dishes!

Exception

Father: All children get ready for bed!

Mother: Except you, Billy; you go wash the dishes.

Here's another example, just to help you along:

Contradiction

1831: Obey the laws of the land.

1843: Ignore the laws of the land.

Exception

1831: Obey the laws of the land.

1843: Except in the case of marriage; obey the laws of God instead.

Is that clear now? Just in case it isn't, I teach early morning Seminary, Oracle. I can simplify it as much as you need me to.

It would require permanent residence on the island of subjective truth to try and delineate on this one.

I have no idea where (or what) "the island of subjective truth" is. You seem to be something of an authority on the subject, though.

To call an exception a "contradiction" is to intentionally collapse a meaningful distinction and create a conflict where none in fact exists.

Let's not do that, shall we?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

Contradiction

1831: Obey the laws of the land.

1843: Ignore the laws of the land.

Exception

1831: Obey the laws of the land.

1843: Except in the case of marriage; obey the laws of God instead.

I understand your point. However, I do have one question.

How should the leaders of the land treat those who break the law of the land because they feel there is a religious exception?

Surely you can see the problems that would be created by allowing religious exceptions to laws.

[Pahoran]

I understand your point. However, I do have one question.

How should the leaders of the land treat those who break the law of the land because they feel there is a religious exception?

Surely you can see the problems that would be created by allowing religious exceptions to laws.

I certainly can, although the established fact is that there are such exceptions, as Oracle reminded us when she mentioned peyote.

What is more disturbing WRT plural marriage is that special legislation was enacted that directly targeted the Saints and their marriage practices. All Mormons were presumed guilty and were therefore disenfranchised. The Fifth Amendment was suspended for all LDS women, including first wives, sitting down to dinner was declared to be proof of "unlawful cohabitation," and the Church's right to exist as a corporate entity and own property, including houses of worship, was taken away. There, if you like, are a whole parcel of "religious exceptions," including to your vaunted constitution.

So if they can enact one kind, why not another?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Yme]

Yme,

that's what I ask. Y U.

Can you tell the difference between an exception and a contradiction?

Fair question?

Because if you can, then you know that there aren't any "contradicting revelations" in view.

Regards,

Pahoran

I guess this is one way to answer or explain this but, admittedly, it's not very convincing for me. I respect that everyone can reach different conlusions however.

I have to wonder how all the women that Smith propositioned with marriage dealt with this conflict? "Do I believe what I was taught about the revelations of God in our doctrines, or do I believe in what the prophet is asking me to do, even though it is against our doctrine and our law"!

Or: "Prophet Smith, why has not God revealed this new revealtion you speak to me of to other members of the church"? "Do you want me to obey our doctrines or obey you and break the law"?

Were there any other times in Lds church history that God gave, or allowed, an exception to doctrine and/or revelations previously given?

For me anyway, your explanation just seems a bit too convenient.

[Pahoran]

I guess this is one way to answer or explain this but, admittedly, it's not very convincing for me. I respect that everyone can reach different conlusions however.

I have to wonder how all the women that Smith propositioned with marriage dealt with this conflict? "Do I believe what I was taught about the revelations of God in our doctrines, or do I believe in what the prophet is asking me to do, even though it is against our doctrine and our law"!

Or: "Prophet Smith, why has not God revealed this new revealtion you speak to me of to other members of the church"? "Do you want me to obey our doctrines or obey you and break the law"?

I'm sorry, but what doctrines are you talking about? Plural marriage was doctrine. Revealed doctrine, in fact.

Were there any other times in Lds church history that God gave, or allowed, an exception to doctrine and/or revelations previously given?

Why yes, as a matter of fact. Here is a rather well-known one:

The Rule:

Exodus 20:

13 Thou shalt not kill.

The Exception:

I Samuel 15:

1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to aanoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

And yes, I know that you said "Lds church history." We consider the Bible to be an organic part of our history, in case you were wondering.

For me anyway, your explanation just seems a bit too convenient.

Isn't it just too convenient for me that there are rather good precedents for such exceptions?

Regards,

Pahoran

[moriancamur]

Polygamy is not a doctrine of God. It has been a cultural practice He appears to have accepted, but it hasn't historically worked well. Note Abraham and Jacob had family problems as a result. Whilst there may be a few exceptions it doesn't generally work in practice.

