Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 18401910
BYU Studies ^ | Reviewer Sarah Barringer Gordon of Kathryn M. Dames

Posted on 05/29/2011 3:53:15 PM PDT by Colofornian

Author: Kathryn M. Daynes

Reviewer: Sarah Barringer Gordon

Categories: Utah History, History of the Church

Journal: 41:4

Any substantive evaluation of Kathryn Daynes's More Wives Than One should begin by emphasizing that this is a work of the highest order—Daynes brings originality, talent, and rigor to her work. Her book is likely to be extremely important; it received the Mormon History Association's Best Book Award for 2002. The award is richly deserved: the book includes innovative work in multiple dimensions of a complex and often elusive past.

The book, a study of polygamy in Manti, Utah, from religious, social, and legal perspectives over seven decades, does not simply investigate the laws and religious doctrines that were designed to govern the lives of residents of Manti. More important—and in the end, the heart of the book—is Daynes's examination of how and why women entered into plural marriage, how their decisions changed with different patterns of immigration and affluence, and what portion of the population was involved in plural marriage at different periods. Daynes is interested in ordinary folk, and her work allows her to piece together how men and women navigated a world in which religious command and legal mandates came into direct and prolonged conflict. As Daynes sees it, while the doctrines and beliefs that underlay plural marriage were firmly in place by the end of the Nauvoo period and continued after 1890, political reality meant that polygamy truly flourished only between 1847 and approximately 1882 (when the federal government disfranchised polygamists and prohibited "unlawful cohabitation"). This short but intense period, as well as the focus on a single community, allows Daynes to give her readers a deeper look at how plural marriage was lived by those who practiced it than has been achieved in prior works on the subject.

To make such detailed assessments, Daynes uses census data, Church membership records, tax assessment rolls, cemetery records, immigration indexes, and marriage licenses to reconstruct "a list of everyone who lived in Manti from 1849 [when the town was first settled] to 1910," when the Church enforced polygamy's prohibition (9). Gleaning valuable data about where and in what material circumstances the residents actually lived, Daynes meticulously documents and describes marriage, economics, divorce, inheritance, immigration, desertion, and many other topics of vital interest to historians of marriage and the family.

Daynes's analysis reveals that the percentage of Manti women who were involved in polygamy is higher than many scholars previously thought. For example, of those women born before 1852 whose first marriage took place in Utah, 56.7 percent were in a plural marriage at some point in their lives (98). For those born between 1852 and 1870 and those who immigrated between 1870 and 1887, the number is 12.2 percent (96).

As Daynes irrefutably demonstrates, plural marriage affected all aspects of marriage in Manti, monogamous as well as polygamous. Indeed, Daynes's subtle analysis of the "marriage market" (91), immigration, and the fact that many women entering plural marriage were fatherless (119) is a classic example of careful social history work. Part three of the book, "Numbers: An Analysis of the Marriage Patterns of Manti Women," is among the finest pieces of social history scholarship ever written. It demonstrates conclusively that women entered into and left plural marriage in response to religious doctrine (169), which told them that their exaltation in the celestial worlds depended upon their adherence to the Principle.

Daynes also demonstrates that there were material differences between marriage in a polygamous society and a monogamous one. Women throughout the period married young, younger than outside Utah. Immigrant women usually married soon after they arrived (97), often as plural wives, especially in the early period (118). Equally important, "plural wives came disproportionately from groups of economically disadvantaged women in the frontier economy" (91). Women who entered plural marriage improved their circumstances in this world while earning greater rewards in the celestial worlds for themselves, their children, and their sister wives. For women, plural marriage was often a response to difficult economic times as well as to religious fervor.

As might be expected, the women's circumstances improved because polygamous men were wealthier and held a higher rank in the Church than their monogamous counterparts. "Wealth and plural marriage in Manti were related," Daynes concludes, as they were in the rest of Utah (130). Yet polygamy also reduced economic disparity because "plural marriage helped give poorer women access to [the greater] resources [of polygamous men]" (133). Among Daynes's most interesting speculations about the relationship of plural marriage to the broader economy is her claim that "the United Orders were instituted to counter growing divergence in wealth at a time when plural marriage was decreasing" (133).

Polygamy declined over most of the period Daynes studied. Of the three generations who lived in Manti between 1849 and 1910, women in the first generation were considerably more likely to marry initially as plural wives. The decline in numbers, which shows conclusively that women increasingly and tenaciously opted for monogamous unions, should be paired with the recognition that for the Church leadership throughout the polygamous period, pressure to enter plural marriage was strong and even increased in the 1880s. Church pronouncements about whether a monogamist could be exalted were inconsistent, but it was clear that "plural marriage was not only the preferred type but also the most honored and most sacred" (72). In the end, Daynes concludes, believing in the divine nature of polygamy and practicing it were differentiated in many Church teachings—the ability to practice was by definition limited to those men who could find and support women willing to marry them as plural wives. Over time the number of women willing to enter plural marriage declined.

