One Nation Under Gods

[mrmendoza]

. Go read more from the others side about how difficult, painful, humiliating, degrading, and perverted polygamy was. I'll not give links or resouces. They're available and fairly easy to find if you care to look. I'll leave that up to you.

RA

While I don't doubt that for some, all the supposed horrors you name there are valid, but look around in the world today. For some poor souls today, monogamy has been just as dificult, painful, humliating, degrading, and perverted as anything you'll find against polygamy! It was not because of polygamy itself that tese things were, (Although I do think that polygamy would be more difficult!) but it was the individual people who may or may not figured out how to make it work. Certainly, they could have had a better chance of making things work if they hadn't been continually hassased and persecuted by the government for 40 years!

It's a sad fact that in any human relationships, you're going to find evil people who delight in abusing and debasing others.

And while it's equally sad, but true, there are probably members of our church that fall into that catagory, I'd be willing to bet that there are some in yours, as well as everyone elses, too!

[rabanes]

My Mormon coworker told me Polygamy has been suspended for now but could be reinstated sometime in the future when it is appropriate. What do you think?

Poltgamy as a PRACTICE was prohibited by "The Manifesto" in 1890 (although initially, IMHO, it was likely a ruse to simply get Utah statehood, but afterward, when LDS leadership couldn't figure out a way to re-impose polygamy, it just sort of stuck).

Very interesting, BTW, is how even after the so-called revelation from God on polygamy that prohibited it (i.e., "The Manifesto"), numerous Mormons, including high ranking leaders continued to practice it and lied about it to the government.

Now, as for today, Mormons still condone and honor polygmay as a PRINCIPLE -- not only as a godly practice in the past, but one that will likely be praCticed in spirit realm. For example, Harold B. Lee (d. 1973), LDS 11th president, who remarried after the death of his wife, seemed to look forward to a polygamous life in "heaven." I love this poem he wrote -- its not very subtle, that's for sure:

My lovely Joan was sent to me:

So Joan joins fern

That three my be,

more fitted for eternity.

"O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee."

You know, I could say so much more here, but I'll stop.....

So, let me just add that for the here and now on earth, well, today's Mormon males are just out of luck. They only get one, , but there are some ways of getting more for the afterlife, as we can see from Lee's little poem. And also as LDS president, Joseph Fielding Smith (d. 1972), remarked after he, too, remarried: "my wives will be mine in eternity."

This all, of course, relates to the whole issue of continuing procreation in the afterlife as a God....and that, of course, is another matter worthy of a completely new thread.

For an in-depth look at LDS polygamy, from its inception during Mormonism's early days (c. 1840-ish to 1843), to its public LDS acknowledgment of it out of the closet, so to speak (c. 1851), through the years immediately following "The Manifesto" (c. 1890 - 1920s), see One Nation Under Gods, chapters 13 & 14 & 15 (pp. 281-328, paperback).

RA

[Scott Lloyd]

Second, I had my own set of JOD that I often read at length. Sadly, but necessarily, I have since sold it (more proof that I'm actually moving on and that Mormonism is NOT my stock-n-trade).

But you haven't repented from your reckless anti-Mormonism, obviously. I confess I had my hopes when you vanished from prominence for a while. Alas, it was not to be.

[juliann]

For an in-depth look at LDS polygamy, from its inception during Mormonism's early days (c. 1840-ish to 1843), to its public LDS acknowledgment of it out of the closet, so to speak (c. 1851), through the years immediately following "The Manifesto" (c. 1890 - 1920s), see One Nation Under Gods, chapters 13 & 14 & 15 (pp. 281-328, paperback).

For an in-depth academic and intellectually honest analysis polygamy see books written by those who are trained and knowledgable on the topic:

Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith

Kathryn Daynes, More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910

Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth Century America

Lola Van Wagenen, Sister-Wives and Suffragists: Polygamy and the Politics of Woman Suffrage 1870â??1896

B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History

Claudia Bushman, ed., Mormon Sisters: Women in Early Utah

Jesse Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families

Kimball Young, Isn't One Wife Enough?

Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith Prophet's Wife, "Elect Lady," Polygamy's Foe.

