Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same-Sex Marriage: Opening the Door to Polygamy
The Philadelphia Bulletin ^ | April 17, 2009 | Gregory J. Sullivan

Posted on 04/17/2009 12:47:48 PM PDT by Colofornian

With the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court and an enactment of a statute Vermont Legislature sanctioning same-sex marriage, a great deal of commentary, filled with understandable but unwarranted optimism, has appeared on the possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated in additional states, including New Jersey.

Advocates are dismissive of the slippery-slope argument — that is, by allowing same-sex couples to marry, then any restrictions on a parent marrying his child or his couch will logically fall. Such views are easily ridiculed if not rebutted, but the next logical step in this debate — namely, polygamy — is not readily dismissed and must be honestly considered by those who favor same-sex marriage.

We tend to think that culture wars are a unique affliction of our unsettled age. In the 19th century, however, the country was engulfed in a moral struggle not only against slavery but also — and often with comparable fervor — against Mormon polygamy. From Joseph Smith’s revelation in the early 1830s that included plural marriage to the official repudiation of this teaching by the Mormon Church in 1890, Mormons were furiously persecuted and relentlessly prosecuted for their practice of polygamy.

The platform of the Republican Party in 1856 famously called for the prohibition in the territories of “those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” Moreover, the state constitutions of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah all have provisions banning polygamy and Congress required these anti-polygamy provisions as a condition of admission to statehood in all these states except Idaho.

This constitutional struggle over polygamy culminated in 1878 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. United States. A bigamist named George Reynolds was prosecuted in the Utah territory. Reynolds sought a conduct exemption to the criminal prohibition of polygamy based on the guarantee of the free exercise of religion under the first amendment. With the correct observation that the practice of polygamy is incompatible with American political institutions, the Court determined that the prohibition was well within the authority of Congress in the territories.

Mormon polygamy was defeated by a culture stable enough in its understanding of public morality, particularly at the elite level, to thwart this great challenge. That understanding has essentially vanished today.

Proponents of same-sex marriage invariably wonder what harm would be presented by allowing couples of the same sex to marry. Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged. But our intellectual elites who dominate the courts, the universities and the editorial offices of newspapers are animated by a radical individualism on social issues and they have no concern at all for public morality and refuse to acknowledge any such harm. Then what is the case against polygamy? Allowing a man (or woman) to enter into plural marriage will not prohibit others from marrying in the monogamous tradition. It would not interfere with that arrangement in any way. Churches would still be free to marry couples in conformity with their own teachings.

What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other?

With the exclusively libertarian premises that are relied on today for such questions, the case for polygamy is stronger than that of same-sex marriage. For the libertarian, any case against polygamy is based on nothing more than ignorance and fear. After all, most people know homosexuals. How many polygamists does anyone know? Perhaps such irrational opposition should be stigmatized as “polyphobia.”

With numerous Mormon fundamentalists (excommunicated Mormons who practice polygamy) in this country and increasing immigration from Islamic countries where polygamy is enthusiastically practiced, plural marriage is not a concern based on hysteria or conjecture. Indeed, the intellectually casual embrace of same-sex marriage by its advocates is remarkably oblivious to this problem. Instead of mocking opposition to same-sex marriage as the irrational product of a benighted religious tradition, advocates must be forced to confront the inescapable logic of their own argument. If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a “right” that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.


TOPICS: Current Events; Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: antimormonthread; culturewars; homosexualagenda; lds; mormon; polygamy; polygyny; republican; samesexmarriage; slipperyslope
From the article: The title itself: Same-Sex Marriage: Opening the Door to Polygamy

Ah, historic irony:
First Mormon polygamous proponents wage war on monogamy, weakening that institution to make it more vulnerable to further attacks a century later.
Now same-sex marriage proponents wage war on monogamy, weaking that institution to make it more vulnerable to polygamy!

What the homosexual activists are doing to monogamy is not all that distinct from what Lds activists did to it in the 19th century under the guise of religious pluralism!

1 posted on 04/17/2009 12:47:49 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Same-Sex Marriage: Opening the Door to Polygamy

Just in time for the mass influx of muslim immigrants that obama is going to let into America...

2 posted on 04/17/2009 12:49:51 PM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Islam allows polygamy.


