Posted on 05/18/2010 7:40:38 AM PDT by Colofornian
To a nonbeliever, all religions perplex, but Mormonism perplexes absolutely. Let me immediately qualify that remark. To the non-Mormon faithful, and especially those conservative Protestants who consider it an anti-Christian sect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is hardly a religion at all.
Hostility toward Mormonism has many sources. A religion established in the 19th century has not had the time to establish its teachings as timeless. A religion founded in the United States lacks the exoticism of those more directly connected to the mysterious Middle East. A religion that once allowed randy elders to possess child brides and consigned its young males to oblivion makes the Catholic Church's problems with wayward priests seem like a mere episode of, well, waywardness. A religion whose followers show a pronounced tendency to become CEOs of some of America's largest corporations is bound to arouse envy.
Not least, there is the Book of Mormon itself. This text, depending on where one stands on the Mormon question, was either discovered by the 17-year-old Joseph Smith in upstate New York after the Angel Moroni directed him to golden plates written in reformed Egyptian, or it was the product of a budding confidence man who copied and pasted other pieces of scripture into a totally improbable tale in which ancient Israelites found their way to the New World. Whatever one's views on the authenticity of the text, it has been widely regarded as a rather inferior work of literature, especially when compared to the King James Bible. "Chloroform in print," is Mark Twain's famous dismissal of it.
SNIP
...I simply cannot imagine anyone setting those words to music the way Handel did with the Bible in his oratorios. The Book of Mormon has a structure. It does not sing.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Note how young the 19th century Mormon wives were!
The book, Changing World, p. 226: The early Mormon leaders certainly did allow their young people to marry at an early age. Mosiah Hancock was only 11 years old when he was "sealed" to a "young girl." According to his journal, he was "born in Kirtland, Ohio, on April the 9th, 1834." ("The Mosiah Hancock Journal," typed copy, p.1). On pages 20 and 21 of the same journal, he recorded: On about January 10, 1846, I was privileged to go in the temple and receive my washings and annointings. I was sealed to a lovely young girl named Mary, who was about my age, but it was with the understanding that we were not to live together as man and wife until we were 16 years of age. The reason that some were sealed so young was because we knew that we would have to go West and wait many a long time for another temple.
According to Stanley P. Hirshon, who wrote a biography of Brigham Young: "Make haste and get married," Remy heard Young preach. "Let me see no boys above sixteen and girls above fourteen unmarried." ... In 1857 The New York Times, reporting the sealings to old men of two girls aged ten and eleven, estimated that most girls married before they were fourteen.... Troskolawsski knew one bishop who was sealed to four of his nieces, the youngest thirteen years old....On August 1, 1856, he put on the stagecoach for Ohio twelve-year-old Emma Wheat, who was being forced into a marriage she detested." (The Lion of the Lord, pp.126-27).
Changing World, p. 225: The shortage of women was so great that some of the men were marrying girls who were very young. Fanny Stenhouse stated:
"That same year, a bill was brought into the Territorial Legislature, providing that boys of fifteen years of age and girls of twelve might legally contract marriage, with the consent of their parents or guardians!" (Tell It All, 1875, p.607).
According to http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm, Stenhouse was "at one time had been a firm believer in Mormonism and had even allowed her husband to take another wife. She wrote: "It would be quite impossible, with any regard to propriety, to relate all the horrible results of this disgraceful system.... Marriages have been contracted between the nearest of relatives; and old men tottering on the brink of the grave have been united to little girls scarcely in their teens; while unnatural alliances of every description, which in any other community would be regarded with disgust and abhorrence, are here entered into in the name of God...It is quite a common thing in Utah for a man to marry two or even three sisters.... I know also another man who married a widow with several children; and when one of the girls had grown into her teens he insisted on marrying her also... and to this very day the daughter bears children to her step-father, living as wife in the same house with her mother!" (Tell It All, 1874, pages 468-69)
Per researcher George D. Smith (Source: "Nauvoo Polygamists", George D. Smith, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1994, p. ix, as found at http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm) discovered that of "a list of 153 men who took plural wives in the early years of the Mormon Church. When we examined this list, we noted that two of the young girls were only thirteen years old when they were lured into polygamy. Thirteen girls were only fourteen years old. Twenty-one were fifteen years old, and fifty-three were sixteen years old when they were secretly enticed into this degrading lifestyle."
"I shall not seal the people as I have done. Old Father Alread brought three young girls 12 & 13 years old. I would not seal them to him. They would not be equally yoked together...Many get their endowments who are not worthy and this is the way that devils are made." (Source: Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 5:58.)
Examples of real young girls being married off in 19th century Mormon families: Judson Tolman, 19, married first wife Sarah Holbrook, 13, in 1846 before adding 4 more wives; James Francis Johnson married Rozina Richmond,13 (perhaps 14) in 1876...then J.F. Johnson took on another wife in 1894 after the so-called "manifesto" supposedly "ending" polygamy--to Clara Barber who was 16--maybe 17. J.F. Johnson was in his late 30s at that time he married Barber.