John Cairncross, After Polygamy was Made a Sin: The Social History of Christian Polygamy

Now, back to our other conversation, which was locked in the previous thread. You made an accusation -- i.e., that Carl Moser and Paul Owen have slammed ONUG and Inside Today's Mormonism. Now, prove it. Otherwise, please retract your charge and apologize.

This is a good example of how you twist, change and add to whatever is said.

[rabanes]

This is a good example of how you twist, change and add to whatever is said.

Really? This is what you stated in that now-locked thread:

In POST #195

, you stated: "I believe Owen (also no longer an Evangelical) used your book as an example of the sorry state of anti-Mormon literature..."

In POST #203

, you added: "In other words, scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking about it, as Mosser and Owen do)."

Now, I'm asking you to prove it, or make a retraction and apologize.

RA

[ttribe]

Really? This is what you stated in that now-locked thread:

In POST #195

, you stated: "I believe Owen (also no longer an Evangelical) used your book as an example of the sorry state of anti-Mormon literature..."

In POST #203

, you added: "In other words, scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking about it, as Mosser and Owen do)."

Now, I'm asking you to prove it, or make a retraction and apologize.

RA

Are you going to make a retraction and apologize for altering one my quotes in that thread Richard?

[rabanes]

I confess I had my hopes when you vanished from prominence

Oh, I see. So in order to prove that one is not a hateful "anti-Mormon," they must vanish -- never to be heard from again. Hmmm, that might be a job for the Danites. Too bad it's still not the 1800s in Nauvoo.

RA

[rabanes]

Are you going to make a retraction and apologize for altering one my quotes in that thread Richard?

Oh, yeah. Thanks for the reminder. I absolutely apologize. I should have typed, and meant to type, "ttribefictionaltoon," but I accidentally left it just ttribe. It was supposed to match my Tsuzkifictiontoon rewrite for illustration purposes. I tried to go back into that thread and change things, but the thread was locked. Here is the updated version:

RA:

I actually assumed that if you as LDS in good standing saw someone delving into an area as dark as the occult, which church leaders have warned its members about, you'd WANT to offer correction and bring back an erring brother who is seemingly going in a very troublesome and potentially spiritually dangerous direction. Would you say the same of fornication? Would you say the same of using God's name in vain? How about R-rated, oh heck, X-rated movies? What about breaking the Word of Wisdom if someone were a temple Mormon? Let's change the specifics a bit and see what we come up with

Tsuzkifictiontoon:

I am a Mormon in good standing, and while I have not yet been through the temple, that is one of my immediate goals. . . . And yes, I do watch pornography, embrace premarital sex, and usually practice sex while drunk (but only beer/wine). It should also be noted that there are other Mormon fornicators who watch porn and get drunk, who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them.

ttribefictionaltoon:

Tsuzkifictiontoon is a known quantity as an outlier around here in terms of his broad interpretation of sexual practice (whatever the conditions). However, it is not our place to start "correcting" him for his interpretations. First, like I said before, it is between him, God, and his leadership (i.e. Bishop and Stake President). Second, this board has rules against "calls for repentance."

There, feel better????

RA

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, I see. So in order to prove that one is not a hateful "anti-Mormon," they must vanish -- never to be heard from again. Hmmm, that might be a job for the Danites. Too bad it's still not the 1800s in Nauvoo.

RA

Not at all. You may seek the limelight in any other way you like for all I care, just not as an anti-Mormon.

[rabanes]

Not at all. You may seek the limelight in any other way you like for all I care, just not as an anti-Mormon.

Ahhh, yes, I should have been more specific. Say anytihng you like against anything you like, but just don't say a word against anything LDS -- or else. Hmmmm, how.......cult-like.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ahhh, yes, I should have been more specific. Say anytihng you like against anything you like, but just don't say a word against anything LDS -- or else. Hmmmm, how.......cult-like.

"or else"? "cult-like"? Cliche Danite slurs? It's classic Abanes.

Some things never change.

Tough to find a "stock-in-trade" as rewarding as anti-Mormonism, I suppose.

[rabanes]

"or else"? "cult-like"? Cliche Danite slurs? It's classic Abanes.

Didn't you see my cute little faces? I thought you'd find it somewhat amusing.

Some things never change.

Sigh, Indeed.

Tough to find a "stock-in-trade" as rewarding as anti-Mormonism, I suppose.