I say its not a doctrine of God, not only because it contradicts scripture, but because of the background to it being "revealed". The revelation was not written until Hyrum, hearing the problems Joseph was having with Emma, counselled him to write it. It took a few hours to write. The story goes that it didn't go down to well when Hyrum took it to read to Emma. The problem is that it wasn't a revelation that came from God and was written as instructed. It was written at a time of contention between Joseph and Emma. I recall how Joseph couldn't translate until reconciled to Emma. He wasn't reconciled here. The fact that its contents allow for Joseph to lie with married women and demand all men and women to live it or be damned in itself proves it a figment of imagination for it was illegal and could not be lived. It almost destroyed the church. This was a major boo boo.

[Pahoran]

Polygamy is not a doctrine of God.

Yes it is.

Sorry to disappoint you.

It has been a cultural practice He appears to have accepted, but it hasn't historically worked well. Note Abraham and Jacob had family problems as a result. Whilst there may be a few exceptions it doesn't generally work in practice.

Do you have any evidence in support of that assertion? The overwhelming majority of the human race has lived under some form of polygamy for most of history. The failure rate ought to be fairly well established. Is it?

I say its not a doctrine of God, not only because it contradicts scripture,

Which it does not do,

but because of the background to it being "revealed". The revelation was not written until Hyrum, hearing the problems Joseph was having with Emma, counselled him to write it. It took a few hours to write. The story goes that it didn't go down to well when Hyrum took it to read to Emma. The problem is that it wasn't a revelation that came from God and was written as instructed. It was written at a time of contention between Joseph and Emma.

Most of us here are familiar with the circumstances. We are also familiar with the standard anti-Mormon spin you have provided. The revelation was not fabricated, as you imply, but was simply written from memory.

I recall how Joseph couldn't translate until reconciled to Emma. He wasn't reconciled here. The fact that its contents allow for Joseph to lie with married women and demand all men and women to live it or be damned

Is that a fact?

in itself proves it a figment of imagination for it was illegal and could not be lived.

It sounds rather like a figment of your imagination.

It almost destroyed the church. This was a major boo boo.

CFR on the assertion that it "almost destroyed the church."

Regards,

Pahoran

[moriancamur]

I assure you I am not disappointed.

Almost without exception this "commandment" was initially found abhorent by those women approached. It is a shame they were convinced to deny the Spirit that warned them against this. If the blind lead the blind shall they not both fall into the ditch?

[Oracle]

No. Nor, in fact, did I bring it up. Why did you?

No, it was an exception thereto. If it in no way varied from "the established rule," it wouldn't be an exception, would it?

Following your logic, every exception "contradicts" a rule, and so there is no distinction between an exception and a contradiction. IOW, you can't tell the difference, either.

So I shall explain it to you by an example.

Contradiction

Father: All children get ready for bed!

Mother: All children go wash the dishes!

Exception

Father: All children get ready for bed!

Mother: Except you, Billy; you go wash the dishes.

Here's another example, just to help you along:

Contradiction

1831: Obey the laws of the land.

1843: Ignore the laws of the land.

Exception

1831: Obey the laws of the land.

1843: Except in the case of marriage; obey the laws of God instead.

Is that clear now? Just in case it isn't, I teach early morning Seminary, Oracle. I can simplify it as much as you need me to.

I have no idea where (or what) "the island of subjective truth" is. You seem to be something of an authority on the subject, though.

To call an exception a "contradiction" is to intentionally collapse a meaningful distinction and create a conflict where none in fact exists.

Let's not do that, shall we?

Regards,

Pahoran

Let me try it this way. I disagree with the notion that God gives exceptions. I believe that if you have a God that does not clearly establish rule, or has a penchant for making exceptions to rule, it is far too difficult to determine the source of the exceptions, thus landing you in the island of subjective truth. It causes confusion. God is not a God of confusion, is he? I believe that when you have someone professing a revelation that gives exceptions to already established God-rule, their claim should be highly scrutinized. Besides the Joseph Smith polygamy one, let's use this one:

God says: "Thou shalt not kill"

Nephi says: "God told me to kill Laban"

Should the source of that claim be suspect? Absolutely. If God didn't think killing was such a bad thing he wouldn't have made it a directive in the first place. So why would God all of the sudden be condoning, even commanding murder? By allowing for exceptions, anyone can claim anything under the guise of God-directive.