24 yo Arthur Clark married 14 yo Mary Rasmussen as the second of four wives; Charles Richardson married 14 yo first wife Sarah Adams in 1882--his third wife (Carolina Jacobson) was probably 16 & he was 30. (He had 4 wives overall)
Thomas Chamberlain II actually double-married two 17 yo on the same date in 1873!...and then added on a 15 yo (Ann Carling) in 1875 followed by her sister--also 15--three years later.
Notice how the initial LDS leaders set the terrible example for fLDS leaders by being in their 40s or late 30s (or beyond re: later LDS "prophets"):
Just look at the compulsory "wifehood" of underaged teens: Brigham Young, when he was in his 40s, wedded 15-year-old Clarissa Decker, 16-year-old Ellen Rockwood (when Young was 44); and 16-year-old Lucy Bigelow (when Young was 45).
Its initial "prophet"--Joseph Smith--promised salvation to the household of the Kimball Klan, and what do you know? 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, who initially hated polygamy, was part of Smith's harem. Smith also added to his long list of wives 16-year-old Presendia Huntington. Abel Hardy married a 15 yo (Maria Cooley) in 1896 and then post-manifesto, married Cynthia Porter (16) in 1901. (Hundreds of 16 yo LDS girls were married off as plural wives in the 19th century and early 20th century).
Christianity doesn’t allow you to be a god of your own planet and have a celestial family with celestial children, but Mormonism does!!!! I bet if I baptize enough non-Mormon dead people I’ll get at least 10 planets to lord over! LOL!
Welcome to FRee Republic, noob...
Did you sign up TODAY just to say that ???
I don’t think the Hebrews ever used 16th century English.
However, I’ve heard tell that the apostle Paul only used Nobel Fir’s for Christmas trees.
The reason that some were sealed so young was because we knew that we would have to go West and wait many a long time for another temple.
_________________________________________
And to think God just married Adam and Eve out under the trees...
Didnt God know He had to wait for a mormon temple to be built ???
Did they ever find the “gold plates”?
Truly you can't believe Joseph Smith is legitimate?
What boy in his teens wouldn't want to screw any female that came his way and then rationalize is through an “angel” that this is legitimate? LOL!!! It's ridiculously false and SELF SERVING.
But ow wait, if you adhere to Mormonism, when you die, you'll get a PLANET with VIGINS to service you sexually and otherwise for eternity? Doesn't that sound eerily similar to another FALSE religion called Islam? A Muslim believes they too will have female SEX SLAVES but no planet as of yet.
I don’t think the Hebrews ever used 16th century English.
__________________________________________________
Nor did “Reformed Egyptians”
:)
This was not rediscovered in the 1960s, but was a known literary tradition in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as in classical Greek and Latin literature, and on up to Shakespear, and then used in the Mormon text. No basis for belief here.
You know, I don't know what it takes for people to UNDERSTAND what He wants from us. We won't ever be perfect but multiple wives and the other nonsense are CCLEARLY not what He wanted. They don't bother to READ and take to HEART what He wants for us. It's typically THEIR WILL that must prevail; not HIS will.
“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”
In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]
It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.
Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated.
Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]
Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer.
Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.
Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.
As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.
Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]
Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.
Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.
Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.
“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4]
In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.
________________________________________
[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”
[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.
[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.
[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.
And why is Christianity declining where it had reached the historic heights of power and wealth (e.g. the dazzling former Byzantine empire, now known as “the Middle East”; all of Europe (both “formerly Ctholic” and “formerly “Protestant” Europe, and North America) but growing where it has no political power whatsoever (e.g. China)?
Teppe, I dealt this with you before on another thread, a shorter version. And you still perpetrate this twisting. Since I already concede Jacob was a polygamist, but that this was born in deception, and God is not the author of deception, then let's look at Abraham in-depth and "call the Biblical witnesses to the stand":
(1) God never told Abraham to sleep with Hagar for a night. The Angel of the Lord--whom most commentators think is the pre-incarnated Son of God, told Hagar post sleepover to return to her mistress (master Sarai) and to submit to mistress Sarai. (He never said to return to "your husband, Abram"...see Genesis 16).
(2) Hagar, even after sleeping with Abram once (that's all that's mentioned) continues to be labeled as a servant/slave by none other than…
…Abram,
…Sarai,
…the Angel of the Lord (who some say is the pre-incarnated Son of God),
…Moses (Gen. 25),
…even the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:21-31),
…and Hagar herself.
Sarai labels Hagar as a gift as a "wife" to Abram, but I question if a woman has the authority to "consent" on behalf of a slave.
Hagar was considered a slave both "before" and "after" sleeping with Abram. Why does the "before" matter? Just as a minor cannot "consent" to sex, a slave is in no better situation to "consent" to--or deny--her master's commands for sex. And in this case, the command didn't come from Abram; it came from her mistress (female word for "master"), Sarai (Sarai is twice referenced as "mistress"--Gen. 16:4,8).
Why does the "after" matter?
