thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 24 minutes ago, california boy said: You really think the virgin birth story is the same as a 30 something man claiming to be a prophet of God marrying a 14 year old child and other men's wives in 1830? I guess if you make that claim, then to be more Christ-like, we should all be out there looking for 14 year old children to marry. Your Presentism is showing. 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, california boy said: You do realize that the northern half of the United States believe that blacks deserved to be treated as any other man. And you also realize that the Mormons were living in isolated Utah during the time of the civil war. Do you really think that general Lee would have dispatched a portion of his army to march to Utah in the middle of his battle with the north to take out those crazy Mormons living in Utah? And even if he did, do you not think that it would be an honor to fight those that believed it was ok to OWN SLAVES???? My statement still stands. There were plenty of people in 1830 that believed blacks should be treated just like everyone else. And are you telling me that the church was ready to accept polygamy, but not ready to treat all men with dignity and respect? The one thing I have learned from this board is the a part of Mormonism these days is to figure out how to twist and contort facts even to the point of being unrecognizable in order to justify the church's claims. Good luck with that. You aren't convincing a single soul. It will always be a stain on the reputation of the church that it stood for discrimination for 150 years. The saints were ready to accept polygamy, but not accept the truth that discrimination and exclusion is not part of the gospel Christ taught. Really? That is your position?? So much disinformation in such a tiny bandwidth. The northern half of the US emphatically did not believe blacks deserved to be treated like every other man. That is a gross misrepresentation of the struggle faced by the early abolitionist movement. There were not "plenty"of people in 1830 that supported black rights. That is an unsupported assertion. Serious abolitionists were small in number and influence in 1830. It was a difficult struggle that grew for decades and culminated in the Civil War. It still continues today. Part of the reason the Saints were in Utah was violent opposition and political pressure caused by the anti-slavery positions they took in Missouri and Illinois. Joseph Smith's Presidential platform included the sale of public lands to get money to pay slave owners to free the slaves. Moving west took the Mormons out of the conflict, but the Confederacy wanted the Western territories to be slave lands. There were several failed Confederate military attempts to take the West by invading the New Mexico and Arizona territories and moving north into Colorado and Utah. The Mormons were left to their own devices during the war as Union troops were withdrawn from the Utah territory and moved eastward. Lincoln used political means to appease the Mormons and at least for a time blink at dealing with their independence and practice of plural marriage. The elimination of that "relic of barbarism" was put off by the government until after the Civil War. In the meantime, the Church was able to live apart from the turmoil and accomplish its mission...to solidify the Restoration, gather thousands of converts from the eastern States including the South from which all my Mormon great-grandparents came, and Europe, which was not a bastion of pro-black sentiment, and build Zion. Not everyone coming to Utah was an abolitionist. The reality and pervasiveness of racism among Church members and among all peoples at that time had to be dealt with in a way that would allow for accelerated growth yet recognize human rights as much as possible. I believe the Church threaded this needle through the Priesthood ban. Otherwise it would have remained a small insular entity, in my opinion, much like the abolitionist Quakers. The Priesthood ban served this purpose. It was a compromise that had greater goals for the future. It was not until my generation that this issue could be resolved without creating division in the Church. History bears this out. The transition, as far as I can tell, was seamless. We were prepared for it and welcomed it with open arms.That could not have happened with previous generations. It is a wrong to conflate plural marriage, as practiced by the Church, with slavery, which was not practiced by the Church. I do not believe something of this magnitude was a mistake. Each served a purpose and each has passed on. I also believe in the eternal mercy and justice of God that He will fully compensate all injustices and hurt. You are free to disagree. Edited June 10, 2016 by Bernard Gui 3
Bernard Gui Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: I would imagine that polygamy was much more difficult to accept in the 19th century than integrated priesthood would have been. People did not fight horrific wars over plural marriage, 1
Gray Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: People did not fight horrific wars over plural marriage, That's because plural marriage in the 19th century was limited to a few religious groups and Utopian movements. Even so, it was listed along with slavery as on of the "twin relics of barbarism". Edited June 9, 2016 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 19 minutes ago, Gray said: That's because plural marriage in the 19th century was limited to a few religious groups and Utopian movements. Even so, it was listed along with slavery as on of the "twin relics of barbarism". I don't believe that Martin Luther was a barbarian.
JLHPROF Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 44 minutes ago, Gray said: That's because plural marriage in the 19th century was limited to a few religious groups and Utopian movements. Even so, it was listed along with slavery as on of the "twin relics of barbarism". One man's opinion. And a politician at that.