God is either a source of Truth, or he is a source of truth with a million small caveats that may individualize the truth and may even at times contradict the original truth. If such is the case, someone cannot get away with a comment such as this:

The Holy Spirit guides the Prophet, and the Holy Spirit will never give you as an individual a revelation that contradicts the word revealed to the Prophet. The Holy Spirit will not tell the Prophet "Y" and then you "X".

Prophet Y says: The Lord has told us that drinking tea is breaking the word of wisdom and will contribute to failure in getting a temple recommend and visiting the house of the Lord.

Member X says: The Lord told me I am an exception because I have greenish-skin tones, so green tea is absolutely necessary for my good physical health. Because we believe in a God with exceptions, Prophet Y, it is best you err to my revelation and allow for me to have a temple recommend.

And a more real life analogy, if you profess room for exceptions, you'd best not argue with Dan and Ron Lafferty. You cannot prove that God did not speak to them. Maybe God allowed an exception for them.

It is time for you to leave the thread if you need the support of criminals. ~ Mods

[Pahoran]

Let me try it this way. I disagree with the notion that God gives exceptions. I believe that if you have a God that does not clearly establish rule, or has a penchant for making exceptions to rule, it is far too difficult to determine the source of the exceptions, thus landing you in the island of subjective truth. It causes confusion. God is not a God of confusion, is he? I believe that when you have someone professing a revelation that gives exceptions to already established God-rule, their claim should be highly scrutinized. Besides the Joseph Smith polygamy one, let's use this one:

God says: "Thou shalt not kill"

Nephi says: "God told me to kill Laban"

Interesting that you should choose that one when I already gave an alternate pairing, above.

Why did you go with I Nephi instead of I Samuel? Could it be because I Samuel isn't exploitable for anti-Mormon purposes?

I invite you to try again, using Samuel's and Saul's example instead of Nephi's. I'd like to see if you are consistent in your application of this no-exception rule.

Should the source of that claim be suspect? Absolutely.

Why?

If God didn't think killing was such a bad thing he wouldn't have made it a directive in the first place.

Wouldn't he?

You assume--apparently without pausing to think the question through--that the only reason God would command someone not to do some X is if that X is necessarily bad. Yet that is clearly not the case. God also commanded that no-one should touch the Ark of the Covenant except the Levites. What, he made an exception for them? Yes indeed he did, and when Uzzah the son of Abinadab took hold of it to steady it, the Lord smote him that he died. Yet the Levites could touch it apparently with impunity. Why? Because they were authorised to do so. And why not Uzzah? Because he was not so authorised. Thus it may be that the general command "thou shalt not kill" isn't there because death is the worst of all possible outcomes, but because we are not (ordinarily) authorised to take human life.

But Moses, who received that selfsame commandment, was. And Samuel was. And Saul was.

And Nephi was.

So why would God all of the sudden be condoning, even commanding murder?

Oracle, you clearly aren't up with any of the discussions that have taken place around here on this subject, are you? Murder is a legal concept. Nephi's killing of Laban was legally justified under the laws that were in operation at the time. Therefore, it was not murder.

By allowing for exceptions, anyone can claim anything under the guise of God-directive.

Yes they can, but it happens that such exceptions are a reality.

God is either a source of Truth, or he is a source of truth with a million small caveats that may individualize the truth and may even at times contradict the original truth.

I fail to see that any "truth" is in the frame here. Properly speaking, commandments are not assertions of fact. As such, they can neither be "true" nor "false" in any Boolean sense, but are only either applicable or not.

If such is the case, someone cannot get away with a comment such as this:

Prophet Y says: The Lord has told us that drinking tea is breaking the word of wisdom and will contribute to failure in getting a temple recommend and visiting the house of the Lord.

Member X says: The Lord told me I am an exception because I have greenish-skin tones, so green tea is absolutely necessary for my good physical health. Because we believe in a God with exceptions, Prophet Y, it is best you err to my revelation and allow for me to have a temple recommend.

