LOL OH MY!
You are kidding, right?
A Mormon saying such?
Posted on 12/17/2011 11:15:37 AM PST by Colofornian
When my family lived in Richmond, a group of Mormon fundamentalists from Bountiful, near Creston, visited our mainstream Mormon congregation extolling the practice of polygamy, also called the principle or plural marriage. They were looking for wives to add to their collections. They targeted families who had young girls.
My oldest sister at 16, with blond hair, blue eyes and a blossoming body, was a magnet for the young men and 19-year-old missionaries of the Church. One Sunday after Sunday school, I watched an older man from Bountiful rush over in the parking lot to open our station wagon door for her. He left the wife he had with him struggling to open their car door on her own, a baby on her hip, a diaper bag over her shoulder, and two toddlers clinging to her legs. I was 10 years old. I giggled at his ardour, finding his behaviour ridiculous, while a queasiness roiled in my stomach.
My parents weren’t swayed by the arguments to take up a polygamous lifestyle and my two sisters and I were saved from the principle.
Even so, my mother explained, “Polygamy is a hardship for men.” This did not make any sense to me.
My mother told me Joseph Smith introduced polygamy in the 1830s, soon after he founded the Mormon Church, because of the shortage of men and the abundance of women. “There were a lot of widows and older women immigrants, that worked as housekeepers and servants, joining the Church,” she said, “It was practical for the men to take more than one wife to ensure the older women were taken care of.”
Joseph Smith started the new church in Palmyra, N.Y., naming it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which came to be known as the Mormons. A charismatic and compelling young leader, when he spoke, people listened. Smith claimed to receive visions from God who told him what to do.
My mother, a devout Mormon, accepted the principle as being ordained by God using Smith as his messenger, yet was relieved that she didn’t have to practise it herself. At least not here on Earth. When the Church congregation moved to Salt Lake City to escape persecution for their beliefs and the consequences of their violent activities, the leaders renounced plural marriage in 1890, to adhere to the law and gain statehood for Utah.
The renunciation of polygamy split the membership in two. The mainstream Mormons publicly agreed to stop the practice, although the last plural marriage recorded in the Covenant House where the marriages took place was nearly 30 years later. My great-grandfather, one of the mainstream Mormons who immigrated to Cardston, Alta., had a wife who lived on one side of town, and another who lived on the other side. Neither wife was happy sharing a husband.
Mormon fundamentalists refused to comply with the leaders’ direction and continued to live the principle. The Church hired a public relations firm to distance themselves politically from any association with the Mormon fundamentalists.
The Church’s current position on polygamy, not widely known among younger Mormons, let alone non-members, is that God suspended the practice and temporarily disallowed plural marriage to spare the membership legal and political problems. The president in Salt Lake City, considered a living prophet by members today, could, at any time, give the word, and Latter-day Saint men would once more be called upon to marry multiple wives.
My parents believed the Mormon scriptures written by Joseph Smith, which promised that if they remained devout, dedicated their lives and money to the Church, after they died they would become a god and goddess together and rule over many worlds. My father, however, would be given additional eternal wives. My mother often quoted Smith on the afterlife, as if trying to prepare herself: “Seven women will cling to the coat tails of one man.”
Personally, I believed what my mother told me about polygamy was a crock. For one thing, in the 1800s there were more men than women available to participate in plural marriage. The women chosen as plural wives were young and desirable, not older women in need of care. The wives, and the child labour force they birthed, built and worked the homesteads and ranches that were the foundation for the wealthy corporate and political empire the Mormons would become.
Husbands tended to be away recruiting new members for the Church and courting other women, only visiting each wife long enough to ensure another child. If a wife were a favourite, her husband might allocate more time with her.
While I was growing up, the books I read were censored, limited to Church-approved literature. My parents dedicated themselves to breaking my child’s spirit to accept their beliefs. The friendships I was permitted and the activities I could pursue were all closely monitored. They were unsuccessful. While I was physically present at the services and activities I was forced to attend under fear of punishment, my mind refused to be taken prisoner.
When I left home and had the freedom to question, and seek out history books not sanctioned by the Church, I read with astonishment, and a growing sadness for my mother’s and father’s gullibility, of the chronological events surrounding the introduction of plural marriage.