3 posted on 04/17/2009 12:49:59 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From the article: In the 19th century, however, the country was engulfed in a moral struggle not only against slavery but also — and often with comparable fervor — against Mormon polygamy. From Joseph Smith’s revelation in the early 1830s that included plural marriage to the official repudiation of this teaching by the Mormon Church in 1890, Mormons were... relentlessly prosecuted for their practice of polygamy. The platform of the Republican Party in 1856 famously called for the prohibition in the territories of “those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” Moreover, the state constitutions of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah all have provisions banning polygamy and Congress required these anti-polygamy provisions as a condition of admission to statehood in all these states except Idaho.

Yup. The Republican party's very foundation socially was to openly attack polygamy. Defenders and “neutrals” of polygamy need to get over it. The party of Lincoln openly labeled it as “a relic of barbarism” and treated it the same as slavery – fighting it tooth & nail even to the point that 42 years after its party's opening salvo, a two-dozen-plus banner delivery to Congress featured 7 million signatures of grassroots citizens telling Congress to send home newly elected polygamist Democrat congressman B.H. Roberts. (They did -- he took a u-turn back to Utah). That was pre-mass media. 1898.

4 posted on 04/17/2009 12:54:39 PM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Interesting how some state constitutions already expressly “control what goes on in the bedroom” by banning polygamy. I assume much of the left is OK with those. Or maybe not!

Few, if any, arguments for same-sex marriage are inapplable to polygamy. “Who does it hurt if someone has three wives?” “If you don’t want three wives don’t marry three!”


5 posted on 04/17/2009 12:54:51 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

And who doesn’t want to marry their FERRET....CHIMP.....DOG.....For SURE their CAT.....that’s where THIS is going!


6 posted on 04/17/2009 12:55:24 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion....the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry; MHGinTN; Colofornian; Elsie; FastCoyote; Osage Orange; svcw; Enosh; Zakeet; ...

Polygamy Ping


7 posted on 04/17/2009 12:56:02 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Obama....never saw a Bush molehill he couldn't make a mountain out of.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Seven million signatures back then - before mass media, as you rightly point out - is simply staggering.


8 posted on 04/17/2009 12:56:08 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
From the article (author's closing): With numerous Mormon fundamentalists (excommunicated Mormons who practice polygamy) in this country and increasing immigration from Islamic countries where polygamy is enthusiastically practiced, plural marriage is not a concern based on hysteria or conjecture. Indeed, the intellectually casual embrace of same-sex marriage by its advocates is remarkably oblivious to this problem.

Is it possible that the Mormon PR machine (& by extension, its grassroots apologetic lobby) is so well-oiled that ”everybody” now thinks that all Mormons who practice polygamy are excommunicated?

Uh, somebody wanna tap this columnist on the shoulder – or e-mail him at Gregoryjsull@aol.com to let him know that probably 98-99% of fundamentalist Mormons have NOT been ex-communicated from the Salt-Lake based LDS Church? Oops. Seems like his closing comment is based on the utterly false notion that the overwhelming majority of fLDS are ex--LDS...Sorry, but that hasn't been true since the 1930s-1940s!!! 'Tis a straw man. If we applied this logic across the board – that all fLDS are excommunicated LDS...
...all Lutherans would simply be excommunicated Catholics...
...same with all Moravians, too.

9 posted on 04/17/2009 12:59:45 PM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From the article: Mormon polygamy was defeated by a culture stable enough in its understanding of public morality, particularly at the elite level, to thwart this great challenge. That understanding has essentially vanished today...

Indeed it has.

We even have FREEPERS galore who repeatedly & openly defended the Texas polygamists.
And Utah Mormons in law enforcement positions who traditionally look the other way re: its wide-open practice in that state.
And then you have many grassroots LDS who are often 100% ambiguous about polygamy because either...
(a) their descendents were polygamous;
and/or (b) they anticipate encountering many polygamous beings still practicing polygamy in the afterlife;
and/or (c) they anticipate the Mormon jesus re-instituting polygamy when he returns;
and/or (d) they have Mormon peers and neighbors now who are serial monogamists but who were sealed "for eternity" to all their spouses in the LDS temple -- and therefore are deemed as "eternal polygamists!"

10 posted on 04/17/2009 1:07:24 PM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Oh please, because I really need TWO people nagging me to take out the garbage.


11 posted on 04/17/2009 1:11:12 PM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad
Oh please, because I really need TWO people nagging me to take out the garbage.

LOL

(and why stop at just two garbage advocates?)

12 posted on 04/17/2009 1:12:23 PM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

hey, while I am against same sex marriage, I actually think the world would be a better place with polygamy.