Equally important, the number of divorces granted in Manti went overwhelmingly to polygamous unions, especially when the marriage had been created during the heady years of the Mormon reformation in 1856 and 1857 (165) and again during the government raids of the 1880s. Just under half of the women involved in such divorces later remarried polygamously. As Daynes shows, the Church urged reconciliation but also acknowledged that some marriages could not realistically be salvaged; in these circumstances, the Church permitted divorce in order to promote remarriage and continued reproduction (169). Implicit in this point is the conclusion that divorce was not a rejection of belief in plural marriage but should instead be recognized as an indication that plural marriages endured greater stress than monogamous ones (165–67). Many such stresses in the early period had to do primarily with material and economic hardship; in the later period, with federal prosecutions and legal change.

Among Daynes's central points is that, before the 1880s, marriage in Utah was essentially a religious rather than a legal undertaking. Church divorce as well as polygamous marriage, for example, were both "non-legalistic and non-traditional" (188). The transition to a new legal regime imposed from without destroyed a system that was in decline, she maintains, but not necessarily in crisis. Daynes, while not a lawyer, has a solid grounding in legal thought and categories, and she understands well the vital role of law and custom in any society. Equally important, Daynes understands clearly that extralegal actions (such as a divorce from the pulpit or a "nominal" plural marriage) were also vital aspects of the Mormon marriage system in territorial Utah.

The shift from a religious to a legal regime, she says, was complete with the enactment of the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887: henceforth, the courts dictated what marriage meant and when it was over. In Utah, as in the rest of the nation, the state now controlled marriage and divorce, replacing the more flexible Church doctrines with legislation and judicial pronouncements. The "transformation," as Daynes refers to it in her title, was both heavy-handed and subtle. It became clear to all involved that for the Church to survive, it must give ground on polygamy. This breakdown of the religious system, she argues, plunged Latter-day Saints into a period of religious and legal turmoil as Church leaders' ability to regulate plural marriage evaporated, even though belief in its divinely sanctioned nature continued. Although she does not directly point this out, the last year of her study, 1910, coincides with a letter sent to stake presidents instructing them to enforce the 1904 decree that those who entered into or performed new plural marriages would be liable to excommunication. Finally, it truly was no longer possible to marry "more wives than one" and remain in harmony with the Church.

While the history of Mormon plural marriage has received significant attention over the past three decades and more, the topic remains exceedingly difficult to deal with. It combines a dramatic and controversial divergence from traditional Christian marital practices with a sense that the response from those outside the faith was excessive and oppressive. Balanced treatment under such circumstances remains difficult, yet Daynes's poise is unwavering.

Daynes finds richness that other scholars have missed, and her historian's sensitivity to change over time allows her to show polygamy's efflorescence and decline in nineteenth-century Manti with pinpoint accuracy. She is careful to situate her work within the broader historiography of nineteenth-century Mormonism and to make her differences with prior scholars clear. For example, she argues cogently that the Mormon marital practices during the polygamy period did indeed constitute a system, with clear-cut rules about sexual propriety, courtship, and the creation and dissolution of marriage. This conclusion differs from the arguments of Eugene Campbell and Bruce Campbell in their work on divorce among Mormon polygamists.1

Daynes has also benefited from a generation of insightful and probing work into the history of the Church and its conflicts with the outside world, as she readily acknowledges. Her book builds on the finest work in the field, including (but not limited to) that of Carmon Hardy, Lawrence Foster, Edwin Firmage, Richard Mangrum, and her dissertation adviser Jan Shipps. Daynes deserves to take her place among them as a leading scholar of Mormon history. This book is likely to propel her instantly into such company. Last, but not least, and especially gratifying to the reader, this was not a book researched or written in a rush to print. It glows in ways only a piece of scholarship that has had years of painstaking work lavished on it can.

Note

1. Eugene E. Campbell and Bruce L. Campbell, "Divorce among Mormon Polygamists: Extent and Explanations," Utah Historical Quarterly 46 (winter 1978): 4–23.


TOPICS: History; Moral Issues; Other Christian; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: antimormonextremist; antimormonmanifesto; antimormonrant; bitterantimormon; bitterexmormon; ersatzexmormon; exmomon; hatefulexmormon; homosexualagenda; lds; mormoaner; mormon; mormonmudblood; mormophobia; mormophobic; polygamy; previouslymormon; religiousbigotry; religiousintolerance; usedtobeamormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
From the article: it received the Mormon History Association's Best Book Award for 2002.

The Mormon History Association has its annual conference this weekend in St. George, Utah. Several sessions were devoted to Mormon polygamy.

