All The Piggies Do It!
Posted on 04/06/2008 5:27:22 AM PDT by SkyPilot
Saudi Arabia...
Oh...
wait...
That's SHARIA law; sorry.
Just like your Founder and subsequent leaders didn't read....
That's an easy one!
You CAN'T!
Sortta?
And guess who will get stuck for decades of paying medical costs for these poor infants?
Adultery is moral because it's biblical...
Idol worship is moral because it's biblical...
Ignoring GOD is moral because it's biblical...
Jospeh Smith was a true prophet because he ignored biblical precepts.
Whistling past the graveyard.
What do you think Joseph believe Elsie?
I noticed something when trying to check posting history yesterday...it APPEARS (I’m not saying for sure) that since the FR upgrade that there is a gap in the posting history of several. I suggest trying the google search to verify.
You are a fool for not knowing what the Bible says about this.
Elsie likes those lil (goat) kids! I fink he may be a “goat rancher”.
All The Piggies Do It!
“Have you looked at your “My comments page?” surrounding posts not posted to you are impossible to see.”
I read by the thread.
ZING!
Don't forget all the bogus fallacies he likes to harp on. Or the cherry picking out information, or deliberate LIES which he engages in. Maybe if we all stop responding to him he'll leave. I'm not sure its like debating a 3 year old though -- that would be an insult to the intelligence of 3 year olds.
Shorthand |
Reference: |
|
|
|
1. How you interpret it is wrong... |
(Need a source) |
2. You are too ignorant to really understand it because you are not a member.... |
(Need a source) |
3. You're not qualified to judge because you're no LONGER a member... |
(Need a source) |
4. You are just a bigot for bringing the whole ugly truth to light ... |
(Need a source) |
5. So’s yer Mama! |
(Need a source) |
6. Laugh it all off and post some silly image. |
(Need a source) |
7. Jump down the rabbit hole; Alice! |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1982682/posts?page=683#683 |
8. Bait & Switch |
(Need a source) |
9. The OTHER 'half' of the truth is what we are avoiding. |
(Need a source) |
10. "I Know It When I See It" |
(Need a source) |
11. Hand waving... |
(Need a source) |
12. YOU play defense for a while. |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1982682/posts?page=944#944 |
13. HEE Hee hee... let's get the Calvinists and the Armenians fighting! |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1994515/posts?page=15#15 |
14. GREAT FUN! Let's get the Catholics and the Protestants fighting! |
(Need a source) |
15. Huh? Did you say something? |
(Need a source) |
16. If I repeat this enough times some folks will be fooled into thinking it's true. |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1997522/posts?page=2252#2252 |
17. Playing dumb. |
(Need a source) |
18. Refusing to answer because your ATTITUDE offends them. |
(Need a source) |
19. (Let's see if they'll fall for the 'Defend a freak' ploy.) |
(Need a source) |
20. And the MOST used... IGNORE what they posted and answer the question that SHOULD have been asked. |
So its the everybody’s doing it argument now is it?
As for his pleasure, some of the wives were young, and some of the wives were really old like fifties, woo who...
So he was a pervert, perverts don’t care how old they are, bottom line is that it was for the sexual gratification of a one man, Joseph Smith.
Circular reasoning, if Joseph is a prophet, then the writings and his changes to the doctrine are of God. on the other side of that pancake if Joseph was not a prophet then his writings that condemn it are not of God, so who cares?
Lets examine this circular reasoning, shall we? Why would your god have Smith practice polygamy and ADULTRY, let us not forget that little twist, from 1833 until officially announced in 1852, while at the same time establishing monogamy as your god’s standard of marriage for the mormon church in 1935? If it was your god’s command to restore the practice for all, why did joey go around lying about it? Pro mormons at this site are able to connect the dots you refuse to do:
http://www.mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm
Let’s assume that Joseph was indeed threatened by an angel with a sword to practice polygamy and he was merely obeying God’s will. If Joseph then would have taken an old, unattractive widow as a 2nd wife in a public ceremony with Emma’s permission and had he been totally open and honest about it, then that would be perhaps understandable, and maybe even admirable. That would have likely fulfilled the angel’s requirements and not made Joseph look like such a scoundrel.
Instead Joseph did the following things which made him appear very unprophetlike:
1) Married numerous women – at least 33 women, perhaps as many as 60.
2) Married girls as young as 14.
3) Married women that were already married to other men.
4) Married his own foster children.