13 posted on 04/17/2009 1:27:12 PM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (Hope and Change. Rhetoric embraced by the Insane - Obama, The Chump in Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Who would want more than one wife??? Sheesh, 2x’s the honey do’s, 2x’s the PMS, 2x’s the shopping trips, 2x’s less golfing


14 posted on 04/17/2009 1:46:08 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL

‘hey, while I am against same sex marriage, I actually think the world would be a better place with polygamy.’

I disagree, aside from all the obvious jokes it wouldnt work. There is pretty close to a 50/50 mix between the sexes. If a significant amount of men couldn’t marry because all the women were 2,3,4th wives and there were no women it would be a different society. We could expect more wars, violence and negative impacts to our society.


15 posted on 04/17/2009 1:48:17 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL
...I actually think the world would be a better place with polygamy.

First question: Does that go both ways. You'd be all in favor of one woman having 10-20 husbands? (Yes? No?)

Secondly. Let's see. I just saw a recent article that says China has 32 million more boys than girls. Why? (Primarily sex-selection abortion & open abandonment of female infants & children). Now that translates into a lot of single males in China with no (eventual) prospect of marrying.

Polygamy carries the same major negative social consequences. LOTS of males with no prospect of marrying within that culture.

Now, how did the 19th century LDS leaders tend to deal with it? For one, they sent young lads on missions -- so they could marry off the girls they were interested in. Secondly, one young lad who was romantically attached to a young lady was castrated -- and later committed suicide.

And we see the same kind of nonsense from fLDS -- hence, the "lost boys" of Colorado City/Hildale. Teen boys are told to leave; socially ostracized.

So how does your pro-polygamy stance square with these negative social consequences? ('cause it's attitudes like yours that steepens the problems of dealing with the roots of these consequences)

16 posted on 04/17/2009 1:49:26 PM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL
hey, while I am against same sex marriage, I actually think the world would be a better place with polygamy.

I HOPE YOU'RE NOT SERIOUS!

POLYGAMY IS A HIDEOUS MORMON PRACTICE

Male teens are frequently dumped on the streets of places like Salt Lake City by polygamous Mormon sects because there aren't enough females to go around. Over 400 abandoned young men are kept by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in one school in Salt Lake City alone. When they graduate from high school, they are unceremoniously discarded back onto the streets. You can read more about this HERE.

Perhaps worse is the fate awaiting the girls. They are taken from their homes as teens (some as young as 14 or 15) and given as wives to men in their 50's to essentially serve as breed stock in order to call home spirit babies. You can read more about this HERE and HERE.

Polygamy is an embarrassment to modern Mormonism, in part because of:

  1. The terrible effect polygamy has on people.

  2. The teaching polygamy was essential to progress to the highest levels of godhood and this practice would never end.

    For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. (D&C 132:4,21)
  3. The obvious contradiction caused by condemnation of polygamy in other Mormon scripture.

    Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. (BoM Jacob 2:24)
  4. The exposition of Mormonism's prophet, Joseph Smith, as a serial statutory rapist (eleven of Smith's wives were between ages 14 and 20), a swinger (11 of Smith's wives were married and cohabiting with their husbands, while married to Smith), and a liar (Smith repeatedly denied he engaged in polygamy).

  5. The exposition of the Mormon Church as liars and vacillators as they denied-affirmed and prohibited-commanded-prohibited polygamy.

  6. The Mormon Church abandoned polygamy only after the U.S. Government disincorporated the Church and ordered its property seized. This raises the troubling trilemma of whether: (a) Mormonism's god was stupid and/or wrong when he proclaimed polygamy was everlasting, or (b) Joseph Smith was a false prophet when he received this revelation, or (c) the Church's current leaders are false prophets by placing material gain and political expediency ahead of divine revelation.

You can read more about the history of Mormonism and polygamy HERE and HERE.

There is an excellent video (approximately 90 minutes long) on polygamy HERE. It is well worth the watch in my opinion. (Incidentally, the sponsor provides copies of the DVD without charge to LDS members)

I also strongly recommend you visit the Utah Attorney General's web page on polygamy HERE. You may also want to review the AG's Primer on polygamy (there is a link to the pdf document at the bottom of the first paragraph) with the understanding it is emotionally disturbing.

17 posted on 04/17/2009 1:53:41 PM PDT by Zakeet (Thou Shalt Not Steal -- Unless thou art the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Hey, I didn’t say it should be practiced the MORMON way. But I do dig that new wavish hairdoos the chicks have!