Interesting that you should use that analogy. Apart from the silly throwaway line about "greenish-skin tones," the fact is that medical necessity is a legitimate exception to the WofW. For example, if a doctor prescribes medicine that happens to contain alcohol, the person who takes his medicine is not breaking the WofW.

And a more real life analogy, if you profess room for exceptions, you'd best not argue with Dan and Ron Lafferty. You cannot prove that God did not speak to them. Maybe God allowed an exception for them.

No. He did not. And your conclusion is false. I need make no such allowances. See that you do not repeat this falsehood.

Let us be absolutely clear on this point: the Lafferty brothers have nothing whatsoever to do with us. They are apostates, which is to say, ex-Mormons. If you are going to sneakily and dishonestly try to use them to poison the well against some group or other, I'm afraid that the exmo crowd are the only available targets.

And that is quite apart from the fact that citing them for polemical purposes, as you did, is a violation of board rules. I advise you against repeating it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Yme]

I'm sorry, but what doctrines are you talking about? Plural marriage was doctrine. Revealed doctrine, in fact.

Why yes, as a matter of fact. Here is a rather well-known one:

The Rule:

Exodus 20:

13 Thou shalt not kill.

The Exception:

I Samuel 15:

1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to aanoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

And yes, I know that you said "Lds church history." We consider the Bible to be an organic part of our history, in case you were wondering.

Isn't it just too convenient for me that there are rather good precedents for such exceptions?

Regards,

Pahoran

I am not sure I follow you here. Based upon the lds church documents I have seen and researched, I thought that Smith's own diary as recorded in the Lds "History of the Church" stated that Smith "received" the revelation in June or July of 1843. I also think that Illinois had a law against polygamy dating back to about 1833. Furthermore, I thought that Lds Church website shows him married to some 15 -20 at the time of his death, including women currently married to other Lds men. Wasn't all this against the law and if Smith was given an "exception" from God for this, how would we know? If SMith was given an exception, why would he deny being married to but one woman just days before his death?

Also my question on "God allowed exceptions" was specific to the restored priesthood claim of Smith and the Lds church. To your knowledge, if God gave Smith an exception to His previous revelations ( as you claim here), was this the only time an Lds prophet was given an exception?

Again, your explanations seem to ingore some very obvious recorded facts - thats why they sound too convient for me.

Thx

[juliann]

I also think that Illinois had a law against polygamy dating back to about 1833.

Do you mean a law against bigamy? That requires someone to be legally married to more than one person. Modern day polygamists don't even take out more than one marriage license. It might be adultery in some people's eyes but it isn't bigamy. If it was, a good portion of America would be in jail for having multiple partners without benefit of marriage.

[Yme]

Do you mean a law against bigamy? That requires someone to be legally married to more than one person. Modern day polygamists don't even take out more than one marriage license. It might be adultery in some people's eyes but it isn't bigamy. If it was, a good portion of America would be in jail for having multiple partners without benefit of marriage.

Whew, after 26 years in law practice, glad to see my understanding of the statute was confirmed. So we're on the same page!

But I wasn't really addressing the modern day polygamists. I was referring to the Lds history of J. SMith and the current Lds church website reflecting the "marriages" of SMith. Unless the website is out to decieve members and non-members, I assume we can place trust in their designation of "marriage" and assume there is reasonable validity to the designation and dates! Yes? I mean can anyone just get a marriage published for Smith (or anyone else for that matter) without some reasonable record basis within their Family History website?

So back to my point: Wasn't Smith breaking both the law and church doctrine (D&C 58)??

Another troubling aspect of this history is the chronology of dates and records. Smith's diary says he "received" the revelation in 1843. Currently the book of mormon is a bit more hazy in establishing the origin of the practice back to 1831 in some regards. The BOM printed prior to 1900 (if memory serves me) stated it was received in 1843 as well. Yet Smith as publisher and editor of the church's TImes and Seasons quotes that the ONLY church rule on marriage was what was contained in the 1835 D&Cs - ie; monagamy only.

Again, it seems like either Smith, the Church today or God just could never make up their minds what the rule of marriage was and when it was applicable.