Silly boy. Give me a break. Yeah, oooooooh, my two Mormon books have garnered me untold wealth!!!! Weeeee! You could have fooled me.

RA

[Scott Lloyd]

Didn't you see my cute little faces? I thought you'd find it somewhat amusing.

Sigh, Indeed.

Silly boy. Give me a break. Yeah, oooooooh, my two Mormon books have garnered me untold wealth!!!! Weeeee! You could have fooled me.

RA

I wasn't thinking in strictly monetary terms. Your Wikipedia entry dwells a lot on your anti-Mormonism. Not sure there would have been one without it.

[rabanes]

I wasn't thinking in strictly monetary terms. Your Wikipedia entry dwells a lot on your anti-Mormonism. Not sure there would have been one without it.

You know what's odd? That wiki article actually used to have a whole section on Rick Warren. Someone took that out. Then, suddenly, the LDS section appeared. I've actually deleted that LDS section from my own adaption of the wiki article for my website: SEE HERE. Wiki is interesting and can be a nice place to start, but it's really not the best place to go for assessing a person, group, organziation, or religion.

RA

[juliann]

Really? This is what you stated in that now-locked thread:

In POST #195

, you stated: "I believe Owen (also no longer an Evangelical) used your book as an example of the sorry state of anti-Mormon literature..."

In POST #203

, you added: "In other words, scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking about it, as Mosser and Owen do)."

Now, I'm asking you to prove it, or make a retraction and apologize.

RA

The closed thread: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...9390&st=390

How did "Owen" Morph into "Moser and Owen"? How did "I believe" become "have slammed"? How did "ONUG" pick up another book title (which I have never even heard of)? This is an example of your concern for accuracy. As for what I believe, I believe ONUG is an example. Sue me.

Meanwhile, you have been unable to produce the name of one (unapologetic) scholar who has used ONUG as a source to document their own research about Mormonism. Not one.

Given that it is a decentralized, increasingly democratized social phenomenon with no established magisterium or institutional structure, authority and credentialing in the Christian countercult is a murky business at best. In fact, this circumstance present another discriminate continuum according to which the countercult can by typologized. At one end are those such as Beckwith, Blomberg, Bowman, Gomes, Groothuis, Hawkins, Lewis, Mosser, Owen, and Rhodes, who have (or are pursuing) degrees relevant in someway to the apologetic enterprise, and that were (or will be) granted by and accredited institutions. For others, such as Ankerberg, Martin, Weldon, and White, some dispute exists about the caliber of the institutions form which they claim relevant degrees, and , by implication, the actual legitimacy of the degrees themselves. Still others, such as Cumbey, Hanegraaff, Hunt, and Marrs, have degrees in fields unrelated to countercult apologetics. Finally, with the expanding democratization of the countercult, many now entering the field have no discernible academic credentials whatsoever. Of these, a numberâ??for example, Abanes, Baer, Decker, McCarthy, Montenegro, Scott, and Spencerâ??have felt called to countercult ministry out of their own involvement in new or controversial religious movements.

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 200.

ONUG does not "responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings". It does not even give an honest rendition of primary sources. Nor do you bother to go to the primary source as is evidenced with the plagiarized quote from the Tanners. That is not a responsible interaction.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa38...ag=artBody;col1

Third, currently there are (as far as we are aware) no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.4 A survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism reveals that none interacts with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Moser and Owen refer to your group as the "countercult" along with Cowan. Your only defense is denying that you are part of the countercult movement which is as convincing as me denying I am Mormon.

Finally, most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic.

[USU78]

I tip my hate on that one.

There are no accidents

[ttribe]

Oh, yeah. Thanks for the reminder. I absolutely apologize. I should have typed, and meant to type, "ttribefictionaltoon," but I accidentally left it just ttribe. It was supposed to match my Tsuzkifictiontoon rewrite for illustration purposes. I tried to go back into that thread and change things, but the thread was locked. Here is the updated version:

RA:

I actually assumed that if you as LDS in good standing saw someone delving into an area as dark as the occult, which church leaders have warned its members about, you'd WANT to offer correction and bring back an erring brother who is seemingly going in a very troublesome and potentially spiritually dangerous direction. Would you say the same of fornication? Would you say the same of using God's name in vain? How about R-rated, oh heck, X-rated movies? What about breaking the Word of Wisdom if someone were a temple Mormon? Let's change the specifics a bit and see what we come up with

