Jump to content

So what DID polygamy accomplish,


JLH

Recommended Posts

I asked this question on the "plural marriage" thread a couple of days ago and it seems like a very good question yet brings so much avoidance from the lds posters.

What did God/Joseph Smith accomplish with polygamy that could not have been accomplished via monagamy with the D&C 132 (whenever it became official)?

Is it fair to look at the claims of religious leaders to see if they pass the "outrageous belief" standard in context with the time declared? I think so.

Look at Brian David Mitchell. He made that same claims as Joseph Smith in many ways. Yet because of the "outrageous belief" standard, he is considered a nut. But polygamy was considered no less outrageous during Smiths/Young claim that it came from God than was Mitchell's claim in his escapade with Elizabeth Smart. Both Mitchell's and Smith's actions were against the law and the respective moral standards of the times.

So why is it not reasonable to ask:

What did God/Joseph Smith accomplish with polygamy that could not have been accomplished via monagamy with the D&C 132 (whenever it became official)?

Is it any less "outrageous" than what Mitchell claimed a couple of years ago and can it not be compared on the same basis?

Link to comment
As a believer; in order to restore all the keys for the dispensation of the fullness of times.

As a critic; man that polygamy is some crazy [edited]

How does replacing one letter make an offensive word any less offensive? This I have never understood. If you're gonna swear just do it and if you're not, than don't.

Link to comment
How does replacing one letter make an offensive word any less offensive? This I have never understood. If you're gonna swear just do it and if you're not, than don't.
Didn't mean to offend, just placed for humor's sake. I don't find swear words offensive, but in case others do, replacing a word is meant to show sensitivity and also care not to get a thread deleted.
Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto

Census data refutes the old lie that there were more women than men.

Yes, as long as the women were married and had 5-8 children each I see you point.

The apologists will tell you it was more of a test of their faithfulness to obey the leaders, who they will argue were acting on direct revelation from God.

Just like tithing. My favorite line from sacrament talks is "God does not need the money, it is a test of our obedience"

The same with the WoW. More of a test of faithfulness to follow the leaders, again these leaders will claim they are acting under divine revelation.

I believe that less than 50% of members were practicing.

The pristine growth comes from within, the best converts come from LDS wombs.

A recent talk by Russell Nelson reiterated the pressure the LDS church puts on its members to get married very young, and to quickly bear children BEFORE all else, as many as they can. He is a perfect example of this with his 11 converts.

Link to comment

This is entirely off topic, but if you don't see the difference between altering a genuine cuss word to make it less offensive, do you feel the same way about altering the entire word into a "less offensive" permutation of the cuss word? Dang instead of damn, for instance? Why is "dang" any less offensive than "damn"; isn't it just another way of saying "d*mn"?

If the meaning and the emotion behind a word are what make a cuss, then I contend that pretend cuss words (heck, gosh, and so on) are just as offensive as the words they are intended to replace.

Link to comment

Brought the population of the church up. I am a direct decendant of Brigham Young, as are a great many I am sure. I think this is the primary reason that God put this in place. I am sure others have better arguments though.

Link to comment

All commandments have a spiritual aspect to them but there is always a temporal reason as well. Commandments are not generally given to just be a test of faith, although they are that as well in most cases. The word of wisdom has obvious temporal blessings that go along with it for example. While it was a test of faith, polygamy also served a temporal purpose, "to raise up seed".

Link to comment
This is entirely off topic, but if you don't see the difference between altering a genuine cuss word to make it less offensive, do you feel the same way about altering the entire word into a "less offensive" permutation of the cuss word? Dang instead of damn, for instance? Why is "dang" any less offensive than "damn"; isn't it just another way of saying "d*mn"?

If the meaning and the emotion behind a word are what make a cuss, then I contend that pretend cuss words (heck, gosh, and so on) are just as offensive as the words they are intended to replace.

*sigh*

To replace one letter with a wildcard is usueless, we all know what it is, so what's the point? Damn and dang are different.

Link to comment
Census data refutes the old lie that there were more women than men.

Yes, as long as the women were married and had 5-8 children each I see you point.

The apologists will tell you it was more of a test of their faithfulness to obey the leaders, who they will argue were acting on direct revelation from God.

Just like tithing. My favorite line from sacrament talks is "God does not need the money, it is a test of our obedience"

The same with the WoW. More of a test of faithfulness to follow the leaders, again these leaders will claim they are acting under divine revelation.

I believe that less than 50% of members were practicing.

The pristine growth comes from within, the best converts come from LDS wombs.

A recent talk by Russell Nelson reiterated the pressure the LDS church puts on its members to get married very young, and to quickly bear children BEFORE all else, as many as they can. He is a perfect example of this with his 11 converts.

This kind of "test of faith" really strikes me as unbecoming of a God. (Yes I am using my own judgment here. I have a brain for a reason)

Example,

If God ever asked me to sacrifice my son like he did Abraham the answer would be twofold

1) No.

2) Your not really God are you.

If a man like JS asked for my wife, my answer would be a wordless one (a knuck sandwitch). I would never wonder whether he was a prophet or not after that.

A test of faith seems sometimes to be a test to see if you will do what you know to be wrong just because an authority figure tells you to do it. Other times a test of faith is simply a test of gullibility (be humble = don't trust your own judgment so I can better brainwash you. How else do real cults come in to existence?).

Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto
It got JS killed to seal his testimony.

Sure, just as much as what David Koresh did to seal his testimony.

All of JS's past finally caught up to him.

JS did not die a martyr. He fought back, killing two men.

Don't pull the bible excuse card on this. In his story he went to the cross willingly.

Link to comment

How many times do we have to lay this anti-mormon-myth to wrest?

Joseph Smith didnt kill anybody.

Can you get that through your neaderthalish skull JP?

How could the two men who had been "injured" by Joseph Smith stand trial a few weeks later and be aquited because of witness purjury? Then flee the state? Did they hall in their corpses and hold a trial?

:P

The residence of near by towns even payed them for the assination.

Second Christ "armed" his men with swords and they used them. Under your definition of "martyr" Christ was a black sheep. <_<:unsure:

On you...

and

:ph34r:

To grow up on.

NOTE: I can see it now... JP is looking for the quote for History of the Church by John Taylor. I predict a snide remark.

Link to comment

The real question should be, would you do something so immoral, so repulsive, and against your heart and the law of the land just to prove your faithfulness?

Ding Ding Ding...

I truely belive JS was a fallen Prophet. All the witness cannot be wrong, they left for a reason...and it had to have been a big one for them to leave so abruptly and in unision.

Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto
How many times do we have to lay this lie to wrest?

Joseph Smith didnt kill anybody.

Can you get that through your neaderthalish skull JP?

NOTE:

Link to comment

I told you he was getting the debunked John Taylor quotes!

Do I win a prize!???

No need for the scanned copies JP. I have them already.

Notice that John Taylors information is second hand. We all know how the game of telephone works. There where rumors flying all around Mormondom of the fates of these three men who where wounded. We all know how quick rumors fly with the Releif society involved :P. Orsan Pratt in his autobiography tracked down the wifes of these men in California. And they told the stories of how the wounds woudn't heal and magots and gangreen got in them and their jaws and arms fell off and the maggots ate through their Jugular veins and they died.

You still didn't pay attention. These 3 men stood trial because they had these wounds. They where the only ones who could be identified because of the painted faces of the Mob.

Do you beleive everything you read in books and Newspapers JP? Do you ever check the stories out for yourself? Heres a little history lesson for ya.

Get this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...433726?v=glance

How could Joseph have killed 2 men as John Taylors second hand report says. When the three men stood trial a few weeks later because they where identified by their wounds?

They where payed in the form of new suits by the residence of warsaw for the assinations. They later fled the state.

Again... Dead men dont stand trial... and they dont flee the state. Theres a fair paper on this and it has the photocopied minutes from the trial. Maybe someone can help me locate it.

Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto
Do you beleive everything you read in books and Newspapers JP? Do you ever check the stories out for yourself? Heres a little history lesson for ya.

Hmmm, so the "History of the Church"(LDS) contains falsehoods? Who'da thunk?

Why was this not revised? Mormons are masters of that.

Now there is an author I can trust, Dallin H. Oaks, master spin doctor of all things LDS.

Remember how he, Gordon B. Hinkley, and Mark Hoffman were all good buds back in the early 80s?

Link to comment
Hmmm, so the "History of the Church"(LDS) contains falsehoods? Who'da thunk?

Why was this not revised? Mormons are masters of that.

Kind a throws a wrench in the idea... the Church covers things up.... and rewrites its history don't it?

I mean who could let this stand for Christ's sake! :P

Funny thing is...

"Biblical Christians" are still spreading this lie.

Its in this flyer right here I got stuck on my windshield this afternoon.

Will they be judged for spreading false witness?

Also... What John Taylor was "informed" of "several years later" I might add. They very well could have been dead by then. Because the fled the state not getting medical attention for there wounds and they died.

Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto

So we have two sources, an offical publication from the LDS church and one from Fair.

Fair says this about itself:

FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of  Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

Guess which one I will believe?

Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto
Did you check out the foot notes. They site the court casses in Illinous.

Who do I beleive? The court records of Illinous and true history instead of second hand reports.

Thats how the LDS church works.

When non church documents(court records, journals, newpapers, etc) prove their point then they acknowledge them as authentic.

However, when these documents place the church in a bad light, they are discredited.

Link to comment

Thank goodness that Joseph came up with The Book of Mormon before polygamy.

To answer your question:

Polygamy cause the westward migration.

It helped open up the Oregon trail rather than the direct route to California.

It insured a US Cavalry presence in Utah.

It let to the discovery of mining in Utah,

Which lead to a Gentile population.

It delivered the Church into the hands of the Republican Party.

It made it questionable for many small town Utah residents to marry residents of the same town.

First Quorum of Cousins? Of course not!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...