Finally, if one was to buy into the current claim of the BOM and that it was revealed to Smith as early as 1831, and the church did not formally anounce it until 1852 while in the safety of the Utah territory, it just begs the question: Was this the first revelation from God for the Lds church that required a 21 year "test drive" so to speak?

For me anyway, hard to find reasonable credibility in the claim with all the contradictions and conflicting statements. But I guess when I step back and look at the really big picture, I keep coming back to one question:

"What did polygamy provide the LDS Church that it would not have accomplished or received via monogamy"? Seems like all it has ever done is put the Lds Church in an embarrasing light as it continues to do with the mormon fundamentalist groups today.

[moriancamur]

[

quote name='Pahoran' date='Jul 3 2007, 11:44 PM' post='1208215160]

Yes it is.

Sorry to disappoint you.

So why did Pres Hinckley say to Larry King that he didn't think it was doctrine?

[Calm]

So why did Pres Hinckley say to Larry King that he didn't think it was doctrine?

CFR---the exact quote with context please.

Almost without exception this "commandment" was initially found abhorent by those women approached. It is a shame they were convinced to deny the Spirit that warned them against this.

According to what they themselves said, it was the Spirit that convinced them it was of God.

The Latter-day Saints would not enter into this holy order of matrimony unless they had received some stronger and more convincing proofs of its correctness than the testimony of a man, for in obeying this law it has cost them a sacrifice nearly equal to that of Abraham. The promise attached thereto is the object for which they are struggling; without sacrifice no person can gain a glory in the celestial kingdom. For my part there is nothing that would induce me to go back to the pit from which I was dug or to lose my hold upon that crown which awaits all those who have laid their willing but bleeding hearts upon the altar.

- Helen Mar Kimball, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith: A Reply to Joseph Smith III, editor of the Lamoni (Iowa) Herald.

[Yme]

According to what they themselves said, it was the Spirit that convinced them it was of God.

Well I've always posed this question to my wife and her bishop: "If the spirit was driving the acts, why couldn't Smith bring himself to acknowledge it publically"?

Why is there such a big denial in both word and print within the "formal" lds church with regards to the deceit and coverup of polygamy??? Why does the existing LDS church do everything it can to distance itself from such practice. Look at it's own website and one can tell! Has anyone on this site ever noticed that on the LDS' own site acknowledging and describing it's own "History of Prophets" that it mentions nothing of the wives of polygamous prophets while mentioning the wives of monagamous prophets as "significant events"? Why the distinction??

Again, it just does not make sense to the objective reader/listener!! [iMHO]

[SolarPowered]

Why do some people get so exercised over the subject of polygamy? If you don't want to believe that the Church is true, then don't believe in it. In that case, polygamy is just a long-abandoned, godless practice of a false religion, and not particularly worthy of note.

On the other hand, if you believe that the Church is true and the Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the practice was revealed of God, and again therefore not particularly worth getting worked up about.

[Yme]

Well in my family we have a problem for those "teaching" my children things that i believe are patently false, and for those who hold themselves out in the name of God within the Lds church as knowledgable in the subject to willingly, openly and candidly discuss the matter in front of the parent and child that they wish to convince. For me, I have never experienced such an unwillingness in any forum of religion, academia, social, medical or political teachings.

Perhaps a topic of a separate thread however.

[Thinking]

So why did Pres Hinckley say to Larry King that he didn't think it was doctrine?

CFR---the exact quote with context please.

Larry King Live - Aired September 8, 1998 - 9:00 p.m. ET

...

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.

Larry King: Should there be arrests?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It's matter of civil procedure. The church can't do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever.

Larry King: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It's a civil offense. It's in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We're totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that's a responsibility of civil officers.

Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.

Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence.

Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know. We'll consider it.

Larry King: I'm giving you an idea.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

Larry King: Would you look better if you were...

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

[Oracle]

Interesting that you should choose that one when I already gave an alternate pairing, above.

Why did you go with I Nephi instead of I Samuel? Could it be because I Samuel isn't exploitable for anti-Mormon purposes?

I invite you to try again, using Samuel's and Saul's example instead of Nephi's. I'd like to see if you are consistent in your application of this no-exception rule.

Why?

Wouldn't he?

