Posted on 05/02/2008 6:55:44 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
I grew up going to church. Went to several different denoms up until my early twenties. (Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, CoC, etc) I’m no stranger to organized religion.
This is a desicion I’ve made for myself. If and when the time is right, I may go back. Until then, thanks for the offer and thanks doing the Lord’s work.
So you stopped going because.... you're better than those people?
“why did Benjamin F. Johnson recall that Joseph Smith taught him that plural marriage was the only means by which prostitution could be eliminated. (B. Carmon Hardy, A Solemn Covenant, p. 16)
So—not from a personal perspective necessarily (between couples) but from a Joseph Smith policy perspective—Johnson’s remembrance shows that a true purpose of plurality (not the only one) was in effect to have an “in-house” prostitute.”
Calofornian,
Your tone indicates some jealousy of these mormon men, with all their wives.
Historically prostitues have been those women abandoned by the men who used them up and then spit them out onto the streets. The most famous prostitute in literature is perhaps Fantine from Les Miserables. “He slept a summer by my side, but he was gone when autumn came” Leaving her with a child, no money, and a life of ruination and despair.
Now maybe you are some big government dude who believes it is best for abandoned women to be taken care of by taxpayer money while pregnant and nurturing young children. Or perhaps you believe it best for those women who have experienced the ultimate betrayal to just abort away the child left fatherless by some man screwing around.
Monogamy is a very important part of the LDS faith, it always has been and always will be. Those men who were called to live the polygamous life did so to take care of women and children, provide them with food, clothing, and shelter.
And it is my personal opinion that polygamy will come back in a big way as prophesied by the Prophet Isaiah. He said:
“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”
Isaiah 4:1 http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/4/1#1
This is cross referenced with a scripture from the Book of Mormon found in 2nd Nephi: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/14
My question to you is this. Is Poligamy INHERENTLY wrong? Any specific commandments against it? We all know fornication and adultery are wrong, and boneheads like you want to sex it all up and make it blasphemous and evil and all about dirty old men raping little girls.
But is it EVIL? Or just a natural extension of family life that provides fully for the widow and the orphan and keeps the fatherless and the potential prostitute off the streets?
Monogamous victorian sex on the east coast of America was riddled with infidelity, prostitution, and street rat bastards running all over town because some of the men of that era believed it was OK to father children and then abandon them. Mormon Polygamists often and loudly condemned this behavior. Benjamin Johnson and Brigham Young both spoke and wrote publicly defending polygamy by throwing that so called “monogamous” life back in the faces of those puritans who were constantly belittling them and their lifestyle.
Now you are twisting and contorting their words to make them seem like they treated their wives no better than prostitutes, and thought about their wives as inhouse prostitutes.
You are just a big gas bag filled with hot air, and I call on you now to stop belittling and twisting and contorting my religion and the history of my religion and my ancestors. I am PROUD of the lifestyle they lived. I am happy that every child Benjamin fathered he proudly called his own and cared for and helped in any way possible, including giving those fifty or so children his name and his blessing.
Every man who has fathered a child will stand accountable to God for what happened to that child and that childs mother on the judgement day. I believe for Benjamin and Brigham and Joseph Smith it will go well with them. For those men who hide behind monogamy and still run around on their wives and father children who are perhaps then aborted and/or abandoned by that supposedly righteous man, God sees all, he knows all and you cannot hide your infidelities from him. You will be accountable for the lives you have welcomed into the world by your behavior and you will be responsible before the Lord for those children you abandoned.
Now, please, stop baiting me with this nonsense, don’t you have anything better to do with your time???
Get a life.
Jenny Hatch
Well they sure didn’t get that doctrine out of the scripture. Wonder what writings were used to gin that one up ??????
Popcorn placemarker to follow the ‘proud’ poster’s subsequent defenses of these heresies and false prophets.
Does Dan Brown know about this ????????
I must be jinxed tonight. While talking to you, my internet connection went down! Just got back on line. Which Dan Brown?
Dan Brown wrote the Da Vici Code etc, about Jesus being married and having descendants etc
No, I don’t. Certainly, in an earlier thread, you made a partially eloquent attempt to defend polygamy on the grounds of caring for a widow. And I’m certain that was indeed the motivations of many men, Mormon and non-Mormon.
But when you were applying the concept of Old Testament men (for example, the brother who would take in the sister-in-law widow), it seems to me you “read into” the text, does it not? (Just because someone takes in a sister-in-law widow, doesn’t automatically equate to sleeping with her in a “wifely way,” does it?)
Moving beyond the OT to the world of 19th century Mormonism, I think a lot of contemporary Mormons assume that there was some glut of widowed women and that therefore, men just had to “step up” and “marry” them as a “plural wife.”
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).
I am sure your husband appreciates you as a wife. Now imagine single men having to “do without” such a wife because some men were “hoarding” them, 27, 40, 57 at a time.
B. Carmon Hardy, in his book, A Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, says: Because of secrecy surronding such unions, suitors were confused as to who was and who was not available for serious courtship...One young woman told how, as late as the 1920s, she was repeatedly approached at church dances by married men who wanted her to be their plural wife. (p. 321)
(I guess, in part at least, there goes your "widow" theory...here was a young woman being approached over 30 years after the "Manifesto"...plus think of how difficult it was for young men to know which other young girls or women had already been secretly "picked off?")
And it is my personal opinion that polygamy will come back in a big way as prophesied by the Prophet Isaiah. He said: “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”
Commentators have been divided over Isaiah 4:1. Some take it figuratively about the spiritual haughtiness of Zion [context is with Isaiah 3:16 where these women of Zion are “haughty…flirting with their eyes…ornaments jingling on their ankles…” with the response from the Lord being bringing sores on the heads of these women followed by balding scalps (Isaiah 3:17). What you will notice is that both Isaiah 3:18 and 4:1 start off “In that day…” And so, you need to ask, what are the “7 women” like “IN THAT DAY?”]
Well, according to Isaiah 3:16-23…these supposedly “polygamous” women are (a) haughty; (b) flirtatious; (c) balding; (d) jewelry-laden; (e) well-perfumed; (f) nose-ringed; (g) well-dressed. (Does that sound like the polygamous you know or know from your heritage over a century ago?)
Furthermore, if you do insist on taking it literally, note this comment from Steve Cooper of the Idaho Statesman, citing a Richard Van Wagoner book, Mormon Polygamy: A History:
During its practice from the 1850s to the 1880s, Van Wagoner estimates no more than 40 percent of Mormon marriages were plural. A 1956 study revealed 66 percent of polygamist men had only two wives; 21 percent had three; seven percent had four, and only 6 percent had five or more.
We know then that 5% or less—probably much less—of Mormon polygamists had exactly 7 wives. 94% of them had 4 or less; and I’m sure of the remaining 6%, probably at least 5% had 5, 6, or 8 or more.
Besides, all true believing Mormons, whether they be fundie or ex-fundie (mainstream), don't believe the prophet Isaiah's plain later words in his book--like Is. 44:8 & 43:10. So why should they attach themselves to obscure and less plainly obvious words like Is. 4:1?
Isaiah: Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:8)
If Isaiah's God doesn't know of any gods besides Him, that's good enough for me. You?
In the chapter before that, Isaiah gives a testimony whereby he knows of no gods formed before him or after him (Isaiah 43:10). Either the Mormons have a totally dunce god, a god who hit his head & suffers amnesia & can't forecast the future, or "Oops!" Smith stumbled over following thru on his read-the-bible-thru-in-a-year course and missed those verses prior to his book of the dead "Book of Abraham" & his King Follett sermon.
My question to you is this. Is Poligamy INHERENTLY wrong? Any specific commandments against it? We all know fornication and adultery are wrong…But is it EVIL? Or just a natural extension of family life that provides fully for the widow and the orphan and keeps the fatherless and the potential prostitute off the streets?
The Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:23-24 (see way below where I pull it out) calls it an “abomination” to God.
Those taking on "many wives" are told it will lead their heart astray. That is clearly communicated in Deut. 17:17 & Lev. 18:18.
He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. [Deuteronomy 17:17]
Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. [Leviticus 18:18]
In fact, Solomon, with 700 wives & 300 concubines, then becomes the "poster boy" for failing to heed that proscription. 1 Kings 11:3-4 mentions that this is exactly what happened to him...uses the EXACT same words...Solomon's heart was led astray. God judges him for this, and then takes away part of his kingdom (1 Kings 11:9-11). Sure, Solomon was as wise as they come...up until he did this. (We've all seen gifted men of God who don't finish strong)
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father....And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. (1 Kings 11:3-4, 9-11)
Surely you've been to enough weddings where you've heard a pastor read the following two verses?
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
Jesus said: Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:5-9)
Did your distant relatives think that the "one flesh" mentioned in Genesis & by Jesus--and the "no longer two but one" mention by Jesus = a polygamous family being all one happy single flesh? (Were the "sister wives" "one flesh" with each other?)
One more thing…in post #269 of that previous thread, you said: Modern romantic one husband/one wife and the pruddish victorian beliefs of todays christianity are not biblical. All of the patriarchs of the bible lived poligamous lives. The Prophets David and Solomon had thousands of wives, and poligamy is practiced all over the world as a practical way to take care of children. When I read the stories of the day to day lives of poligamous families, having a couple of sister wives around to help with the chores seems like a good idea…. I know this may be difficult for casual christians to wrap their minds around, but biblical christians who have a clear understanding of the scriptures KNOW that poligamy was just a practical part of ancient israel.
Tell me, then, what do you do with passages like Jacob 2:23-24 in the Book of Mormon?
"But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
Solomon did NOT have “thousands” of wives…he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. David? The Bible only names 2 wives, Michal and Bathsheba…and anywhere from a few to several concubines (not thousands). You said “all of the patriarchs of the Bible lived polygamous lives.” Not so. I know Smith referenced Isaac in D&C 132, but the Bible only says one wife: Rebekah. The Bible never says that God directed either Abraham or Jacob to take more than one wife. Only Abraham’s wife references Hagar once as Abram’s “wife” or “woman” (Hebrew word same for both)…but AFTER he sleeps with her, Hagar references herself as still a slave…Abraham doesn’t reference her as his wife, but as his wife’s servant…Sarah then does the same…as does the Angel of the Lord…as does Moses later in Genesis…as does the apostle Paul in Galatians 4:21-31…they all treat her as a servant/slave woman AFTER sleeping with Abram once. Before the sleepover, Abram & Sarai treat her as a “surrogate.” [see Genesis 16]
As for Jacob, he had 2 wives because of deception, not God. And his wives’ 2 servant girls slept with him for the same surrogacy reason of Gen. 16. [You also need to remember that Genesis is pre-10 Commandments anti-adultery codification]
More evidence of mormons being “irritated” I see. Tsk, tsk.
" After looking at your about page, I'm going to say *yes* but not for the reason you might think.
I like my religion like I like my government, simplistic and small. You have enough religious jargon on that page to scare away a lot of people.
My Wife and I read and study the Bible and spend time in the greatest of all God's creation...the outdoors.
If your looking to give me any grief over the way I conduct my life outside the boundaries of *organized* religion, you're wasting your breath.
Does anyone else find it strange that the LDS goes to such lengths to disassociate themselves from the FLDS (though BOTH groups consider themselves and I presume the other Mormons), yet the LDS is going out of their way to explain that ALL of the illegal acts of the FLDS are acceptable?
Well I certainly didn't mean to frighten you with my forum page.
What part of it scared you the most?
It really didn't frighten me. I was mainly trying to illustrate my reasoning for not being part of a *church*. Although it might be fine for persons needing group participation, for me it was a little overbearing.
You must realize I grew up in a fairly small community in the Texas Southern Baptist belt. Rumor and innuendo was rampant. IOWs you felt as if you were being judged on a daily basis. Even after I moved away, the small-mindedness of the residents continued.
Like I said, one day I might find a group of like-minded and get back into the church scene. We’ll see how it goes. BTW: sorry about dissin your about page. Each to his/her own.
Exactly! I am interested to know what precisely the LDS disagree with the FLDS on.
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.