5) Broke the law by practicing polygamy and encouraged others to do the same.
6) Threatened young girls to marry him and promised exaltation to parents of young girls that gave their permission to Joseph to marry their daughters.
7) Lied continually in public and to fellow church members about practicing polygamy.
8) Had other church members lie about his polygamy.
9) Married women without telling his wife Emma first and even having pretended marriages later to cover for his deceptions.
10) Destroyed a printing press that printed newspapers exposing his polygamy – ultimately landing Joseph in jail leading to his murder.
These guys are gentle to joey, bottom line is that joey’s behavior shows that he was NOT a prophet of god. A man who lies about god’s commandment is a false prophet and either joey lied about polygamy or he lied about D&C and article 12, both could not and were not true at the same time.
. on the other side of that pancake if Joseph was not a prophet then his writings that condemn it are not of God, so who cares?
Since he was not a prophet, he convinced and coerced his followers to believe he was. So not only did he commit sexual abuse - he committed spiritual abuse as well. Since joey knew he wasn’t a prophet, yet held such control over his people, he was able to avail himself of a common abuse of power – sexually assault. Rape victims will tell you, their rapists were on a POWER trip.
Let's explore this bit of disingenuous logic on your part, Let's take the first scripture Matt 5:27-32 …..snip …… You are saying that the word wife is singular, fine, are you suggesting that a man who has more than one wife cannot have another that he was not divorcing? There are so many real life examples of why this metaphor of your doesn't work that in the interests of brevity, I'll just let the readers think about them.
Glad to have been able to expand your vocabulary a little. Nice that you bring adultery into the mix too. Joey committed adultery with at least 11 of his wives. I’ve looked Section 132 over, there is nothing in there that permits adultery in conjunction with polygamy. With that said, you still have no comprehension of context. Vs 27 said by them of old time then cites one of 10 commandments, which sanctions one man – one woman definition of marriage. And you ignored again the fact that monogamy was the norm for Jews at the time of Christ. It is foolish to infer that Jesus was talking about polygamy when the immediate and extended context is monogamy. Real life metaphors do not replace biblical truth.
Um, yeah, that's why he approved of Abraham and called him, the friend of God. Here is a question fro you oh bible scholar, how many wives and concubines did Abraham have? (this should be fun)
And God called David a man after His own heart. Bfhd. Abraham is call a friend because by faith (after failure at his hand – Ishmael) because he was ready to offer Issac on the altar as commanded. However, there is no reference that God ever commended Abraham for trying to take things into his own hand with Hagar, nor was that whole situation blessed. The bible shows us the failures as well as the faith.
A baldly stated supposition, since you say there is non (an absolute) all I have to do is show one piece of evidence no matter how shaky, and you are proven wrong. (it's called logic) so here is an article in the Jerusalem Post, advocating a return to Polygamy by Jews as a way to combat moral decadence and adultery in men. One of the arguments used by the author is that polygamy has existed in Judaism up to the last 1,000 years. So ends a major pole in the support of your logical tent. (Debate hint, never speak in absolutes, chuckle)
Note to thoroughly read the post, it was the norm, and when I last looked at a dictionary (which you should have) it is not an absolute term, there were unauthorized exceptions that were not condoned by the Jewish leadership, and a minor reference to a modern newspaper is hardly academic justification to indicate otherwise. It probably is helpful to actually READ the article in question and research the facts. What you reference states
AS FAR AS Jewish tradition goes, polygamy existed among Ashkenazi Jews until just over 1,000 years ago, and among Sephardim until after the establishment of the state. Plainly, polygamy is not halachically forbidden.
Note: The name Ashkenaz was applied in the Middle Ages to Jews living along the Rhine River in northern France and western Germany. The descendants of Jews who left Spain or Portugal after the 1492 expulsion are referred to as Sephardim. Is this proof that polygamy was sanctioned (or say the norm) at the time of Jesus – not by a long shot. With that there are other Jewish sects that maintained monogamy.
Right, they should stay married and raise the children, he could always marry another wife and not "see" (as in make babies with) the unhappy one, so what's the problem?
Ah yes, the old joey was a pious groom argument.
Ya just can't jump form Polygamy, accepted, practiced, and never condemned to Divorce grudgingly allowed, not practiced by any who were approved of by God (Hagar was still known as Abraham's wife even after she was sent away).
Wrong again, same principle involved. BTW, no where does the bible refer to Hagar as Abraham’s wife.