Tsuzkifictiontoon:

I am a Mormon in good standing, and while I have not yet been through the temple, that is one of my immediate goals. . . . And yes, I do watch pornography, embrace premarital sex, and usually practice sex while drunk (but only beer/wine). It should also be noted that there are other Mormon fornicators who watch porn and get drunk, who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them.

ttribefictionaltoon:

Tsuzkifictiontoon is a known quantity as an outlier around here in terms of his broad interpretation of sexual practice (whatever the conditions). However, it is not our place to start "correcting" him for his interpretations. First, like I said before, it is between him, God, and his leadership (i.e. Bishop and Stake President). Second, this board has rules against "calls for repentance."

There, feel better????

RA

No. What you did was dishonest and your response is indicative of a lack of class.

[baddonkey]

Yes, any translation of the Bible will do.

Amen sister!

[rabanes]

How did "Owen" Morph into "Moser and Owen"?

In POST #203, you added: "In other words, scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking about it, as Mosser and Owen do)." You're the one who morphed it. Juliann, read your own writing. You mentioned Owen referencing my book ONUG negatively, then added Moser to the mix in #203. What are you reading?

How did "ONUG" pick up another book title (which I have never even heard of)? This is an example of your concern for accuracy. As for what I believe, I believe ONUG is an example. Sue me.

You're not speaking rationally or sanely. You've never heard of Inside Today's Mormonism? How odd. You quoted me talking about it in your POST #232:

"You seemed to not care about what Frank Beckwith, lead editor of

The New Mormon Challenge

(with your beloved Mosser and Owen), had to say about

Inside Today's Mormonism

, so I'm sure sure how the above request is any different."

You're being ridiculous.

you have been unable to produce the name of one (unapologetic) scholar who has used ONUG as a source to document their own research about Mormonism. Not one.

Unable. ROFL. I'm waiting for you. You are absolutely being dishonest and dodging. I asked you a simple question: What difference will it make to you if I produce, now apparently, at least one such reference?

You resoundingly REFUSE to answer this simple question. And I am assuming because you KNOW it will not make a bit of difference. Moreover, if you claim it will indeed make a difference and you'd see my book differently, then if I do on off chance produce such a person, you'll be between a rock and a very hard place. Trust me, I LONG at this point to provide you with references. In fact, I also asked you about Claremont, as follows:

juliann:

This was part of a course given at Claremont Graduate School....sociology of religion/Mormonism.

RA:

Ahhhh, I see. So, you'd consider any teachers or courses at Claremont Graduate School to be part of those scholars whose names you'd like to see? Careful, Juliann. And please, before you answer that one, now I'd REALLY like you to answer to the question I have been asking, and asking, and asking: "What difference it will make to you if I take my time to go to the trouble of reaching into my files and/or searching through my database for those scholars?"

You never answered that one either. Interesting. What are you afraid of Juliann? Why can't you answer a simply question about a ) what difference would such references given maken to your view of my book? b ) Would you consider any teachers or courses at Claremont Graduate School to be part of those scholars whose names you'd like to see? You're so disingenuous, Juliann. When you want to answer those questions, let me know. I'll have your refernces ready. Now what?

Moser and Owen refer to your group as the "countercult" along with Cowan.

ROFL. That's it??? That's how you're justifying saying: 1) "I believe Owen (also no longer an Evangelical) used your book as an example of the sorry state of anti-Mormon literature..." and 2) "...scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking about it, as Mosser and Owen do)."

You, my dear lady, and I mean this seriously, need help. You use this bizarre, twisted, back-handed, third-party, guilty-by-proxy grasp at straws to justify what are two absolutely false comments you made about my work? Oh, so very sad.

Sorry, Juliann. A person can't talk to someone like you, because to talk effectively, one needs to deal in the realms of reality and truth. Disagreeing is one thing. Having opposing opinions is another thing, but when you somply throw trth out the window across the board and also refuse to answer the simply questions, then it's no use.

RA

[rabanes]

No. What you did was dishonest and your response is indicative of a lack of class.

Yes, by all means, continue to invent your fantasies.