18 posted on 04/17/2009 1:59:36 PM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (Hope and Change. Rhetoric embraced by the Insane - Obama, The Chump in Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

yes both ways. Why not? Again, I never said that polygamy mormon style should be practiced. Just that if you have a guy and two women who want to get married, then they should or vice versa. But it shouldn’t be a forced practiced.


19 posted on 04/17/2009 2:03:44 PM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (Hope and Change. Rhetoric embraced by the Insane - Obama, The Chump in Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL; Zakeet
Just that if you have a guy and two women who want to get married, then they should or vice versa. But it shouldn’t be a forced practiced.

A good chunk of my China example in post #16 applies. While you can say that the Chinese govt policy of one-child-per family policy is behind most abortions and most female child abandonments, the choice of these abandonments is still left in the hands of parents.

Therefore, even if you had "only" 10 million more Chinese boys than girls (if abortion wasn't a forced practice there), you still have this 10 million gap happening one at a time. And likewise, opening the door to polygamy -- and depriving men of a wife -- would happen one plural wife at a time -- until its accumulative total exacts a terrible social toll.

Besides, "greedy" hundreds of 19th century Mormon leaders never could stop at just one extra wife. Once the high school roll call was open for them to observe and re-observe every year, they couldn't get themselves off the young "bride" indulgence list.

From LDS apostle Kimball's 19th century comments, we already know that's the way they routinely treated new converts arriving in Utah midway through the 19th century. And we know that Brigham Young & Joseph Smith were oogling newly arrived-on-the-scene British converts like 17 yo Martha Brotherton, as evidenced by her July 1842 affidavit (see pp. 562-566 of H. Michael Marquardt's book, The Rise of Mormonism, 1816-1844). All but p. 564 can be viewed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Z_v2IAnMssMC&pg=PA559&lpg=PA559&dq=%22joseph+smith%22+ages+wives&source=bl&ots=5p93hgC0GO&sig=dFuE7Su8tlQdx6Sznjo5JM69JpY&hl=en&ei=SLzoSamjFZ-qtgew_q2KBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA562,M1

20 posted on 04/17/2009 2:38:32 PM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

2X the sex, at least for awhile.


21 posted on 04/17/2009 2:58:07 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

SIN is the basis for ALL this stuff!


22 posted on 04/17/2009 3:46:03 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
2X the sex, at least for awhile.

HMMmmm... two times the sex...

How about two AT A TIME sex?

23 posted on 04/17/2009 3:49:07 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Now same-sex marriage proponents wage war on monogamy, weaking [sic]that institution to make it more vulnerable to polygamy!

Are those “same-sex marriage proponents” the gay clergy and their respective congregants in the "mainstream" Presbyterian, Episcopalian, the United Church of Christ, and the Lutheran (ELCA} churches?

Naw, it couldn't be. They are all part of the bride of Christ because they believe in the trinity creed.

24 posted on 04/18/2009 12:37:33 AM PDT by ComeUpHigher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComeUpHigher
Naw, it couldn't be. They are all part of the bride of Christ because they believe in the trinity creed.

Nah... they are probably EX-Mormons who were told by the Organization® they belonged to that GOD didn't want them to do them nasty sexual things (dying kittens and all that).

But THEY had 'prayed' to GOD about it and got a WARMING in the HEART that what THEY wanted to do was TRUE and the PRESBYTERIANS/EPISCOPALIANS had the RIGHT answer and to JOIN them!

GOD told them that HE'd inform the Living Prophet© and the 12 YESMEN in a later 'revelation'.

(After all, GOD has told MORMON's that MORE IS COMING (revelation wise; that is) and soon the Gummint won't be confiscationing all their churches valuable property and they'll be able to go back to OBSERVING D&C 132 again - just like their courageous Brothers in Mormon; the Flds group etal.

25 posted on 04/18/2009 3:51:10 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ComeUpHigher; Elsie; reaganaut
Are those “same-sex marriage proponents” the gay clergy and their respective congregants in the "mainstream" Presbyterian, Episcopalian, the United Church of Christ, and the Lutheran (ELCA} churches? Naw, it couldn't be. They are all part of the bride of Christ because they believe in the trinity creed.

