Posted on 08/15/2011 4:53:20 AM PDT by Colofornian
Sloppy summary of Utah history.
First - polygamy was illegal the entire time it was practiced
Second - Young didn't want to be a territory of the US - he sought to establish his own separate country of Deseret - a theocracy. And continually chased and harassed government officials sent there by DC to oversee the territory.
Third - Young was brutal towards those who disagreed with his rule and many were killed under his approval as 'apostates'
Finally (though there are many other points) they purposefully hid their polygamy - payed lip service to it for statehood - only to be called on the lies and require a second manifesto to be written denouncing it. Infact, mormon church felt that polygamy could continue in countries neutral to it at the time (Canada and Mexico) - wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
How would you like DC to tell you what you can and can not practice in your religious belief system?
LOL, tell that to the pagans who aren't allowed to sacrifice animals guitarplayer. Smith started polygamy - it was illegal by both statutory law as well as mormon church law. If it realllllllly was true, then the mormon church should never have had it's "manifestos" telling its members to follow the law of the land and not the law of "god".
One key point here Athos
Smith’s revelation that God told him to institute polygamy is found in the mormon doctrinal book called Doctrines and Covenants, Section 132. In it polygamy is described as an eternal commandment.
When mormons were told to stop practicing polygamy - twice - this section of their DOCTRINE has remained in their scriptures. Modern mormon apostles and even presidents have commented that they expect the practice to be able to resume in the future.
So has SLC mormonism fully renounced and washed their hands of polygamy? Not from the above and there is evidence of secret practice by nonflds mormons today.
You’re just restating what’s already in both articles.
That’s not what’s at issue here.
Sometimes, yes. Doesn’t seem very important to me, so I asked.
YO MAMA = yelling outloud means another Mormon atrocity...
And this is where you & I disagree on the "facts." The fact is that Mormons say one thing -- and then speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Do they criticize & distance themselves from Jeffs & such groups? (Yes)
Yet, simultaneously, do they present ambivalent info about polygamy and its role with future Mormons? (Yes)
To "disavow" means to go vs. the vow. But what did Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie say beginning in 1966? (That the Mormon Jesus would bring back polygamy to Mormons when he returned). That's not disavowing; that, my friend, is an open embrace.
Likewise, mainstream Mormons believe fellow Mormon general authorities -- men who have married more than one wife in a serial fashion -- will become eternal polygamists when they die. (Because they believe marriage is forever). Is that militating vs. polygamy? (Doesn't sound like it)
You told a lie about the Mormon Church, you knew it was a lie when you wrote it, and anyone with the most cursory understanding of LDS beliefs knows they don't agree with or sanction Warren Jeffs.
Let's go back to the content of what I stated...and then I'll provide further context: 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 [Real MormonISM].
The article I linked to was a Deseret News article. They are owned by the Mormon church. The journalist tried spinning why Jeffs & fLDS polygamy supposedly has NOTHING to do with its source -- 19th century Mormon polygamy.
Facts:
Lds "prophets" publicly taught polygamy 1852-1890;
but Lds "prophets" also personally practiced or privately taught polygamy from 1831-1910;
Lds polygamous families existing by 1910 were not broken up by Lds leaders -- and some of these unions were still in existence until they died in the early 1960s (source: B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant appendix)...again, these families were NOT ex-communicated because their union was solemnized by Lds officials!
Finally, ALL of the Lds "prophets" who were prophets up until 1945 were themselves polygamists.
These men were all "role models" for Warren Jeffs. Heroes of "the Mormon faith."
An analogy I could give would be to compare a father and son from the Bible: David and Solomon.
Were both polygamists? (Yes)
Did both sanction polygamy in general? (Yes)
If David had been around by the time Solomon accumulated all those 700 wives & 300 concubines, would he have sanctioned them? (No, I don't think so...just from Deut. 17:17 alone)
In this way, would David have both criticized as well as try to distance himself from the type of polygamy Solomon embraced? (Yes, I believe so)
But does that mean David had no "legacy" role in Solomon continuing polygamy? (No, we cannot conclude that David's polygamy had no impact on how Solomon embraced it...In fact, it's because Solomon's father embraced it that Solomon likewise followed suit)
MA, if you've ever farmed or gardened, you would know that weed residues and weed seeds from previous crops can have a "carryover" effect into soil bank generations.
So just because Solomon took something to an extreme David would never have thought of...
...just because one of the plural unions between David and one of his wifes was annulled (a form of "disavowal" -- see info about his wife/former wife, Michal)...
...doesn't mean a disavowal of polygamy was in any way true of David.
In fact, David and Joseph Smith both took wives who belonged to other men.
Other relevant facts:
* The Mormon church has NEVER rescinded the doctrinal undergirding of polygamy -- found in Doctrines & Covenants 132. It's still on the books, so to speak. And no follow-up revelation critiques it in any way. Likewise, no Lds leader has critiqued past Mormon polygamists; or the past practice of polygamy. They have not said it was "sinful" -- or generated by a false prophesy -- or anything of the like.
* For you to bring up the Westboro family as some sort of parallel would take a situation where...
...19th century Baptists practiced picketing as a way to reach the highest degree of heaven -- per Revelation chapter 23 from that Baptist god...
...only when extreme picketing was cracked down upon by the government, picketing became low-profile for a while...
...and then picketers were forced out of the Baptist church...
...only for the Westboros to emerge...
...citing Rev. 23 that picketing was still promoted by the Baptist god...
...along with other Baptist content from 1966 that the Baptist god would bring back picketing to the church when Jesus returned...
Sorry. None of that works as any kind of parallel. If a "revelation" on picketing was still in the Bible (Revelation 23), that would "hardly" be a disavowal of it by the Baptist God!
You've flunked discernment and basic comparative logic.