Samuel is the same as Nephi. Both under the broader umbrella of commandments not to kill....both told to kill by the same God that issued the commandments. I'm not anti-mormon. I'm anti-inconsistency. Inconsistency does not strike me as a particularly godly trait. If God can say "do not kill" and then "do kill" out of the same mouth, then there should be no reason why either of the edicts should follow any reasoning whatsoever. The ideal God I would believe in is one of intelligence. Of order.

You assume--apparently without pausing to think the question through--that the only reason God would command someone not to do some X is if that X is necessarily bad. Yet that is clearly not the case.

Really? So you as a human look up to God, as a mormon you believe you will someday be a God...at which point you can kill at will. And you consider this attitude a Godly trait? How lucky for you to believe you too someday can wipe out anyone that irritates you. How hypocritical of a God to ask mortals to live a law he is unwilling to live himself. There are universal truths that even mormons believe God is held to.

God also commanded that no-one should touch the Ark of the Covenant except the Levites. What, he made an exception for them? Yes indeed he did, and when Uzzah the son of Abinadab took hold of it to steady it, the Lord smote him that he died. Yet the Levites could touch it apparently with impunity. Why? Because they were authorised to do so. And why not Uzzah? Because he was not so authorised. Thus it may be that the general command "thou shalt not kill" isn't there because death is the worst of all possible outcomes, but because we are not (ordinarily) authorised to take human life.

Apparently the notion that God might have not issued these "exceptions" is beyond your realm of comprehension. But that's ok. You go on ahead and believe in the willynilly temperamental God if it keeps you warm at night.

Oracle, you clearly aren't up with any of the discussions that have taken place around here on this subject, are you? Murder is a legal concept. Nephi's killing of Laban was legally justified under the laws that were in operation at the time. Therefore, it was not murder.

Whose law? God's law? Isn't that the most important law to you? God said Do not kill. These men killed. And they did it by using the excuse that God told them to do it.

Here's the question, Pahoran. How do YOU know it was God commanding them? You don't. There is virtually no way you can litmus test the origin of any revelation or communication from God. How do we know that God commanded Samuel? How do we know it wasn't Samuel's evil alter-ego whispering murder edicts in his ear? Just because these strange "exceptions" were canonized does not make them real. Or true. In my world we give prescription medication to people who say God is telling them to kill someone. We don't canonize it and then look up to these people as great communicators with God.

No. He did not. And your conclusion is false. I need make no such allowances. See that you do not repeat this falsehood.

Falsehood? Prove me wrong. You do not, and cannot know if God was the source of their revelation. Particularly since you so stringently believe God can and will give exceptions to his rules.

Let us be absolutely clear on this point: the Lafferty brothers have nothing whatsoever to do with us. They are apostates, which is to say, ex-Mormons. If you are going to sneakily and dishonestly try to use them to poison the well against some group or other, I'm afraid that the exmo crowd are the only available targets.

But the fact that they were raised in a mormon environment which you are claiming allows for rules exceptions make them a less polemic argument and a more practical example.

As I have been diligently trying for years to find an accurate way to gauge authentic origins from a divine being (and not a source from inside one's head) I will be thrilled if you can help me out. I need something more than "I said so" or "the scriptures say so" or "the prophet says so." For what I hope to be obvious reasons.

Make my day.

Edited to fix typo

[Calm]

Thank you, Thinking:

I think it's pretty obvious the "it" they are talking about is the present day practice of nonLDS polygamists...which is correctly identified as "not doctrinal".

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.

The bold demonstrates what "it" refers back to.

[moriancamur]

YME, you have given a good argument throughout.