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: One man's opinion. And a politician at that. Actually, that was the platform of a whole political party, a winning one at that.
Bernard Gui Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 51 minutes ago, Gray said: That's because plural marriage in the 19th century was limited to a few religious groups and Utopian movements. Even so, it was listed along with slavery as on of the "twin relics of barbarism". Do you believe that a civil war could or would have been fought over plural marriage? In view of current sensibilities, plural marriage has risen significantly in status.
Bernard Gui Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) So, what does this have to do with the future of the Church? Both these issues will continue to be the bully pulpit for those who are hoping for Church-wide acceptance of ssm and the rest of the blessings of the sexual revolution. Edited June 9, 2016 by Bernard Gui
JLHPROF Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Actually, that was the platform of a whole political party, a winning one at that. Again, politics. Who cares what they think about spiritual matters. Most of them have no morals to begin with. Edited June 9, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Again, politics. Who cares what they think about spiritual matters. Most of them have no morals to begin with. Most of whom? Most members of political parties have no morals?
Gray Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 42 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: I don't believe that Martin Luther was a barbarian. Mongol General: Martin! What is best in life? Martin Luther: Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.
Gray Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: One man's opinion. And a politician at that. Wasn't that part of the platform of the Republican Party?
JLHPROF Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Just now, jkwilliams said: Most of whom? Most members of political parties have no morals? Most politicians. If you doubt it, there's ample evidence and plenty of rumour. http://www.rantpolitical.com/2014/11/12/15-presidents-who-were-rumored-to-have-mistresses/ And the man that headed that platform publicly declaring polygamy a barbarous relic?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln
Gray Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Do you believe that a civil war could or would have been fought over plural marriage? In view of current sensibilities, plural marriage has risen significantly in status. Sure, if the South had been practicing it en masse, it could have lead to war, or contributed to it.
JLHPROF Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Wasn't that part of the platform of the Republican Party? Yes. Led by Lincoln, and publicly proclaimed by Lincoln.
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Just now, JLHPROF said: Most politicians. If you doubt it, there's ample evidence and plenty of rumour. http://www.rantpolitical.com/2014/11/12/15-presidents-who-were-rumored-to-have-mistresses/ And the man that headed that platform publicly declaring polygamy a barbarous relic?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln Wow, I never I thought I'd see someone attack Abraham Lincoln based on rumors of homosexuality. 1
Gray Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Yes. Led by Lincoln, and publicly proclaimed by Lincoln. Yes, political parties have leaders.
JLHPROF Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Just now, jkwilliams said: Wow, I never I thought I'd see someone attack Abraham Lincoln based on rumors of homosexuality. My point is simple. The people who most vigorously have proclaimed against polygamy often don't have the best track record morally.http://jod.mrm.org/23/294
Bernard Gui Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 9 minutes ago, Gray said: Sure, if the South had been practicing it en masse, it could have lead to war, or contributed to it. Oh my.
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: My point is simple. The people who most vigorously have proclaimed against polygamy often don't have the best track record morally.http://jod.mrm.org/23/294 Neither do those who most vigorously supported it, IMO. 1
Gray Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Oh my. From what I understand the "gentiles" considered polygamy to be quite scandalous.
Bernard Gui Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Gray said: From what I understand the "gentiles" considered polygamy to be quite scandalous. Most wars are not started by scandal. Enough to muster armies of hundreds of thosands of men, build massive amounts of arms, blockade ports, burn crops and cities, kill and maim the most soldiers in American history, and assassinate the leader of the anti-polygamy faction? I don't think so. One could even argue that the institution and practice of plural marriage is on a morally higher ground than a system that allows concubinage, mistresses (see Jacob 2), abortion, and illegitimate children. Certainly Americans would never have countenanced a full-fledged hot war against plural marriage. Of course there is the slaughter of Joseph and Hyrum, but that was not solely based on the rumors of plural marriage. Political and legislative persecution certainly, but not killing on a large scale by armies rather than small mobs.... unless I'm underestimating the moral outrage and hypocricy our ancestors.... We cannot conflate plural marriage with slavery. No way. Edited June 10, 2016 by Bernard Gui 2
The Nehor Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Gray said: Wasn't that part of the platform of the Republican Party? Anyone else remember the good old days when they had one? 😜 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 18 hours ago, Gray said: Mongol General: Martin! What is best in life? Martin Luther: Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women. That doesn't make him a barbarian. Any number of Roman generals said and did worse.
Recommended Posts