Sessions on polygamy included:
* “What Lurked Behind Polygamy: Popular Constructions of Mormonism and the Mountain Meadows Massacre” Janiece Johnson, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
* “The 1944 Polygamy Raids and the Supreme Court Decisions That Followed” Ken Driggs, Atlanta, GA
Allred/Jensen Group Fundamentalism
“Prelude to Polygamy: The Early Life of Rulon C. Allred” Eric Paul Rogers, Hamilton, MT
* “Beyond Stereotypes: Understanding Diversity within the Allred/Jensen Fundamentalist Group” Joseph Lyman Jessop, St. Anthony, ID
* “Descendants of Early Mormon Polygamists among Contemporary Fundamentalists” Marianne T. Watson, Lehi, UT

From the reviewer's article: Daynes's analysis reveals that the percentage of Manti women who were involved in polygamy is higher than many scholars previously thought. For example, of those women born before 1852 whose first marriage took place in Utah, 56.7 percent were in a plural marriage at some point in their lives (98). For those born between 1852 and 1870 and those who immigrated between 1870 and 1887, the number is 12.2 percent (96). As Daynes irrefutably demonstrates, plural marriage affected all aspects of marriage in Manti, monogamous as well as polygamous.

Wow! About 57% of women in the Manti, Utah area born before 1852 were given over to a guy sleeping with other wives!

From the article: Women throughout the period married young, younger than outside Utah. Immigrant women usually married soon after they arrived (97), often as plural wives...

Well, there went two myths: That the "youngness" of how young women were marrying in Utah was "just like" other states or territories. Nope. It wasn't. They were indeed younger in Utah! And the second myth, that Mormon missionaries weren't heading off to bring home additional young brides for married men. Indeed, they were!

1 posted on 05/29/2011 3:53:21 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
From the article: Although she does not directly point this out, the last year of her study, 1910, coincides with a letter sent to stake presidents instructing them to enforce the 1904 decree that those who entered into or performed new plural marriages would be liable to excommunication. Finally, it truly was no longer possible to marry "more wives than one" and remain in harmony with the Church.

Mormon "prophets" actually had two decrees vs. plural marriage: 1890 (Woodruff) and 1903 (Smith). B. Carmon Hardy in his book, Solemn Covenant, documents a few hundred specific additional plural marriages in his appendix -- these occurring between 1890-1910.

IOW, polygamy just went underground a bit more -- but was still solemnized by Mormon leaders...especially during the years of 1890-1903...in the 1900s, two Lds "apostles" were ex-communicated for still legitimizing polygamy. And it wasn't until this 1910 enforcement letter went around that Mormon leadership took seriously any line in the sand on polygamy.

So when people try to tell you Mormonism ended polygamy in 1890, they're "snowing you" -- or they just don't know.

Even in 1910, Mormon leadership didn't address existing polygamists. Some of those polygamous unions didn't die out until the early 1960s.

Also, if Mormons tell you or imply that polygamy is past tense, they indeed are snowin' you.

#1...they believe marriage is eternal...so all these 19th & 20th century polygamists, they think, are still practicing polygamy...it's just colonized to somewhere near Kolob.

#2...Mormon policy dictates that even Mormons living today can become eternal polygamists. All they need to do is to serially marry more than one spouse...and be sealed to each for eternity.

2 posted on 05/29/2011 4:00:26 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

God created ONLY Adam and Eve.

Not Adam and Eve and another Eve and another Eve, etc.


3 posted on 05/29/2011 4:02:30 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

Spelling correction in the author title...It’s “Daynes” — not “Dames”


4 posted on 05/29/2011 4:03:34 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
still practicing polygamy...it's just colonized to somewhere near Kolob.

Or Utah. With magic underpants, anything is possible.

5 posted on 05/29/2011 4:05:18 PM PDT by humblegunner (Free Lazamataz!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner; Colofornian; Elsie

Wife swapping before its’ time in Utah. We’re always ahead of the curve ping!

Swingers clubs galore in Manti and Ephraim in 1860. (Last night in Ephraim I couldn’t even find a beer. There was one little cutie at the bowling ally though. Didn’t dare ask.)

Bought a cup of coffee across the street from the Temple...Yea...


6 posted on 05/29/2011 4:17:47 PM PDT by Utah Binger (Inman FReepers Meet July 23 At the Maynard Dixon Home and Studio JR Too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

I think you meant magic pantaloons, yes?


7 posted on 05/29/2011 4:30:54 PM PDT by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

How very Islamic of JSjr to have more than one wife.


8 posted on 05/29/2011 4:36:48 PM PDT by SkyDancer (It's not the police that protect our rights, it's our military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The fLDS is keeping it real with polygamy. One fLDS family was featured on TLC with a show called ‘Sister Wives.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvsVZdO6FJU


9 posted on 05/29/2011 4:38:06 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
This ought make me extremely popular.