It is true that these women sought for a testimony and received one. It is convenient for those who wish to believe everything Smith did was from God and follow without exception. Some of these testimonies are problematic however. Unfortunately for a few weeks I will not be able to get the ref. for these precisely since I have lent out my material, but these accounts can be found in the book "in sacred loneliness". So from memory I noted that one sister saw a Spirit pass over her and out of the room. Her mother awoke and saw it too. JS said this was evidence that polygamy was true, it was from God. However no words were spoken and according to Smiths revelation in D&C the keys for discerning spirits include the appearance in glory of Spirits from God as this is the only way they can come. That glory is pure white light eminating from the person, not other colours or off white as these JS said were Satans' mimic. Only resurrected beings can hide their glory within and will give a message. Asking to shake their hand is a test. This appearance giving testimony appears to contradict his own revelation. Virtually all felt abhorance at the suggestion at first. I believe they later convinced themselves and felt good about the principle of yielding their will emotionally to God. Zina was told by Smith an angel had appeared to him demanding he married Zina despite her objection and being married to a faithful LDS. The angel had prophesied Smith would die if Zina failed to consent. She, not wishing to be responsible for this, consented. I am a practising mormon, but do not believe every tale I am told, especially when they are so obviously problematic. It takes little common sense to deduce this to be a deceit from one source or another, but not from God! Whilst the strength of the church is in the daily receipt of revelation from God it is obvious most fail to learn to discern between what is from God and what is not. The assumption that if Smith said it was from God it was so, contradicts his own canonized accounts of discernment. So I am not in the least surprised at your skeptical outlook.

The account of the revelation on polygamy is also given in William Claytons journal. It says Hyrum suggested JS write the revelation and he would take it to Emma because she didn't accept it. The context is clear that the revelation had already at least in part been received. More detail can be claimed to have been given on that day thus JS wrote received, whereas the church changed the official wording to recorded. 1831 is given as the first approximate time the "principle" came to be understood, which ties in with the first liasons with Fanny Alger. The two were caught by Oliver Cowdery who was excommunicated when he accused adultery between the two. JS denied this vehemently and of course the later explanation is polygamy. It could be conjectured that this was convenient. However its not really polygamy itself that should be the issue since prophets anciently sometimes practiced it. It was in fact practiced by the Catholic church when due to war very few men were left so a man couldn't be a priest till 60 and they could have a fair number of wives up to that age. It is the way it was practiced and the doctrine then promoted that one HAD to live it to be exalted. Monogamists were to be damned!

To me the doctrine is flawed and I see a danger in giving to a man such immense power as Smith then had among his followers. It is obvious this was at best a mistake in its detail. I think its time we were honest enough to admit it.

[Pahoran]

Well in my family we have a problem for those "teaching" my children things that i believe are patently false,

So your beliefs are the gold standard of truth for your family, and it is morally repugnant for anyone to teach anything else in the hearing of any of your family members.

Got it.

and for those who hold themselves out in the name of God within the Lds church as knowledgable in the subject to willingly, openly and candidly discuss the matter in front of the parent and child that they wish to convince. For me, I have never experienced such an unwillingness in any forum of religion, academia, social, medical or political teachings.

Perhaps a topic of a separate thread however.

Perhaps. But let's just see if we understand you correctly.

What is it that you believe is "patently false?" Plural marriage? If so, then you can relax; we don't teach it any more. Or is it that those who practiced plural marriage did so as a religious principle and nothing else? Well, there's nothing controversial about that; it just happens to be true.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Samuel is the same as Nephi. Both under the broader umbrella of commandments not to kill....both told to kill by the same God that issued the commandments. I'm not anti-mormon. I'm anti-inconsistency. Inconsistency does not strike me as a particularly godly trait. If God can say "do not kill" and then "do kill" out of the same mouth, then there should be no reason why either of the edicts should follow any reasoning whatsoever. The ideal God I would believe in is one of intelligence. Of order.

So a parent who tells a child "tidy your room" one day and "wash the dishes" another is being inconsistent, right?

Really? So you as a human look up to God, as a mormon you believe you will someday be a God...at which point you can kill at will. And you consider this attitude a Godly trait? How lucky for you to believe you too someday can wipe out anyone that irritates you.

And yet people accuse me of "attacking the person." I have no doubt my accusers will give you a free pass on that one.

That's really rather vile, Oracle. Could you get any more spiteful if you tried?

How hypocritical of a God to ask mortals to live a law he is unwilling to live himself. There are universal truths that even mormons believe God is held to.

"Even Mormons?" Hmmm. Apart from that, is a parent who tells her underage child not to drive the car being "hypocritical" when she drives down to the mall?

Apparently the notion that God might have not issued these "exceptions" is beyond your realm of comprehension.

