Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism.
Posted on 10/10/2013 3:15:56 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
In defiance of Deuteronomy 17:17, Matthew 19:4-6, and other Biblical passages, the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, endorsed the practice of polygamy. However, the largest Mormon church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), later outlawed the practice. This presents a problem for LDS theology.
In verses 61-63 of Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith reveals a "revelation" about polygamy supposedly given to him by God. The verses teach that a man "cannot commit adultery" -- even if "he have ten virgins given unto him by this law" of polygamy -- as long as his women are "vowed to no other man".
So, polygamy was allowed in the first 47 years of Mormonism. But in 1890, due to Official Declaration 1 -- which is "authoritative and binding" -- polygamy was banned by the LDS church.
While the Declaration says that the church never "inculcate[d] or encourage[d]" the practice, it at least never claims that it did not allow or officiate it.
In the "Excerpts" section at the bottom of the online Declaration, it quotes LDS President Wilford Woodruff as saying that it would have been unwise "to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage," because "adherence to this principle" of polygamy resulted in "suffering" for the church's members, due to strong U.S. federal laws against it. Woodruff bluntly said that it was time to "cease the practice and submit to the law".
All of this, taken together, shows that the church did accept polygamy, and it only backed down on the issue so that it could continue to exist and thrive. Basically, it changed its religious teachings to suit the secular laws of the government, which would obviously go against Biblical teachings, because God's laws are not subject to the State. In the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), one verse reads: "Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
What makes this all even more interesting is that even the Book of Mormon seems to oppose polygamy. Jacob 2:27 reads: "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.."
This all leads to the big question: Do you think that an organization could be so wishy-washy with its teachings if it were really "The Church of Jesus Christ"? I do not think so, and I must therefore conclude that this Mormon magisterium is invalid.
----------
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
----------
Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism.
Good point.
Grace and peace to you.
Wow, where is your sense of humor???
Geez!
I’ll be the odd man out and say I actually do not mind Matthew joining in the fight against the LDS, which is always looked down upon by FR’s resident heretics/lukewarm Christians. Though, it would be very obnoxious if he claimed that Protestants and Mormons are actually the same thing. In which case, thems fighting words.
I don’t know why you are personalizing this, if you disagree with one of my points related to the thread topic why not just focus on that and lay off the personal stuff?
They aren't similar at all to the government forbidding the practice of the Christian religion in the church.
That is why the Mormon religion has agreed to stop baptizing Jews for instance.
Your post’s truth?
You seem too confused and confusing to have people trying to figure out your blogging.
Mormonism isn’t Christian so you really took off in the wrong direction.
I didn’t personalize a darn thing.
What are you moaning on and on about?
Is everyone on this entire forum totally devoid of a sense of humor??
Keep in mind we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ and are mutual allies in the fight against all cults and enemies of the truth. You both should just shake hands and get it over with.
We are...
You started posting to me and I guess you want the last post to make yet another personal attack as well.
I do wish you would just focus on the thread topic and any disagreement with me that you have on that.
Yes, forget about the personal remarks on this thread and just resume discussing the issues raised by the article.
I can’t see what I did wrong....just commented on the sentence and made some advice which I thought was humorous.
Not sure why people are so thin-skinned around here.
No fun at all. Why is that?
I certainly would have laughed at myself if someone had done the same with me in jest.
How cool!!!
Where is your sense of humor?
Do you not know jest when you see it?
Why so thin-skinned?
Doesn’t anyone ever have any fun or joke around in this place?
Geez, you’d think it was the end of the world.
My gosh, mod, what is wrong with these people?
Where has all the humor and jest gone in this place?
I am appalled that one cannot even make light of something without it being called a personal attack.
These people really need to lighten up.
In the end, we cannot change the other guy, we can only change ourselves.
You didn’t do anything wrong, honestly. Though sometimes its best to apologize even for imagined wrongs.
Really? Even the moderator can’t get you to drop the personal stuff?
Thank you.
Understood, and thanks as always.
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.