Perhaps your standard works' reading overload has kept you from your remedial Bible lessons? [You know if you just don't like picking up a Bible, Joseph copiously copied two dozen of its 17th-century language English translation...
...word-for-word into the supposedly mostly 'pre-Mormon christ' era of the BoM...
...imagine that, 17th-century thees and thous in a pre-Christ document...
...it's gotta be one of the 7 wonders of the world that Nephi & Moroni & company could so well prophesy far ahead of their times & know that one day English-speaking people would say their thees and thous...
...but wait a minute, early 19th-century U.S. folks didn't really talk in thees and thous language other than Bible talk...
...it wasn't otherwise part of their everyday language...
...anyway, these two dozen word-for-word chapter liftings doesn't even count the hundreds of Bible verses & phrases he lifted --
...-- some even before Christ uttered them as recorded in the Bible & poured them right into the BoM...
...and if you don't like the KJV, well, Joseph still somehow managed to get most of your canonized JST right...
...oh, wait a minute...your JST isn't canonized is it? Here, Joe was repeatedly COMMANDED by the Lord in your D&C (& recorded elsewhere) to "finish the translation" and your leaders can't even be bothered to canonize these "revelations"...tisk, tisk...
...but wow! I digress]

Here are some verses for your remedial Bible training:
Matthew 25:1-12.
How many virgins are waiting for Jesus the groom, here? (10 -- and No, this isn't a story about polygamy...so keep your thoughts pure here).
Now, all 10 virgins are expectin' to see the Lord Jesus, right? They've got their lamps with them, right? What do they discover -- too late -- that they lack? (Oil)
What does oil symbolically represent in this parable? (The Holy Spirit -- An energy-less one waiting for the return of Christ is a spirit-less one)
So, how many does Jesus shut the door on? (Half)
Moral lesson of the story: Even up to half of those bumpin' elbows with those that Jesus the Bridegroom receives won't be received by Him. (Is that "news" to you? And could it be that as a Mormon you're so used to seeing a mere mortal spouse as an eternal partner that you've missed out on the Isaiah, Hosea, Corinthians, Ephesians, Revelation, and gospel parable passages that talk about Christ as our ONLY eternal bridegroom?)

Remedial Bible Lesson #2:
24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28 "'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29 "'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"
(Matthew 13:24-30)

So, based upon your repeated posts to Elsie & myself, you apparently didn't know there were "weeds" & "tares" (Matt. 13:25,27) mixed & match with pure wheat in the "Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13:24-26) -- did you? (That's what happens at night when folks sleep -- v. 25 -- the devil doesn't sleep). So what are us Presbyterians, Episcopalians & Lutherans who serve the king to do according to v. 28? "Do you want us, Oh, King, to yank up these 'weeds' and 'tares?'" "No," He replies, "lest you also yank out by error and division my wheat as well." (v. 29) "Let them grow together until the harvest." (v. 30)

(You're not recommending we go against the King's orders on this, are you?)

May I also recommend in your OT remedial reading that you be sure to cover prophets like Jeremiah & Hosea. Things were so bad in Hosea's time, that God instructed him to marry a practicing prostitute who remained one!

[Not exactly something we'd see a general authority or bishop order a Mormon to do, right? Might kind of ruin a temple recommend 'to do' checklist -- both the orderer and the recipient...
Oh, and this brings up a good question...Since LDS "restored" all original things practiced in Adam's "church"
-- that's always "news" to us Evangelicals
-- that LDS prophets teach that Adam had a "church"
-- why, Hosea MUST have had a temple recommend checklist that his "bishop" (originated from a Greek word, BTW, meaning "overseer") oversaw.
Tell us, CUH, how did Hosea and his wife manage to pass their temple recommends, anyway, given Homer's continued "cottage industry?"]

And Jeremiah wasn't what we might call a "people of God cheerleader" based upon what "wonderful" things they were up to during those times.

But, ComeUpHigher, as you go merrily on your necro-baptismal way, please continue to "encourage" Presbyterians, Episcopalians, UCCites, and Lutherans to reform their ways
-- as the plight of weeds & tares won't be a pleasant one.
And we need all the reformational help we can get (and that's "reformational" as in r-e-F-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n-a-l NOT r-e-s-t-o-r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l...as the Bible never talks about a 100% apostasy...
...though Jesus raises it as an eventual possibility at the very end of times when He asked the question would he find faith on earth when he returned? And that Q should make both Christian and Mormon wince -- realizing what all church structures may resemble upon His return.)

26 posted on 04/18/2009 6:04:51 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
...as the Bible never talks about a 100% apostasy...

That's because the Evil Men of Old REMOVED it from the BIBLE - you BOOB!

Just HOW many times do we have to TELL you this before it sinks into your THICK skulls?