Darn, you guys are so ...... I almost don't have a word: inflexible?, unforgiving?, rigid?, mid-locked?, uncompromising? I told you exactly what happened (i.e., an honest mistake that I tried to correct) and then actually apologized just as you asked, and.........presto.......just more accusations and no desire whatsoever at understanding. Just fight, fight, fight.

I see the same thing in Juliann. She asks me three questions, I answer two, then before I go any further I ask one of my own questions, which she refuses to answer, and.......presto......I'm the bad guy unwilling to answer anything. This is really uber-tragic.

If I sound a bit irritated in this post, that's because, yes, this time I am. The accusations and hypocrisy coming in my direction are almost palpable.

Case in point, Juliann. Dear Juliann, please, just tell me, and I don't see why it's so hard: What difference will it make to you if I produce, now apparently, at least one such reference? Also, please, have enough integrity to admit that you directly noted how both Owen and Moser have cited my book ONUG as the sorry state of evangelical work in the area of Mormonism.

If I misunderstood you, and you never implied that that their negative opinions extended to Inside Today's Mormonism, then I apologize for being hasty. Now, let's deal with your accusations about Owen and Moser in connection to ONUG. You stated:

1) "I believe Owen (also no longer an Evangelical) used your book as an example of the sorry state of anti-Mormon literature..." and

2) "...scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking about it, as Mosser and Owen do)."

Once more, for the umpteenth time, either prove these assertions or retract them and apologize.

RA

[Scott Lloyd]

You know what's odd? That wiki article actually used to have a whole section on Rick Warren. Someone took that out. Then, suddenly, the LDS section appeared. I've actually deleted that LDS section from my own adaption of the wiki article for my website: SEE HERE. Wiki is interesting and can be a nice place to start, but it's really not the best place to go for assessing a person, group, organziation, or religion.

RA

I agree. But usually, a Wikipedia entry does not show up unless the subject has some degree of prominence. And the content of the entry can be an indicator of the reason for the prominence.

[rabanes]

And the content of the entry can be an indicator of the reason for the prominence.

Can be, true, but not necessarily. And again, as I said, oddly, there was a very important Rick Warren section in there, which someone removed and replaced by the LDS thing. I have no idea. TBH, within evangelical circles, I am far more known for my support of Rick Warren than I am for stuff on Mormonism. That's why I just removed the LDS section from my own website bio.

RA

[Tsuzuki]

Oh, yeah. Thanks for the reminder. I absolutely apologize. I should have typed, and meant to type, "ttribefictionaltoon," but I accidentally left it just ttribe. It was supposed to match my Tsuzkifictiontoon rewrite for illustration purposes. I tried to go back into that thread and change things, but the thread was locked. Here is the updated version:

RA:

I actually assumed that if you as LDS in good standing saw someone delving into an area as dark as the occult, which church leaders have warned its members about, you'd WANT to offer correction and bring back an erring brother who is seemingly going in a very troublesome and potentially spiritually dangerous direction. Would you say the same of fornication? Would you say the same of using God's name in vain? How about R-rated, oh heck, X-rated movies? What about breaking the Word of Wisdom if someone were a temple Mormon? Let's change the specifics a bit and see what we come up with

Tsuzkifictiontoon:

I am a Mormon in good standing, and while I have not yet been through the temple, that is one of my immediate goals. . . . And yes, I do watch pornography, embrace premarital sex, and usually practice sex while drunk (but only beer/wine). It should also be noted that there are other Mormon fornicators who watch porn and get drunk, who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them.

ttribefictionaltoon:

Tsuzkifictiontoon is a known quantity as an outlier around here in terms of his broad interpretation of sexual practice (whatever the conditions). However, it is not our place to start "correcting" him for his interpretations. First, like I said before, it is between him, God, and his leadership (i.e. Bishop and Stake President). Second, this board has rules against "calls for repentance."

There, feel better????

RA

The analogy still doesn't fit ...unless you are trying to draw a connection between occultism and fornication and alcohol. Is this what you're trying to do, Dick? You should know that I'm not a Thelemite, and I would be the first to admit that Crowley's brand of Thelema is incompatible with Mormonism.

[juliann]

deleted

[Stargazer]

Why, thank you kind sir!