So long as everyone involved is an adult and freely chooses, multiple marriage ought be allowed as a matter of freedom of personal choice.

And, no, I am not advocating same sex marriage, just polygamy or even polyandry, if freely chosen.

p.s. I am not a Mormon.

10 posted on 05/29/2011 4:43:30 PM PDT by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Solomon had more than one wife.


11 posted on 05/29/2011 4:50:34 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

"Solomon had more than one wife."

What year was that?   BC or AD?


12 posted on 05/29/2011 5:03:07 PM PDT by fulltlt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Can’t use OT Hebrew culture and compare it with Mormonism or any other culture today. They did a lot of things in the OT but that was peculiar to their society and cannot be used as a rule or guide for today’s. Finally, Polygamy was common back then among kings, despite God’s warnings against it. (Deuteronomy 17:14)


13 posted on 05/29/2011 5:04:06 PM PDT by SkyDancer (It's not the police that protect our rights, it's our military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
You wrote: "Solomon had more than one wife."

Yup. So did Abraham.

And so did Jacob whose name was changed by the Lord to Israel, father of the twelve tribes of Israel. The same man Israel who - as a polygamist - received tremendous promised blessings straight from God himself, as written in the Bible.

Looks like the Mormons who believe that polygamy may be authorized by God at times are in some pretty good historical company on that particular point, at least ...

14 posted on 05/29/2011 5:16:54 PM PDT by JustTheTruth (Sometimes the Truth hurts so much that most refuse to face or accept it, even when it is obvious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; JustTheTruth; SkyDancer
Solomon had more than one wife.

#1...He also had 300 concubines. (Are you importing that "suggestion" into American culture -- that somebody should be able to sleep with 300 slaves & servants?)

#2...The God of Solomon had warned him from generations before NOT to get bogged down in that lifestyle: 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. (Deut. 17:17)

So what happened? Solomon became the "poster boy" for Deut. 17:17: 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. (1 Kings 11:3-4)

15 posted on 05/29/2011 5:39:21 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JustTheTruth

I completely disagree with the Mormon faith and pray they will step away from it.

However I’d rather have a mormon as a neighbor than a muslim.


16 posted on 05/29/2011 5:41:17 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
You know, monogamous marriage is an institution created by the patriarchy to protect both their daughters and property. The patriarchy never gets credit for this. It provided a father with a legal process to at least discourage the mistreatment of daughters.

I'm sick of busting Mormons' chops with this embarrassing part of their history, particularly now that we have women walking around in chadors in Sam's club. Met one today. They man came up and touched me! He was just letting me know that he was moving his cart in such a way so as to not block traffic. He didn't really do anything out of line, but I sure didn't like being touched by a Muslim man when I know he is not supposed to do it, accding to his own Sharia.

Ugh. He didn't know who he was touching, and my instinctive reaction I managed to hide.

Anyway, I wish we'd stop picking on the Mormons when we've got Sharia to worry about.

Of course, it was economics. After the Civil War, there were thousands of destitute widows and girl orphans, and they got taken advantage of...such is life. We are all desperately wicked as the sparks fly upward.

Given the natural progression of "same sex marriage" we will see an inevitable return to polygamy and must think of our own daughters.

Did you know that polygamy is legal both in India and Ontario, Canada?

17 posted on 05/29/2011 5:43:21 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

And what about Abraham, Israel?


18 posted on 05/29/2011 5:45:23 PM PDT by JustTheTruth (Sometimes the Truth hurts so much that most refuse to face or accept it, even when it is obvious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JustTheTruth; driftdiver; fulltlt
(To Driftdiver)You wrote: "Solomon had more than one wife."

Yup. So did Abraham.

(Except that's not" "justthe(full)truth"...)

The Bible records only Sarai (Sarah) as having placed her slave in that capacity. (When you're a slave, JustTheTruth, there's not exactly "I dos" and "I don'ts" involved!)

Here, I've made it "easy" for you to check out what the Bible has to say on this matter with a Q&A:

Q. Who continues to deem Hagar a servant/slave after sleeping with Abram?
A. …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 as mentioned above, 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 her husband, 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, to summarize: 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 that slave 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)

19 posted on 05/29/2011 5:46:28 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JustTheTruth; driftdiver; fulltlt; SkyDancer
And so did Jacob whose name was changed by the Lord to Israel, father of the twelve tribes of Israel. The same man Israel who - as a polygamist - received tremendous promised blessings straight from God himself, as written in the Bible.

We all know Jacob entered into polygamy unwilling as a matter of deception. (I didn't know deception was advocated or sanctioned by God)

As for receiving tremendous promised blessings, well God told Hosea to marry a prostitute, Gomer, who kept up her "cottage industry" post marriage.

I don't think you would claim that God cut off blessings to Hosea, right? Nor would we imply, like the implication you seem to be making, that God "blesses" or sanctions people who marry prostitutes who keep up a "cottage industry" post-marriage.

20 posted on 05/29/2011 5:50:41 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

No I’m pointing out that comparing Mormons to Muslims is a slippery slope for the ignorant.


21 posted on 05/29/2011 5:52:06 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Of course, it was economics. After the Civil War, there were thousands of destitute widows and girl orphans, and they got taken advantage of...

As a general Western pathology of the 25 years following the Civil War, this is not true. John Widtsoe was born in the immediate post-Civil War days and became an Lds "apostle" by 1921.

According to the Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 224-225: [LDS} "Apostle John A. Widtsoe stated: ’We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage.’ (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, p.393). One of the most popular explanations is that the church practiced polygamy because there was a surplus of women. The truth is, however, that there were less women than men. Apostle Widtsoe admitted that there was no surplus of women”: 'The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church.’.. The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, ... there was no surplus of women'” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, pp.390-92," as cited in Changing World, pp. 224-225).

Imagine single men having to “do without” such a wife because some men were “hoarding” them, 27, 40, 57 at a time!

22 posted on 05/29/2011 6:00:01 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Ok. I disagree with that--I've done some studying of the subject, having lived in Utah for a time and I learned to like and respect a lot of Mormons. From a Christian point of view, they are in serious error but I also see their church being blessed. I believe that at least some of the ones I knew were Christians in serious...but not fatal...error.

The writer of this article is right in that the decisions were in large part economic in one way or another, which then evolved into a social system that took decades to remove themselves.

As for polygamy, it is the natural state of things when fathers do not protect their daughters and lust after the daughters of likeminded negligent fathers. The Mormons fell into that pit and have paid the price, and are still paying it.

And we will see the return of it when "same sex marriage" is codified into law.

23 posted on 05/29/2011 6:09:06 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Harking back to the forefathers is absurd. That Abraham ignored God's promise, that Sarai ignored God's promise, and Ishmael was conceived was certainly not God's design. God created a helpmeet, not a harem, for Adam. All these patriarchs were sinful, flawed, fallen men (and women).

Powerful men will accumulate women, unless they are godly and obedient.

24 posted on 05/29/2011 6:14:06 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Anyway, I wish we'd stop picking on the Mormons when we've got Sharia to worry about.

(You know some of us can multi-task).

For example, if I said, "I wish we'd stop worrying about Sharia law when we could be concerned about getting the Gospel into Muslims hands."

(Hey, why can't we do both?)

25 posted on 05/29/2011 6:16:36 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Well, then put the gospel into their hands and stop sniggering about what the early members of their church were doing in their boudoirs.

And you might take note of what many of them do with the gospel, themselves. It is hard to argue with the fruits of their recent labors.

Really, the apostates these days are Bishop Schori's Episcopalians. They are now deriding the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and touting Collective Salvation. I think a lot of Mormons will make it to heaven before these Church of England apostates.

26 posted on 05/29/2011 6:22:58 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Robwin
So long as everyone involved is an adult and freely chooses, multiple marriage ought be allowed as a matter of freedom of personal choice. And, no, I am not advocating same sex marriage, just polygamy or even polyandry, if freely chosen.

OK. Except now you've just redefined marriage.

#1 If you're "OK" with one man and 10 female partners, and advocate for "multiple marriage" -- then what's wrong with "group marriage" with say, 7 females & 5 males?

#2 By redefining marriage, you are square in opposition to none other than Jesus Christ: 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the TWO
My note: Not the three, four, five, six, etc.
Continuing: will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

The way you tell it, the 10 may become "one flesh." And so you have women becoming "one flesh" to each other?

I don't think so. That's not the way Jesus saw it, and by you insinuating that "sister wives" can become "one flesh" to each other, all that does is indeed open the door to "same-sex 'marriage.'"

#5 And so are you going to lead the crusade to get corporations to pay for benefits for multiple partners? Really?

#4 Then there's the socio-political pathological governmental consequences.

I've seen articles this year saying that China has a gender imbalance of 24-30 million more men than women? Why? Because of the Chinese government & its citizens have killed off about that many more female infants (pre-born and already-born). And it's actually more than that: The numbers will continue to surge each year that more Chinese reach their "marriage-able" years.

If I was a forecaster, I would say this unabated trend would eventually lead to a war if for no other reason than to secure available wives.

Polygamy does the same thing culturally as sex-selection abortion/infanticide. It keeps more women from a vast number of men.

#5 There's other fall-out as well. Polygamy has been proven to actually reduce the number of children. You can find the evidence here: Polygamy hurt 19th century Mormon wives' evolutionary fitness

Using statistical models, Indiana U. was able to prove that polygamy reduced the number of children by one-per-Mom!

It doesn't matter if you increase the number of children per men; if you reduce it per women, you are heading toward sexual suicide like Italy, South Korea, Japan, and many other European countries. And then you wind up having to rely more upon an immigrant (legal & illegal) population to fill the labor gaps -- like Europe is doing. And then people wonder why they have the Muslimization of Europe!

#6 I'm not done with the fall-out: If we've already seen the pathological damage of single men in our culture winding up in large numbers becoming dead-beat dads, why would you want the government to sanction a new "family relationship" that has a multiplier effect if a man cops out on multiple wives within a short frame of time?

Overall, you're libertarian streak exhibited in this marital experimentation advocacy of yours shows a tremendous lack of foresight.

Actions have consequences beyond your household.

27 posted on 05/29/2011 6:40:39 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Robwin

“So long as everyone involved is an adult and freely chooses, multiple marriage ought be allowed as a matter of freedom of personal choice.”

I tend to agree, but only if others aren’t forced to recognize whatever a bunch of crazy people decide to call marriage. But it seems to me in societies that have traditional polygamy the “adult” and “freely chooses” stipulations are rarely enforced. I mean, apart from the law, what’s the real difference between a brainwashed 16 year old as compared to a brainwashed 20 year old?

I do remember hearing that a small number of Jews practiced polygamy in some Islamic countries where it was legal, but I seem to recall it was more about marrying relatives widows(could be wrong). I think Israel grandfathered some of the marriages in when they moved there, if I recall. Israel doesn’t allow polygamy, but I take it a small number practice it underground, like they do in the USA.

Freegards


28 posted on 05/29/2011 6:41:50 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Well, then put the gospel into their hands and stop sniggering about what the early members of their church were doing in their boudoirs.

Again, you assume I can't multi-task. You're the one who claims you can only "worry" (your word) 'bout more than one thing at a time. Better not celebrate Memorial Day tomorrow, then, Mamzelle. By looking backwards into history, you won't be able to properly concentrate on anything dated 2011.

And you might take note of what many of them do with the gospel, themselves. It is hard to argue with the fruits of their recent labors.

It's a false gospel -- the Mormon gospel -- and your telling ignorance of it is showing like the lack of slip under a sundress.

Per the Book of Mormon -- 2 Nephi 25:23 -- you are "saved by grace AFTER ALL YOU CAN Do." Tell us, Mamzelle: When's a Mormon suppose to know he/she's done all they can do? When can one say, "Yup I've done EVERYTHING spiritually I can do...EVERYTHING relationally I can do...EVERYTHING physically I can do...EVERYTHING emotionally and attitudinally I can do...?" (etc.)

As for whatever "labors" you're attributing to them, hey, if you were auditioning for godhood like temple Mormons do, you, too might be on your best laborious behavior!

I think a lot of Mormons will make it to heaven before these Church of England apostates.

Well, then, you are joining the Mormon ranks in presenting heaven as anything other than free grace -- a complete gift.

Because the idea of Mormons attaining an eternal relationship with Heavenly Father is based upon works. A grade, so to speak. A spiritual Boy Scout worthy merit badge.

Allow me to highlight the pure contrast of the Gospel from the Bible by citing Romans 6:23 -- followed by a quote from the Mormon "prophet" Spencer Kimball:

For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

...the idea that men may become gods still can be found in the Doctrines of the Gospel, Student Manual: Religion 430 and 431 (which carries a 2004 copyright date). The student manual cites President Spencer Kimball: “Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with many obstacles, but it is a real possibility” (52) (from The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 28).
Secondary source of quote: When Is It Proper to Tell Mormons the Truth?

29 posted on 05/29/2011 6:53:39 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; robin
#5 And so are you going to lead the crusade to get corporations to pay for benefits for multiple partners? Really?

Editing typo...should read #3...as I moved it up in my lineup

30 posted on 05/29/2011 6:55:27 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Hey, here's a link to some good news on the Sharia front...

http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2011/05/29/first-amendment-trumps-sharia-in-dearborn/

I refuse to address the obvious error that is the whole book of Mormon. Error is serious, but I contend not fatal. I happen to view Catholicism in the same way with the persistent assertions to the divinity of Mary, in clear contradiction to the first two commandments and the doctrine of the trinity. But most Catholics are Christians to me.

I have asked many Mormons, "Whence cometh your salvation?" and their answers generally follow both the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. Whatever the Mormons have tacked on is error, but as far as I have observed, not a fatal error. Therefore I regard them, for the most part, because there must be exceptions, as Christians.

Now, to deny the resurrection is to deny the grace you mention. To deny that we rec' it individually is to deny that grace, also. And the behavior of the TEC in the past ten years is dangerous, and probably fatal, folly.

I'm often quite impressed at the family lives of the Mormons I have known, and the good works that are the outer sign of an inward blessing. But the recent works of the TEC are a stench and a defoulment.

31 posted on 05/29/2011 7:20:51 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I have asked many Mormons, "Whence cometh your salvation?" and their answers generally follow both the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds.

Well, why don't you then try asking them this question: "I have your sacred book in front of me. The Pearl of Great Price. Do you believe these verses in this book -- like these verses, 18 & 19 of Joseph Smith - History? ...I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that ALL their CREEDS were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all ccorrupt...

Certainly Mormon doctrine isn't far from the Apostles Creed; but if you think Mormons believe the Nicene Creed, then they've been "off-Salt Lake City" (as in off-Broadway)...

...fatal...

This is the second time you've used this word.

Spiritual fatalies can result from...
Embracing legalism...
Embracing a counterfeit Jesus...
Embracing a counterfeit god...
Believing you can become a god (as do temple Mormons)...
Etc.

Let's deal with legalism for a moment.

According to Mormon writings, what makes you "worthy?" Your perfection (3 Nephi 12:48; Mt. 5:48)

[Whereas, in contrast, a good definition of a "Christian" is someone already perfect in the Father's eyes thru Jesus sacrificial death (Heb. 10:14) -- where His perfect righteousness is substituted for our imperfect righteousness. (1 Cor. 1:30). Heb. 10:14 ...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.]

Just to be sure, I looked up "worthiness" (a key Lds concept) in the 1977 "Topical Guide to the Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" published by church-owned Deseret Publishers.

I found verses like Doctrine & Covenants 59:4: "And they shall also be crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time--they that are faithful and diligent before me."

"Commandments not a few"? -- sounds like a long checklist to me.

I then looked at the 1979 "Topical Guide" in the Lds version of its KJV -- and turned to the "worthiness" entry there: It tells me right up top its related to the concept of "qualifying for" & then proceeds to verses like D&C 31:5: "Therefore, thrust in your sickle with all your soul, and your sins are forgiven you, and you shall be laden with sheaves upon your back, for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Wherefore, your family shall live."

Ah. There it is: The Mormon "strategy." Don't "trust" for your salvation, "thrust in your sickle"

So it sounds like the Mormon god wants plenty of soul labor -- paid labor -- spiritual hirelings -- earned labor for salvation. No free gifts here. No grace here. Just follow the rules, ma'am.

Indeed, the LDS are the "rules oriented" ones: The purity and perfection we seek is unattainable without this subjection of unworthy, ungodlike urges and the corresponding encouragement of their opposites. We certainly cannot expect the rules to be easier for us than for the Son of God... (Lds "prophet" Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 28)

Just look @ all the "rule extensions" Lds have imposed upon their followers in order to make it to the highest degree of afterlife:
(1) You have to be obedient to all the commandments & ordinances of the Mormon god
(2) You have to tithe -- what Lds reference as the "Law of consecration"
(3) You have to obey the "Word of Wisdom" -- not drink coffee, etc.
(4) You have to get married -- sorry, no never-married single people allowed
(5) You have to have as many children as possible
(6) You have to perform temple work for the dead
(7) You have to perform endowments essential for this highest degree of salvation
(8) You have to be a member of the right church (Lds)
(9) You have to receive & perform the rites and ordinances established by that church
(10)You have to have Joseph Smith's consent to enter into your highest afterlife

That is 19th-20th-21st century legalism!

The campaign says God's truth is "the concept of free and full forgiveness through Christ" rather than the "earned forgiveness taught in Mormonism."

32 posted on 05/29/2011 7:35:53 PM PDT by Colofornian (Key Q for Romney & Huntsman: Show us your spirit-birth certificate from Kolob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JustTheTruth
And nary a one of those harems were told if they didn't get with the program that GOD would destroy them!


Doctines and Covenants section 132
 
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

 52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

 53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

 54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

 55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.

 56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to brejoice.

33 posted on 05/29/2011 8:49:03 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
However I’d rather have a mormon as a neighbor than a muslim.

So; which is it?

Are you a bigot or a racist?

34 posted on 05/29/2011 8:50:20 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Anyway, I wish we'd stop picking on the Mormons when we've got Sharia to worry about.

It'll be ok to 'pick on them' after we get rid of the Muzzies?

35 posted on 05/29/2011 8:52:06 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I’ve had both Muslims and Mormons as neighbors and they were good neighbors.


36 posted on 05/29/2011 8:52:25 PM PDT by sand lake bar (Adventure Time with Finn and Jake!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Anyway, I wish we'd stop picking on the Mormons when we've got Sharia to worry about.

It must really to get picked on!!


Joseph Smith continues: "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (from 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (, p.270).
 
Questions put to Joseph Smith: "'Do you believe the Bible?' [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (, p. 119).
 
Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" ( 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" ( 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" ( 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (, vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" ( 10:230).
 
Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (, p. 255).
 
Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (, vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (, 18:172).
 
President John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (, 10:127).
James Talmage said: "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". (, p.182).
 
President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (, vol. 3, p.282).
 
More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (, vol 3, p.265); "Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general" (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (, p.316).
 
President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).
 
President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called" (, vol. 2, p.196).
 

37 posted on 05/29/2011 8:53:06 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Anyway, I wish we'd stop picking on the Mormons when we've got Sharia to worry about.

It must really to get picked on!!


Don't worry. There are 49,998 more where we came from...


38 posted on 05/29/2011 8:54:57 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
They man came up and touched me!< P>

Don't worry Maam: we got RULES, too!


#76 Never associate inappropriately with anyone of the opposite sex

http://www.lds4u.com/Missionaries/rules.htm

39 posted on 05/29/2011 8:58:48 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
No I’m pointing out that comparing Mormons to Muslims is a slippery slope for the ignorant.

And what is it if you PREFER them to muslims?

40 posted on 05/29/2011 9:01:55 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: Mamzelle
I believe that at least some of the ones I knew were Christians in serious...but not fatal...error.

Oh?

Could you elaborate a bit?

41 posted on 05/29/2011 9:03:54 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I think a lot of Mormons will make it to heaven before these Church of England apostates.

Why?

MORMONism threw it's GOD under the bus in favor of statehood.

The GOD BREATHED scripture of D&C 132 has NEVER been rescinded.

Most MORMONs are ignoring what their god COMMANDED them to do.

Why should he be pleased?

42 posted on 05/29/2011 9:07:33 PM 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: Mamzelle
Error is serious, but I contend not fatal.

Why not?

43 posted on 05/29/2011 9:09:27 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: Elsie

Well neither mormons or mulims are a race. Are you ignorant or just stupid? which is it


44 posted on 05/30/2011 4:42:55 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sand lake bar

“I’ve had both Muslims and Mormons as neighbors and they were good neighbors.”

Sure individuals of both can be good people. Mormons sell themselves as Christians but they are not. While misguided and leading its followers away from salvation their followers do not generally do evil.

Muslims across the world will do evil in the name of their faith. Their faith was started by a man who was a murderer, rapist and thief. He took one wife when she was 6 years old and thighed her until she was 9, when he ‘consummated’ the marriage.

The muslim quran is filled with hate and evil. While individual followers can be nice, their faith is not. So the question comes up, when they are being nice is it because they are good people, or are they lying to you until its time to force your conversion.

The only thing these two faiths have in common is they have not accepted Jesus.


45 posted on 05/30/2011 4:49:17 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Are you ignorant or just stupid? which is it

I am ignorant.

Ignorant of the REASON behind YOUR statement here: However I’d rather have a mormon as a neighbor than a muslim.

What has RACE to do with it?

Well neither mormons or mulims are a race.

46 posted on 05/30/2011 4:56:15 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I know it is a holiday, but isn’t it kinda early to be drunk?


47 posted on 05/30/2011 5:18:48 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
So the question comes up, when they are being nice is it because they are good people, or are they lying to you until its time to force your conversion.

Good question!

I tried to find the ODDS that your neighbor would kill you from crime statistics, but was unable.

However, in 2010, the odds of being murdered was 5 per 100,000 nationwide.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

So, if you lived in a city of 100,000 people, how many of those 99,999 folks would be your neighbor?

(Or maybe 99,995, since 4 of them are gonna be dead, too.)

48 posted on 05/30/2011 5:43:32 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
No I’m pointing out that comparing Mormons to Muslims is a slippery slope for the ignorant.

I rather like MORMON history to speak for itself:

 

“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.


49 posted on 05/30/2011 5:47:54 AM 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
           Decisions decisions!

 
Fanny Alger
Lucinda Morgan Harris
Louisa Beaman
Zina Huntington Jacobs
Presendia Huntington Buell
Agnes Coolbrith
Sylvia Sessions Lyon
Mary Rollins Lightner
Patty Bartlett Sessions
Marinda Johnson Hyde
Elizabeth Davis Durfee
Sarah Kingsley Cleveland
Delcena Johnson
Eliza R. Snow
Sarah Ann Whitney
Martha McBride Knight
Ruth Vose Sayers
Flora Ann Woodworth
Emily Dow Partridge
Eliza Maria Partridge
Almera Johnson
Lucy Walker
Sarah Lawrence
Maria Lawrence
Helen Mar Kimball
Hanna Ells
Elvira Cowles Holmes
Rhoda Richards
Desdemona Fullmer
Olive Frost
Melissa Lott
Nancy Winchester
Fanny Young
 
Emma Hale only!!
 
 


50 posted on 05/30/2011 5:48:57 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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