--MormonDupe(I am SO tired of explaining the RESTORED Gospel® that I could just HURL!)

27 posted on 04/18/2009 6:25:57 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
That's because the Evil Men of Old REMOVED it from the BIBLE - you BOOB!

Well, how'd ya expect me to know what "plain and precious things" (1 Nephi 13:28) were removed from "the book of the Lamb of God" when Joe's Book of Mormon just doesn't hardly elaborate at all on that? Ya gotta cut me slack on this, Mormon dude! :)

But ya gotta love it, Mormon Dude, that LDS thousands and thousands of times over can't even resist using 1 Nephi 13:28 as a proof-texting hammer to hit the early Church over the head with when according to the dates affixed by Mormons to 1 Nephi, the early church didn't even yet exist!

I mean, LDS say 1 Nephi was written between 600-592 B.C.! That's Old Testament times! Old Testament prophets didn't talk about a "Book of the Lamb!"

Yet, just as Joseph saw fit to insert his own commentary into 1 Nephi (that he thought the early church removed things needing "restoration"), his fellow Mormons follow exactly in his footsteps.

(And we're supposed to cower at their marvelous Mormonite ability to proof-text an accusation that even from a Mormon perspective wasn't ever aimed at the church of Christ??? But do we ever hear Mormon apologies for this? Repentance for this wildly out-of-context accusational proof-texting? Do we ever see intellectually honest LDS grassroots folks stepping out on a limb to hold LDS writers & speakers accountable who trump up this verse and hurl it at the historic Christian church? No? Stay-in-line cowardice doesn't bode well in an authoritarian hierarchical man-made structure)

28 posted on 04/18/2009 7:04:30 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; greyfoxx39; colorcountry; reaganaut; SENTINEL; Zakeet; Godzilla; ComeUpHigher; Rameumptom; ..
That's because the Evil Men of Old REMOVED it from the BIBLE - you BOOB!

Els, a good rendition of a Book of Mormon-wielding basher-using-a-supposedly-6oo-year-pre-Christ's-Church verse to hit over the historic church's head!

When I ponder this, I could imagine having the following convo with a Mormon -- starting with his bashing:

"Aha!" "Plain & precious thing, remover, you!" "You post-Christ church people removed them, didn't you!"
"Uh. Removed what?"
"Plain & precious things."
"Like what?"
"Like all the things we've restored."
"How do you know they were originally there?"
"'Cause our prophets tell us so"
"And they know this how?"
"'Cause Heavenly Father told them so"
"And you know that how?"
"A burning in my bosom"
"And this voice Joseph Smith heard. Was it always reliable?"
"Oh, of course"
"This voice always lived up to 2 Nephi 9:20's presentation of who God is? That 'he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it?'"
"Oh, indeed"
"Well, what about the voice Joseph heard in D&C 130:14-15?"
"What about it?"
"Joseph said: "...I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man'"
"And?"
"Well, he didn't live til 85 did he? Nor did Jesus return, did he?"
"But he still saw that face when he died"
"Well, in that way, we're ALL going to see His face. (You don't need to be a 'prophet' or 'seer' to say we're going to see Jesus' face when we die.) Do you know the context for this claim?"
"He was wondering when Jesus would return"
"He was more than wondering. Joseph said he was 'praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man' (D&C 130:14) and he claimed a voice responded with the 'if thou livest until thou are 85, thou shalt see the Son of Man...' (v. 15)
"And?"
"Well, Joseph then said this voice told him 'therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter' So he claimed this voice was God's revelation"
"And?"
"Well, didn't the Mormon god know when Joseph would see the Son of Man's face?"
"Of course."
"Then what's with this '85' number? Why would a God who 'knows all things' (2 Nephi 9:20) ever even say 'if' on anything that's 100% in His control -- the death of a saint? He didn't know if Joseph would live to be 85 or not? And why '85?' That wasn't any different of a number than if he had used 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, etc.? No Mormon prophet has expounded upon the significance of 85, has he?"
"Not to my knowledge."
"So why did Joseph record this as canonized 'revelation?'"
"He heard a voice. Unlike you, our God continues to speak to our prophets."
"And so your prophets have added hundreds & thousands of revelations to the D&C since Joseph died?"
"Uh, no."
"Just hundreds?"
"Uh, no"
"Dozens?"
"Uh, no"
"A dozen?"
"Well, not exactly"
"A handful?"
"Well, that depends if you include manifestos or not. Both of the big social ones weren't exactly written as 'Thus saith the Lord'"
"So, PERSONAL revelations aplenty. But CANONIZED revelations, the D&C has hardly thickened, eh?"
"You might say that"
"Well, don't grassroots Mormons believe in PERSONAL revelations they receive within themselves"
"Oh, definitely"
"Does that make you prophet status, then?"
"No"
"So if a prophet has many PERSONAL, uncanonized revelations and you have many PERSONAL, uncanonized revelations, why do you need him again?"
"Amos 3:7. God doesn't do anything without telling his prophets"
"So, I could get good weather forecasts if I asked your prophet?"
"Don't be profane"
"What? God isn't the author of weather?"
"Of course, He is. But his revelations hold weighty imports beyond the weather"
"You mean like Brigham telling his people for over 25 years that Adam was God? Or the supposed necessity of shedding your own blood for your sins?"
"Prophets are men, and don't always speak as God"
"What about when they are before the Salt Lake tabernacle and telling the saints for over 25 years that Adam is God?"
"Well, that's not canonized revelations."
"Well, what good is your Amos 3:7 application if we always have to wait for LDS to 'officialize' God's revelation? I mean it took the LDS church til 1880s to 'officialize' Smith's first vision and the Pearl of Great Price. Your 50-year wait isn't going to help people process God's 'ongoing' revelation, is it?"
"Well, we not only sustain our prophets, but we vote what revelations are to be canonized."
"Could you imagine, though, Jeremiah's unpopular prophecies being sustained by God's unruly people (at that time) in a vote?"
"Well, God always has a remnant of faithful people."
"Exactly. That's what Christians say as to why the so-called universal apostasy of the Christian church was never fully apostate. God ALWAYS has a remnant of faithful people."
"But Joseph said Christ failed in His mission to keep a church together"
"But Jesus prophesied in Matt. 16:18 that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it. And in Eph. 3:21, Paul prophesies that the church would glorify God through ALL ages. Are you calling Jesus & Paul false prophets?"
"No"
"In your opinion, did the gates of hell prevail against Jesus' church?"
"Well, maybe temporarily."
"About 1500 years is what you call 'temporarily?'"
"Well, a day to the Lord is as 1,000 years"
"Yeah, how convenient of a proof text for that. What about Paul? The church hasn't glorified God throughout ALL ages?"
"Well, if it did, the church wouldn't have needed a full restoration, would it have?"
"So Paul was a false prophet?"
"Somebody may have altered the text there."
"And Joseph Smith corrected it in the JST?"
"Uh, no."
"Besides, how could Joseph historically put himself above the authors of the Bible by correcting them when even the voices he was hearing couldn't properly forecast the future?"
"What do you mean?"
"Joseph prophesied -- -"Verily thus saith the Lord" (D&C 114:1) that David W. Patten would "perform a mission unto me ["me"=the Mormon god] next spring in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world." (D&C 114:1)
"And?"
"Well, David W. Patten died, and never made the mission in company with 11 others. Your Mormon god didn't know this in advance? Or your Mormon god didn't know that the "united order" established to care for the poor wouldn't be an "everlasting order," after all? (D&C 104:1) Where's your "United Order" today? Joseph also claimed that "temple lot" in the "New Jerusalem" (D&C 84:2-3) was "appointed by the finger of the Lord in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri" (D&C 84:3) and that "Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city of New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple SHALL BE REARED IN THIS GENERATION." (D&C 84:4) Where's the temple in Independence, MO reared in Joseph's generation? The bottom line is it only takes one theft to be convicted as a thief; one murder to be convicted as a murderer; and one false prophecy to be convicted by the Holy Ghost as a false prophet. Come out, LDS, of the leaky umbrage of false prophesy. Come to the True Prophet who speaks to us now, and with 100% revelatory accuracy, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2)."

29 posted on 04/18/2009 8:11:31 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Reading your stuff is like following a herd of cows: You have to watch where you put your feet because the ground is covered with ______ .


30 posted on 04/18/2009 8:50:44 AM PDT by Old Mountain man (Blessed be the Peacemaker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ComeUpHigher

Why do you even bother to entertain this fool who is so angry and bitter let him stew in his own ugly hateful juice!

Ever since the LDS have fought for a Marriage between One man and one women the Media, the Hollywood left and fools like this like to use plural marriage for fodder!

No better then the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality!

ignore them!