Smith, while married to his first wife Emma, impregnated a 16-year-old serving girl he was having an affair with. He received a special “revelation” from God sanctioning polygamy, which gave him permission to secretly wed her as his second wife in 1833, an illegal act. When Emma protested, Joseph received another special revelation from God, advising Emma if she didn’t agree to the marriage, and give it her blessing, she would be damned for eternity.
Smith shared these revelations with his trusted Church leaders who began the practice in secret, long before the principle of plural marriage was introduced to the general membership. Marrying multiple wives, and wife swapping, went on among the men in leadership positions. Smith took 33 wives in 10 years, 11 of them married to other men at the time. If any of the women were reluctant to accept his proposal, he used the threat of eternal damnation to gain their compliance.
Dissension occurred among the general membership when they became aware of the secret behaviour of their Church leaders with the female members. When the leaders encouraged them to begin the practice of plural marriage themselves, only about a quarter of them complied.
After reading the sequence of events, I didn’t have to be a Rhodes scholar or a Harvard graduate to find Smith’s revelations regarding polygamy suspect.
Former members and I, no longer in the Mormon fold, speculated, “Do you think Joseph Smith and the second president of the Mormon Church, Brigham Young, who had 55 wives, were sex addicts?” Historically, men in positions of leadership, with power and influence, have felt a certain entitlement to, well, more. Many developed an insatiable hunger for power and sex that led to the corruption of their initial ideals.
My mother wouldn’t have known what a sex addict was or how to recognize one. While she was growing up, there was little, if any, information available about sexuality. The anatomically correct names used to describe intimate parts of the body weren’t common knowledge. Frank discussion of carnal desire or marital relations did not take place. She told me the intimacies of married life came as a surprise to her on their three-day honeymoon in Calgary, after she married my father in the Cardston temple.
I can’t, as a result, fault my mother for believing Smith was following godly direction rather than earthly appetites. She simply didn’t have the knowledge or experience to make informed decisions on what she was taught, and therefore believed, without question.
Whether the same can be said for my father, I don’t know. He held the highest level of priesthood conferred, only on men, by the Mormon Church, and the respected position of a bishop with his own congregation. He never discussed the practice of polygamy with me. I do know, however, that under Mormon doctrine, as a man, he would always be on the more favourable side of the religion.
Maggie Rayner lives in Vancouver.
I don’t discount Myth because hes a Mormon...
Its because he made a career out of tricking democrats..
and is now trying to trick republicans..
Hes a political “grifter”..
We’ve have a homosexual Muslim Communist illegal alien as president. I guess it’s ok for a Mormon cultist, Satanist, pedophile, or other kind of freak.
The Bible makes NO mention of Isaac being a "polygamist." (Joseph Smith made it up when he made up D&C 132 to convince his wife, Emma, that his extra bed-partners was God-ordained)
Jacob? He became a polygamist via deception. Now if you think deception is the route to institute another form of marriage upon, no wonder you've embraced deception across the board.
Abraham? (see next post)
So. Was Abram a polygamist? No.
Q. Why not?
A. Concubines were not considered "wives." And the only one who ever references Hagar as a "wife" is Sarai/Sarah. (But we never know if Abram slept with Hagar even more than once).
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 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)
Smith conned a 14 yo, 2 16 yo, and 3 17 yo into "marrying" him...
Half of these six he did in the same month -- showing how much into "girls" he was as a man in his late 30s!
No my Christian Friend. Because your efforts should be in uplifiting spiritual pursuits, not denigrating others that have no power over you or your life’s path. Proselytize those who have not heard. There is strength in well-doing and well-spaeaking of others. Pulling at threads in your carpet has laid it bare. Give it up and move on.
It is a irrational “religion”.
Their argument basically is that they have to have sex with widows, etc., to care for them. Stupid and irrational. The idea that polygamy doesn’t reduce the dignity and worth of women-—is ridiculous. One=One..... When 4 = 1 the worth of the one is equal to four......hmmmmm Conditioning children of polygamous relationships to believe women have less worth than men.
This concept has taken Christianity thousands of years to destroy. The elevation of Mary as Mother of God was the real beginning of giving worth to women in all the pagan societies where all women were slaves or suffering polygamous societies and cruelly treated like cattle. In poygamous islam—women are still treated like dogs. All history shows those societies encourage incest, pederasty, pedophilia, —all sorts of unnatural destructive lifestyles.
On the contrary, according to the Apostle Paul, we should also make an effort to watch out for false teachings (Romans 16:17); to silence them (Titus 1:11); to refute them (2 Corinthians 10:5-6); and to expel the false teachers from the church (Galatians 4:30). The Scriptures are just as concerned with maintaining the integrity of the church, as with proselytizing those yet outside of it.
You don't know my "offline" activities. Therefore, you "judge" thru a single window.
Proselytize those who have not heard.
You know the apostle Paul concluded this (he didn't use the word "proselytize") in a verse toward the end of his letter to Christians at Rome. So I respect this suggestion of yours.
But imagine had you "lectured" Paul because you didn't like the fact that every time -- in his earlier years -- that he entered into a community, he entered a synagogue...and often argued, debated with the religious people there.
Just read Acts 13-19. Especially Acts, 17, 18. It's all there.
I guess you can scold the apostle when he gets to heaven about the priorities he exercised. Per your "mission CONTROL" priorities, he should have just skipped all of what he did in the "Acts" period of his life and just moved on to his goal later in life, eh?
Were the mothers of these girls that gullible?
And why not? Paul had no right to enter a synagogue uninvited. Would you “crash” a ‘Mormon” temple to argue with those there that believe they are worshipping Jesus whether you think they are wrong or not? I think you’ll find that there are probably many LDS folks that post hereabout on FR and they probably understand that for whatever reason you couldn’t cut it so you cut out. But, they don’t lambaste you or your decision to leave the LDS faith. To showcase some apostate polygamists as evidence of something or other in support of your cause is zany :=)
Colo, being told by a Mormon you couldn't cut it in the LDS should be high praise, especially for you discernment and intellect...
LOL OH MY!
You are kidding, right?
A Mormon saying such?
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHICHAPTER 224 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
Or even HERE:
1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTSSECTION 13251–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.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.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.
Oh???
Then there SHOULD be something quite definitely trumps the following:
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;
and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,
and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.
Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)
Does THIS appear to do it?
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
False assumption.
(Better get a new rock urim & thummim or somethin').
I'm not ex-Mormon; never was a Mormon; though I am a descendent of Mormons.
But, they don’t lambaste you or your decision to leave the LDS faith.
This shows your complete ignorance of how Mormons regard non-Mormons (Gentiles).
Mormon missionaries talk about a "universal apostasy." Yes, Mormons who leave Mormonism are deemed "apostates"; but so are those Christians who never were Mormon...Christians descended from Christians are part of the so-called "universal apostasy." We're all "apostates" to the Mormons...even the founding fathers of our country were deemed by Smith & Co. as "apostates."
To showcase some apostate polygamists...
Even more ignorance CARTOUCHE. Even though Mormonism regards so many as "apostates," in the true narrow sense of the word there are much fewer "Mormon apostates." And the fLDS alive now were never part of the official LDS church; therefore, they were never among the mainstream Mormons for them to be kicked out.
And why not? Paul had no right to enter a synagogue uninvited. Would you “crash” a ‘Mormon” temple to argue with those there that believe they are worshipping Jesus whether you think they are wrong or not?
#1 Paul simply went into the synagogues (doesn't say whether he was invited all the time or not);
#2 My posts are a LOT less intrusive than a Mormon missionary ringing my doorbell! (There's no knocking on everybody's computer each time I post!)
Well; to give our MORMON friends here on FR something to explain; perhaps the FULLER explanation will shed some light instead of all this heat...
NOTHING was changed in the MORMONic scriptures.
Here - read for yourself - just SEE if 'GOD' told them to change ANYTHING about their belief.
To Whom It May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—
I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:
“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.
|
Hebrews 11:35-40
35. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37. They were stoned ; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated-- 38. the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. |
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
Must be rough; coming onto FR and finding all of these historical FACTS about MORMONism; and then being unable to respond with rational responces.
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.