Apparently the notion that anyone can understand your position and not immediately acquiesce to it is beyond your comprehension, given that the only reason you have to suppose that I don't understand your argument is that I don't agree with it. If you imagine that your argument is an amazingly sophisticated one that might possibly be beyond the comprehension of any normally functioning adult, then you are sadly deluded. It is really about as sophisticated as a four-year-old demanding that his dessert be just as big as daddy's.

But that's ok. You go on ahead and believe in the willynilly temperamental God if it keeps you warm at night.

And you go on ahead with these spiteful one-liners if it makes you think you're scoring any points somewhere.

Your accusation is as reliable as anything else you've written in this thread. I do not believe in any "willynilly temperamental God." You are hitherto to cease and desist from intentionally misrepresenting my faith positions.

This is not a request.

Whose law? God's law? Isn't that the most important law to you? God said Do not kill. These men killed. And they did it by using the excuse that God told them to do it.

You are tapdancing around the question, Oracle. Again, murder, like libel, which you have come very close to committing, is a legal concept. It happens that under the laws operative at the time--laws much more closely based upon divine commandments than those in operation today--Nephi's slaying of Laban did not meet the criteria for murder. The relevant principles were (1) Laban's life was legally forfeit because he had robbed the brothers and attempted to murder them in the course of the robbery, and (2) Nephi did not lie in wait for Laban but came upon him by chance and without intent, i.e. the Lord delivered Laban into Nephi's hands.

Let us not derail the thread into a discussion of the minutiae of this issue, but be aware that, next time you throw out an emotive hot-button word like "murder," there is a long history of discussion here, and most of the standard anti-Mormon issues--like the slaying of Laban--have been canvassed at length.

You haven't got any surprises to pull on us here.

Here's the question, Pahoran. How do YOU know it was God commanding them? You don't. There is virtually no way you can litmus test the origin of any revelation or communication from God.

And how do YOU know it wasn't? You don't, and for the selfsame reason.

But in the long run, it doesn't really matter. The instructions they received applied to their unique circumstances, and are not applicable to us. The general principle applies by default.

How do we know that God commanded Samuel? How do we know it wasn't Samuel's evil alter-ego whispering murder edicts in his ear? Just because these strange "exceptions" were canonized does not make them real. Or true. In my world we give prescription medication to people who say God is telling them to kill someone. We don't canonize it and then look up to these people as great communicators with God.

Yes, and in my world we lock people up who go around attacking street vendors with whips. It has often been said that if Jesus was on earth today, he'd be crucified again; or perhaps gotten rid of in some other way more in keeping with modern sensibilities, but he'd definitely have to go.

But of course, what really terrifies you about the prophets, as is abundantly clear from the foregoing rant, is that they do communicate with God. You merely bring up these particular instances as a scare tactic. Like most moderns, you'd rather the prophets simply went away so that you could go back to dreaming about a God who is a kind of benevolent abstraction of pleasant, unchallenging virtues, and best of all, who doesn't really exist.

Falsehood? Prove me wrong. You do not, and cannot know if God was the source of their revelation. Particularly since you so stringently believe God can and will give exceptions to his rules.

Actually I can, and I do know. God was not the source.

Let us explode this myth right now. There is a persistent anti-Mormon falsehood to the effect that those who accept true prophets cannot with consistency reject false ones. This is an assumption based upon ignorance, and it is without merit. In reality, it is precisely because we do follow true prophets that we are in a position to detect and reject false ones. It is those who reject the true prophets who have demonstrated that their judgement is faulty in that matter.

But the fact that they were raised in a mormon environment which you are claiming allows for rules exceptions make them a less polemic argument and a more practical example.

"Less polemic[al]" than what, exactly?

Since you will not take my word for it, I will give the moderators the opportunity to explain to you how your odious attempt to smear us by association with a pair of murderous fanatics violates board rules.

As I have been diligently trying for years to find an accurate way to gauge authentic origins from a divine being (and not a source from inside one's head) I will be thrilled if you can help me out. I need something more than "I said so" or "the scriptures say so" or "the prophet says so." For what I hope to be obvious reasons.

Certainly. Here it is.

Take Moroni's promise (Moroni 10:3-5.) Mean it.

Regards,

Pahoran