31 posted on 04/18/2009 9:05:29 AM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Elsie; colorcountry; reaganaut
Photobucket

You don't know what you are talking about.
I had a BURNING IN MY BOSOM
You are just a HATER!

MormonDudette
Old ex-mountain ex-mormon woman.
(I KNOW mormonism is THE LORD'S CHURCH! De Holy Ghost told me so!)

32 posted on 04/18/2009 9:13:33 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Obama....never saw a Bush molehill he couldn't make a mountain out of.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The irony is that same-sex marriage only opens the door further to islam.
Wait'll they ascend and start leading these homos into the arena.
33 posted on 04/18/2009 9:36:51 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: restornu; ComeUpHigher
Let's see. All in one post, Resty, you (indirectly, which is technically FREEPER "gossip") called me (a)...
..."fool"
..."angry"
..."bitter"
..."ugly"
..."hateful"
...and an "enemy"
...
...and never even bothered to ping me on your upbraid.

Well, Resty. May the Lord continue to love you and keep you. May His Son's face shine upon you and give grace unto you. And may He give you peace beyond understanding.

[And may I suggest that when you address others you at least better represent those Mormons I know who would ne'er resort to argumentum ad hominen -- arguments against the person. As they say, when you've run out of things worth saying (Scriptural basis, for example) 'tis the level of low resort.]

34 posted on 04/18/2009 10:38:08 AM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Old Mountain man

____ Mormon Scripture?


35 posted on 04/18/2009 12:45:01 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Honest Presbyterian Minister???????????????????????????


36 posted on 04/18/2009 12:47:25 PM PDT by Old Mountain man (Blessed be the Peacemaker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Ever since the LDS have fought for a Marriage between One man and one women the Media....

Ever since the LDS have LOST THE BATTLE WITH THE US GOVERNMENT for a Marriage between One man and AS MANY AS HE WANTED women...

The Flds people have shown us to be the frightful little wimps we are.

--MormonDupe(And I just HATE that!)

37 posted on 04/18/2009 12:48:20 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

38 posted on 04/18/2009 12:49:15 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I agree with you, and understand what you say about negative impacts to society with polygamy. In the same-sex marriage debate, we’re told to be tolerant, and told that there is no impact to society with same-sex marriage. And we’re told that we shouldn’t say anything about how consenting adults live. I fear that we will be told in the future that polygamy has no negative effects, and that we have to let consenting adults live in any way they want.

This is part of the trend of making no moral or ethical judgements about people’s behavior.


39 posted on 04/18/2009 2:00:41 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“And we’re told that we shouldn’t say anything about how consenting adults live.”

They say we shouldn’t care what happens in the bedroom. The govt defines what a bedroom is. It controls every single item in the bedroom down to the tags on the pillows that we don’t remove for fear of prosecution.


40 posted on 04/18/2009 2:05:47 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I don’t really want to know what happens in people’s bedrooms.

And that’s not even what the same-sex marriage debate is really about. Gay activists want society and the law to affirmatively, positively, approve of same-sex marriage. To me, that’s a big difference from talking about what people do in privacy. And we’re told that the legal status has to be the same as heterosexual marriage.

At first, homosexuals wanted to be left alone, but it’s gone from there to wanting social and legal acceptance.

And with courts and other liberal state legislatures in the mix here, we’re being told that homosexual marriage is as significant to society as heterosexual marriage. And at the same time, we’re told it’s none of our business what consenting adults do. Yet we’re also asked to legally recognize the relationships of people whom we’re supposed to leave alone.

It’s a crazy world. I may never understand the liberal mindset about issues.


41 posted on 04/18/2009 2:13:55 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I’m not religious or anything, but wasn’t there some wording in the Bible about “a man cannot serve two masters?”


42 posted on 04/18/2009 2:23:53 PM PDT by hunter112 (SHRUG - Stop Hussein's Radical Utopian Gameplan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
I’m not religious or anything, but wasn’t there some wording in the Bible about “a man cannot serve two masters?”

LOL

43 posted on 04/18/2009 2:45:09 PM PDT by Colofornian ("As the fLDS are, the LDS once were. As the fLDS are, the LDS will become.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“I don’t really want to know what happens in people’s bedrooms.”

That wasn’t really my point. I was trying to point out the fallacy of their argument.

“At first, homosexuals wanted to be left alone, but it’s gone from there to wanting social and legal acceptance.”

IMO its gone beyond that. They want more than acceptance, they want forced approval and elevated status.


44 posted on 04/18/2009 4:00:36 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson