Posted on 08/15/2011 4:53:20 AM PDT by Colofornian
“To see how the Mormon church tried spinning Warren Jeffs as a continuation of 120 years of polygamous Mormon “prophets” yesterday, see: Warren Jeffs and the abandonment of tradition”
The second paragraph of the article you posted makes clear that the LDS totally disavows this idea. 99% of mormons belong to the LDS, so your statement is incredibly misleading.
So what are you doing referring to a tiny offshoot splinter of the mormon church, as the “mormon church”? Was this intentionally misleading?
How would you feel about someone grossly misrepresenting what you believe?
What do you think of someone holding up what the Westboro church believes, and saying this is what the Christian church believes? That’s equivalent to what you are doing with your statement here.
Was it your intention to smear the whole LDS with this belief? Or did you accidentally neglect to specify that you were talking about a tiny splinter of the mormon church, instead of the “mormon church” as you wrote?
I don’t like Mormon beliefs, but misrepresenting what someone believes is really disgusting behavior.
To be clear I’m talking about the posters grossly misleading summary of a linked article in #2 that he posted yesterday, not the article posted here.
YAMT = Yet Another Mormon Thread.
Ask Mitt. His father (born in Mexico) was part of the group that spit off from the US Mormons and took their act to Mexico.
This is important?
#1...Mormons believe marriage is forever.
#2...There are Lds general authorities TODAY who have married twice (widowers marrying again). They married BOTH partners "For eternity." Mormon policy is that these men WILL BE eternal polygamists.
Tell me something: How does this forever "disavow polygamy?"
#3 Mormons have simply "colonized polygamy." They believe all those Mormon "prophets" & leaders are STILL practicing polygamy today on another planet. Tell me something: How does forever "disavow" polygamy.
#4 In 1966, Lds "apostle" Bruce R McConkie taught in his book Mormon Doctrine that the "holy practice" of polygamy would be re-instituted when the Mormon Jesus returns. Please show me anywhere that Mormon leaders have "disavowed" this futuristic prophesy of Mormons practicing polygamy on Planet Earth.
The fact is that the Mormon god has changed his mind several times on polygamy:
* In the 1830 Book of Mormon, he severely condemns it multiple times.
* By 1831, he's supposedly revealed to Joseph Smith to practice it.
* By 1890, he's supposedly telling Mormons to curtail it.
* Yet by 1904, the Mormon god is having to tell his people, "Hey, I really meant what I said in 1890" cause hundreds of additional plural unions solemnized by Lds leaders showed they had yet to even begin to fully "disavow" it: See Second Manifesto
* By 1910, the Mormon god is having to say thru his leaders, "Hey, I really, really meant what I said in 1890 and 1904." Per a BYU paper by a BYU author, by the name of Daynes, 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."
* By 1966, the Mormon god speaking thru Lds "apostle" McConkie says, "Hey, just wait til I send my son Jesus back. THEN you can resume polygamy on earth."
So much for your notion of disavowel. But, hey, I understand. Those lines have been fed by plenty of Mormon leaders & grassroots Mormons' alike...not to mention the MSM.
Or did you accidentally neglect to specify that you were talking about a tiny splinter of the mormon church, instead of the “mormon church” as you wrote?
Sorry. Mormon 1998 policy about how even women can be sealed post-death to multiple husbands isn't some "tiny splnter" -- nor is McConkie's teaching in effect for 45 years!
“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”)
(This same source talks about men being sealed forever to multiple wives...just has to be wives taken serially now)
If you want to continue to eat @ the Mormon PR trough, that's your privilege.
Yes. It shows that the "legacy" an individual may start in the year 2011, may come into fruition in the form of another Warren Jeffs-like character in 160 years. Take care what you build. It may last way too long as an "institution."
i think this is very important.
(and, do you ask others on FR who post vanity threads about movies, etc., “Is this important”?)
aside from Smith’s arrest and CONVICTION in New York, for working a “magic stone” con, there is much that shows the entire LDS religion to be false. NO evidence in any science for any of the claims.
and this is VERY similar, to utterly CONVENIENT “revelations” from “ALLAH” that Mohammad got.
(my favorite was the one that when Allah said visitors shouldn’t overstay their welcome to Mohammad. and that dogs were evil, when they barked at “peeping Mohammad”.)
= = =
“In the meantime, Smith shared to his friend John Bennett his dilemma and the trouble he was having with Emma. He wondered what he should do, and Bennett replied, “This is very simple. Get a revelation that polygamy is right, and all your troubles will be at an end.”5
The Revelation
Joseph didn’t waste any time. In 1843 he sat down and wrote a command from the Lord that Emma would be destroyed if she didn’t “receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph.” If she didn’t obey this command, not only would the Lord destroy her, but the Lord will bless Joseph and multiply him with “wives and children and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds” (see the Mormon scripture Doctrine & Covenants 132:52, 54, 56, 61-62). “
In this same command, Emma was told to forgive Joseph’s trespasses if she wanted to be forgiven (D&C 132:56). She was then told that the Lord would justify Joseph: “If he have ten virgins given unto him by this law [the law of priesthood], he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified (D&C 132:61-62).
How would you like DC to tell you what you can and can not practice in your religious belief system?
What's also telling is how far your moral compass is off...
...instead of being digusted how Joseph Smith forced himself upon 14 yo and 16 yo like Lucy Walker -- a girl whose mother had died & whose father was sent to the east coast by Smith...
...instead of being disgusted by how Smith "married" 11 women still married to other men...and how a lot of these men were likewise sent to the mission field...
...instead of being disgusted by Smith, Brigham Young & Warren Jeffs compiling at least 178 wives between this trio...
...instead of being disgusted by how about 120 years of Mormon "prophets" practicing polygamy leads to the likes of a Warren Jeffs...
...you are disgusted by an "expose'" of sorts on all this.
Hmmm...
This could be interesting
YACT = ... Catholic
YAPT = ... Protestant
YABT = ... Buddhist
YATT = ... Taoist
etc.
This site would do well to be vigilant to
... Drop Belief threads except in sidebars
... Judge Not, for as you Judge, so Shall You be Judged
... Those who are Enemies of Conservatism are watching
You've got your historical facts screwed up.
The Mormon apologist group FAIR says Smith was told by the Mormon god about practicing polygamy in 1831. Yet it took Smith a dozen years to write it down and give it to his original wife to convince him to let him continue.
You've got to understand that Smith took 10 additional wives 'tween February 1843 and July 1843...and his first wife was putting her foot down.
It then took another 9 years -- 21 years total -- for the Mormons to go fully public with their practice. So when you falsely claim that "DC drove this doctrine underground," you're dead wrong! That's exactly how it started out: Underground -- for 21 years! In fact, that's what Emma later said Even his first wife, Emma Smith, said: "It was secret things which...cost Joseph and Hyrum their lives, and it will cost you and The Twelve your lives as it has done to them." (Source: Solemn Covenant, by B. Carmon Hardy, Univ. of Illinois)
Hence, Emma thought it literally drove the Smith brothers underground -- as in a coffin!
They practiced their beliefs and no one bothered them. When they became a territory no problem...
Well, this is your second historical error. Bigamy was already the law of the land...that included territories not just states. But it is true that with territories, the U.S. govt had a law enforcement problem...
Otherwise, how was it that Federal marshals finally came to be putting Mormon polygamists by the hundreds in jail in the 1880s? (Utah was STILL a territory in the 1880s). Congress passed a series of new laws aimed at Mormon polygamists in three decades: The 1860s, the 1870s (Reynolds case) & the 1880s...
For you to now claim in a revisionist manner that this was all supposedly "no problem" to anybody is mistaken.
A certain CA congressman, Rep. Leo Ryan, flew to Guyana in 1978. He was on a mission per concerns from family members of Jim Jones' cult there. I suppose you might interpret that as "DC...tell[ing]" others what they "can and can not practice" in their "religious belief system"...but sorry, cyanide poisoning via mass-drinking of koolaid is not a "sanctioned" religious belief free from "government interference."
As it was, Rep. Ryan -- along with four others @ that Guyana airstrip -- paid for that trip with their blood...as Ryan was assassinated.
Source: Jonestown
Besides, you also underestimate the reality that at times "DC" really has represented the people. (Just 'cause they tend not to now; doesn't mean they never have)
In 1898, after Utah became a state, it elected a Democrat to Congress (B.H. Roberts). Roberts, though, had taken his third simultaneous wife about 5 years prior. "D.C." -- Congress kept Roberts from being placed into office.
Why? Because "D.C." was "driving" Roberts not to keep picking up additional wives and they didn't like it? Nope. In fact, 'twas the people of the U.S. who were primarily riled with Roberts & Utah.
You see, in 1856, the fledging Republican party had decided on a social agenda that would tackle what they regarded as "the twin relics of barbarism" -- polygamy and slavery.
Now you may hate the 19th century Republican party for tackling polygamy and slavery, but it did. And it did so effectively that within 42 years, grassroots America presented 28 banners to Congress...28 banners including 7 million signatures.
Think of it. 7 million signatures in 1898 America. Before mass media like radio. 7 million people riled up over a single polygamous Congressman from Utah.
And yet you want to pin the concern on just 19th century "D.C." (Sorry...but you needed this history lesson)
flds are actually practicing what Joseph Smith taught.
Neither...
The church teaches that it is a continuation of the Church of Christ established in 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr. This original church underwent several name changes during the 1830s, being called the Church of Jesus Christ, the Church of God, and then in 1834, the name was officially changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints.
(From WIKI)
Just wondering if you realize the graphic you posted confirms my point?
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.