Because it shows she didn't become a "transformed" person--from slave to wifely status! Gen. 16:6,8,9; 21:11; 25:12; and Gal. 4:21-31 all are still referencing her as either a "slave" (twice in 21:11), "servant," or one who was told by the Angel to submit to her mistress (female word for "master"). By Gen. 25, Abraham is married to Keturah with no mention of Hagar (25:1) and is then buried with Sarah (25:10).
So, if we were to call all the key witnesses to the stand, and hear what they have to say:
Q Hagar, after Sarai gave you to Abram and Ishmael was conceived, did you still acknowledge Sarai as your "mistress" in your conversation with the Angel of the Lord? [female master]
A Yes. (Gen. 16:8)
Q Sarai, when you were in your early nineties when Isaac was a toddler, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Abraham, Get rid of thatslave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son, Isaac. (Gen. 21:10)
Q Abraham, after Sarah gave you Hagar and you slept with her, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Sarah, as mistress (master) of her servant, Your servant is in your hands. Do with her whatever you think best. (Gen. 16:6)
Q When Sarah began to mistreat her servant, Hagar, did you intervene like what we might expect a husband to do?
A No. Hagar was Sarah's servant.
Q Angel of the Lord, when you called to Hagar after she conceived Ishmael, how did you reference her?
A Servant of Sarai (Gen. 16:8)
Q And when you conversed with Hagar, did you, Angel of the Lord, acknowledge that she was released from her servant role to Sarai?
A No. In fact, I told her Go back to your mistress and submit to her. (Gen. 16:9)
Q Moses, since you wrote Genesis, how did you identify Hagar in her last reference of that book? Did you link her to Abraham?
A No. I identified her as "Sarah's maidservant" (Gen. 25:12).
Q So in that same passage, you link Ishmael to Abraham, but you link Hagar only to Sarah?
A Yes.
Q Apostle, Paul How did the Holy Spirit lead you to interpret the Old Covenant as expressed through Abraham?
A For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother...Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:21-31)
And people wonder why LDS (Joseph Smith and his merry band) were despised and driven out of towns and villages.
__________________________________________
Even Joey Smith himself said that is why the mormon god drove them out...
D&C 98:18-19: “Behold... Iam not well pleased with many who are in the church at Kirtland; For they do not forsake their sins, and their wicked ways, the pride of their hearts, and their covetousness, and all their detestable things...”
D&C 50:4 — what Smith told the LDS church at Kirtland in May, 1831: “Behold...have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name...”
“...the inhabitants of Zion are terrible...” (D&C 45:70)
Also, Smith said that the affliction, persecution and being cast out of the land of inheritance (D&C 101:1)
was because God “suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions...” (D&C 101:2)
And surprisingly to many, even that "celestial family" for Mormons today will include polygamy and polyandry!!! (So much for contemporary disavowing that mainstream Mormons won't be embracing polygamy!!!)
What do I mean? Well, a hard to get at "Church Handbook of Instructions" (intended for Lds church bishops) says:
“A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorced, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime and later: A DECEASED woman may be sealed to ALL men to whom she was legally married during her life.” (p.73) LDS Church, Church Handbook of Instructions, (LDS Church, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1998), page 72-73, “Sealing Policies”)
Therefore, the fact is that from here until Jesus comes, LDS say that a woman is "monogamous." She may be serially monogamous (for earthly time), but she is still monogamous. But...But...we have this little "Catch-22" polity right over here in the handbook for all Mormon women in good standing who have had more than one husband in their life: "A DECEASED woman may be sealed to ALL men to whom she was legally married during her life."
So a serial monogamous woman on earth has two Mormon forks in the road for celestial eternity according to church practice...why she can either be...
(a) ...Celestial Polyandry Polly...
(b) ...Or, Multiple-Choice Michelle (choosing one husband over another in Kolob Heights)...
Well, it may partially explain what happened in Nauvoo. It doesn't "let off" the Missourians re: what happened over several months' time in 1834 and 1838, as they would not have known about Smith's early escapades at that time. Some of those Missourians are the same families who caused trouble in Kansas in promoting slavery in the 1850s.
Why, even you! (After they dead dunk you & all)
I've got a great "proselytizing" idea for Mormons.
Lds, INc. could use its billions to buy up all the mortuaries around the earth. Then, under the guise of "washing" the dead bodies in tanks, why, they could just "baptize" them (since they already believe in baptizing the dead).
Instead of by proxy, they just do it direct! Lds Necro-dunk, Inc.!
That way, their genealogical work, as dead-dunking is what motivates that $ billion enterprise, would only need to focus on people who lived up through the 20th century!
Do celestial Mothers-In-Laws get included with those celestial marriages? Do I have to put up with all that celestial whining, complaining, and kevetching for an eternity?
Maybe the Mormons need to re-think their doctrines.
Good points. Imagine, for example, if the Arians had won the theological war back in the fourth century. How different so many sermons would be today! And the Mormon/Protestant debate about the nature of God would be rebuilt almost from the bottom up.
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.