There were denomination issues in the colonies - even after independence - if you read history.
The key point is that it is also established constitutionally that even freedom of religion has boundaries - just like freedom of speech - that gross illegalities such as polygamy are not tolerated.
BTW, iirc maryland was a "catholic" colony.
OK; I'll try again:
They must have been REALLY surprised when the CAVLARY showed up on their doorstep!
No; they were not.
They CHOSE to 'drop it' (translation: HIDE IT).
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
And, in the process; LIES!
Just what was pointed out!
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 1325157, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 5866, 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.
On what planet?
Are you trying to spin that the present USA government (think MORMON, Inc.) is the same one the Founding Fathers instituted (think FLDS)?
It just was about that bad. With the establishment of antiCatholic laws in Maryland in 1639, Pennsylvania turned out to be the least intolerant. Massachussetts was arguably the worst, with 9 or 10 also very oppressive to Catholics (and the Baptists and Quakers).
My typo. 1689.
So which is Warren Jeffs "guilty" of?
(a) That he's not "Mormon" enough for you?
(b) That he's not "prophet" enough for you?
(c) Or both? Or other?
Are you saying that the fLDS is not part of the broad umbrella of Mormonism?
Sorry. As I've pointed out earlier, we even have LDS posters like Edward Watson saying the following: (Disclaimer: I certainly disagree with most of his Edward's conclusions -- but here's what he told me on April 17, 2008):
Of course the FLDS is a Christian faith. Their denominational taxonomy, following the Religion-Branch-Family-Denomination matrix, is Christian-Mormon-Fundamentalist Mormon-Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They do not belong to the Catholic, Eastern Christian, Protestant, or Anglican/Independent Catholic (Via Media) branches; they belong to the Mormon branch of Christianity, but in a completely different Family (Fundamentalist Mormon). Others in the same Family are the Apostolic United Brethren, Latter Day Church of Christ (Kingston Clan), and The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days). Get your facts straight. There are four families in the Mormon branch of Christianity [CJCLDS, Fundamentalist Mormon, Liberal Mormon, Prairie Saints] just as there are 20 denominational families in the Protestant branch of Christianity.
Watson says the fLDS "belong to the Mormon branch of Christianity." Now, I would not label them "Christian"; But at least this shows you we have Mormons who concede they are indeed Mormon.
Warren Jeffs was NEVER a member of the mainstream Mormon branch; therefore he is not a former SLC Mormon -- like an "apostate" or something; therefore, that classifies him as a present-tense Mormon in the broad sense -- one tied to a specific branch; and he has followers from that f Mormon branch who classify him as a "prophet." Lds Doctrine & Covenants 68:2-4 classifies it very loosely as to who can speak forth Mormon "scripture":
Jeffs was ordained into a Mormon priesthood that extends backward to Joseph Smith. This priesthood (v. 2) is said to be one whereby "whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord..." (D&C 68:4)
So tell us Mount Athos, how long have you been sorting through all the weed seeds of Mormonism to determine which ones of them are true "Mormons" -- and which ones aren't?
Let's try another analogy:
The Presbyterian - USA church ordains homosexual pastors -- as does the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. By all means, distinguish away between PC-USA & the conservative PCA; or distinguish away the ELCA from conservative Lutheran bodies which don't ordain homosexuals.
But don't try scrubbing the paint so much that you begin to argue, Athos with somebody who references a homosexual Presbyterian or Lutheran pastor as either Presbyterian or Lutheran or if they are pastors or not. Of course they are!
The identity on both counts stick! And in those cases, what would make for an even better parallel would be if the Bible specifically called for homosexual pastors -- say Revelation 23 or something -- and these liberals ordaining homosexuals would be arguing that THEY were the true original adherents to Revelation 23...whereas the rest of the Presbyterians or Lutherans veered from adhering to Revelation 23.
IOW, if anybody has the "rights" to maintain that they are the original adherents and fulfillers of what it means to be a "D&C 132 revelation celestial Mormon," it's the fundamentalists! 'Tis the mainstreamers that have tilted & wilted in following Joseph Smith's course!
The true canonized-following Mormons are the fLDS. [FR poster P-Marlowe used to reference the fLDS as oLDS (for original) -- vs. the mLDS (mainstream).]
What you don't realize Mount Athos, is that you have come walking right into the midst of a mine field of Mormonism:
* The fLDS claim original possession of the original doctrine of Joseph Smith (polygamy);
* The small Temple Lot segment of Mormonism claim original possession of the plot of land Joseph Smith designated for the Mormon Jesus to return (Independence, MO).
* The Community of Christ (RLDS) claim possession of the original rewrite of the Bible Joseph Smith did (they have the copywright)
* The Salt Lake City Ldsers claim possession of the whole schebang just because they are the biggest, most well-organized, and have the biggest clout/muscle.
But they haven't been able to overpower Temple Lot and take over that prophesy of Joseph Smith, now have they? (All they've done is purchase land nearby--just southeast of Temple Lot). I guess the Mormon Jesus will return to Temple Lot; and for you to come along and say, "No, they won't" would be tantamount to trying to sort out who will be the true recipients of the true Mormon Jesus -- and who won't. (And that's what you've done -- equivalency wise -- on this thread)
And the SLC Mormons haven't been able to overpower the RLDS in taking over copyright to the JST (Joseph Smith version of the KJV). I guess this part of "Mormon prophetic revelation" resides with the RLDS; and for you to come along and say, "Nope. I won't recognize the RLDS version of the Bible as 'mainstream Mormon' ONLY because the SLC gang doesn't own the copyright" would be ludicrous.
You've done the same thing with the Mormon "prophet" tug of war as to who has bragging rights to being in the original line of descent of being true to the Mormon canon of "scripture" on polygamy!
Congrats, MA!
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.