Posted on 05/29/2007 7:51:02 AM PDT by Reaganesque
That’s right just ignore the question and it will go away. Polygamy was not against the law for sixty years. During part of which polygamy was a fact of life for a great many LDS people.
I do not intend to get in a peeing contest with someone who thinks all those thousands of women and children ought to have been put out on the street by those legally married to them and responsible for their maintenance and welfare.
Reading the Congressional hearings you have presented, it is quite obvious that the congressmen believe that their bill should have resulted in dissolution ex post facto of legal marriages. What folly. Such would have caused horrible hardship and emotional pain and that indeed was the object.
Fortunately those giving evidence we believe spoke truthfully, and did what was necessary to preserve their families. The fact that you go to the trouble of researching a few examples, historically of minimal significance IMHO in light of present history while NOT answering the original question is worth noting.
Congress, by virtue of their ex post facto anti-polygamy bill, Which was passed for no other reason than to blackmail the future of the territory and in direct contradiction of the Constitution of the United States of America, sought to achieve the virtual destruction of the LDS church through the destruction of the families and the confiscation of monies and buildings of the LDS Church.
Congress failed in the attempt, but caused severe hardship through jail sentences of fathers and drove the leadership of the church underground for a time. They were very difficult times, but what did not happen was the dissolution of legal marriages and abandonment of familial relationships.
My great great grandfather was literally driven from this country and forced at the point of many guns to leave Nauvoo, Illinois. His only wife, pregnant and about to deliver, died two weeks later of exposure while in labor. The child died also. Over time, more than 5,000 people died while crossing the plains to escape religious persecution. Many had come across the seas from other countries for the very reasons they were then herded west in this country.
The Church and it’s people have survived much more than a bunch of nit picking self proclaimed Christians, and to say that we have a devil isn’t anything more than they accused the Christ of having. I have a personal opinion as many do, in regards the Lord Jesus. If he were to return as he came the first time in the Meridian of time, He would indeed suffer the same fate, only a whole lot quicker, by the very people who profess his name.
The Jews take a lot of abuse for their failure to recognize their King and Redeemer when he came into their midst. I understand their plight, and they have suffered in the extreme for their failures, such will not be the case on his return. All will know that it is he. Some will remain, but most will wish the very mountains to cover them up.
Sometime before the judgment day, Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, that Jesus is the Christ. In the spirit of Him in whom we trust, I sincerely hope the absolute BS relative to “Mormon’s that you professed Christians cling too like a babe to it’s mom, will have long since been placed on the ash heap of history, and you begin to examine the beam in your own eye.
If you wish to debate the belief system of the LDS Church, may I suggest you stick to scriptural references, instead of digging into non scriptural refernces which I repeat, are not part of the doctrinal foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and most especially stay away from sites unfriendly to the LDS faith.
Those sites have as much credibility as DUmmies r us, and Daily KOS. Those deceptions and lies are as clear to you as the agenda of anti-Mormon web sites are to those of us who are members of the Church. Why not spend your time learning something of value instead of attempting to tear down that which will not be coming down any time soon, no matter how hard you try.
The original question you asked was, "and what might the date on that law be? I’m quite sure you will find that it is years, nay even decades after the organization of the Latter day Church in 1830."
1. You are asserting that these laws were ex post facto, but polygamy has NEVER been legal under the laws of the United States or what was at the time, Mexico.
2. Joseph Smith (and others) publicly denied practicing polygamy while practicing it.
"It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."
History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 411 (May 1844)
Those sites have as much credibility as DUmmies r us, and Daily KOS.
Do you attack the credibility of the testimony in the Congressional hearings with this statement? Mormon officials, including Joseph F. Smith, admitted to being lawbreakers in those transcripts.
My great great grandfather was literally driven from this country and forced at the point of many guns to leave Nauvoo, Illinois. His only wife, pregnant and about to deliver, died two weeks later of exposure while in labor. The child died also. Over time, more than 5,000 people died while crossing the plains to escape religious persecution. Many had come across the seas from other countries for the very reasons they were then herded west in this country.
I'm sorry about what happened to your ancestors, but polygamy has never been legal in the United States and your great great grandfather, his wife and their innocent child paid an awful price for choosing to, if I read you correctly, follow leaders west, who, as Colofornian pointed out, spiritually abused them. A large part of what you euphemistically refer to as "religious persecution" was a direct result of Joseph Smith's vile and immoral lawbreaking. Sometimes very bad things happen to people who hang around criminals.
Cordially,
To those of you who have problems with Romney because of his religious beliefs: Does that mean you will not vote for him if he wins the Republican nomination?
Sorry, I won't be baited in, in either offering. I've been gone from the FReepland for a couple weeks now, and I can't tell you how nice it's been. ;-) The anti Christian behavior exhibited here is apparent for all to see. If you want people to see your fruits, don't throw tomatoes.
Cheers
WW,
Count me among those who will not be voting for mitt,
if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for
POTUS. I will go fishing. I think millions of evangelicals
will too. I think Hillary will win, if we elect mitt.
ampu
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.