U Said Then, look closely at Mt 19:4-6 within the context that Jesus cites His justification. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Mary, Joyce, etc.
Aren't you the one who brought in Jewish traditions? God created Adam and Lillith and Eve. God married Adam to all the available women (it's just as valid as saying only one...
OK, so you are relegating the bible to the status of a mythology now, never mind that there was only one available woman.
As for the singular thing, how many polygamous marriages happened en mass? I venture to say the number would be vanishing small.
Wow, the all knowing, all seeing as yet to be proved DU assertion. What is lacking is solid, biblical support.
LOL! Do you even know when you stop quoting scriptures and start interpreting them? Here lets do some math:
1. X = Man
2. X = X plus wife.
3. X is now equal to one family.
Repeat step 2 36 times, step three remains unchanged.
You logic is flawed on this because you want it to be the way you want it to be, I am sorry you are so out of touch with reality.
I can see that you are mathematically challenged as well as biblically. Wife 2 on can only be one flesh with the man only (not the family) and not the preexisting wife(s) – therefore it becomes two (or more, depending upon the number of wives involved). Hint: bible is clear – man cleave to wife NOT man and wife 1 cleave to wife 2.
This is the best you've Got? Then you list three places where it's "tolerated" I am shocked that that was all you could come up with from the Bible, but no matter, it's tolerated so it's not a sin.
Yep, just like divorce was tolerated under specific conditions, it was to be an exception – not the norm.
U Said Note that in no instance is polygamy linked as a necessary requirement to attain the highest level of heaven as was (is) the doctrine of Mormonism.
Either this is a willful misstatement of Mormon Doctrine, or you really are ignorant about our beliefs, Marriage is a requirement, plurality of wives is not.
"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." - The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol 11, p. 269
-"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).
Section 132: 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye bdamned; for no one can creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
The prophets Smith and Young were teaching and interpreting Sect 132. "Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church" (President Ezra Taft Benson). As such they were speaking the doctrine of the mormon church.
Polygamy in Nauvoo was legal. The city had a charter from Illinois that made it legal. The law outlawing Bigamy was being tried in the courts, and besides who cares? I freely admit that it is the law now, what does Nauvoo have to do with the existence of polygamy in the bible?
Remarkable if it wasn’t blantantly false from the get go and I am surprised that you would be so intellectually dishonest about it. The Nauvoo charter can be reviewed here:
http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/nauvchar.htm
: Pay particular attention to this section :
Sec. 13. The City Council shall have exclusive power within the city, by ordinance, to license, regulate, and restrain the keeping of ferries; to regulate the police of the city; to impose fines, forfeitures, and penalties for the breach of any ordinance, and provide for the recovery of such fines and forfeitures, and the enforcement of such penalties; and to pass such ordinances, as may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers specified in this Act; provided such ordinances are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or of this State, and in fine to exercise such other legislative powers as are conferred on the City Council of the City of Springfield, by an Act entitled an Act to Incorporate the City of Springfield, approved February 3rd, 1840.
Notice the underlined item, the laws and ordinances passed shall not counter state and federal laws. Here is what the Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal. It reads:
"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99
Further, what you claim is not supported by the history and behavior of joey and his cabal during that very same time frame! Through out the whole time frame at Nauvoo, joey continually denied being a polygamist. You are smart enough to look your history up so I’ll let you do that on your own. IF it was legal, there should have been no reason for him to keep it a secret.
What does Joseph Smith have to do with the perpetrators of illegal activity in Texas? you always stray from the topic, polygamy was legal in the bible, you have admitted as much in your post to me. Discouraged? maybe, but biblical.
Joey provided the revelation that the faithful in the fLDS have followed for these years, more faithful to joey than the LDS in that manner. Joey is the source of their moral authority to rape, woops, marry young girls. Sounds to me like you are applauding fLDS for their faithfulness.
Polygamy is illegal today in the USA, that means it's illegal, but moral and as I pointed out before, Abortion is immoral, and unbiblical, and legal. You keep trying to muddy Legality with morality. I ask you straight out can the government of the United states of America pass a law and make something moral? I would love to hear your answer to that, and please leave Joseph and Mormons out of it, it's a philosophical question.
The illegality of polygamy today is a reflection of the morality of our society – based upon the teachings of Jesus and the NT. There are no laws that do not reflect the morality of someone or some system of philosophy. Article 12 does not contain a freedom of conscience clause. What has happened in Texas is what would have happened on a much larger scale if joey’s idea of morality was legislated.
U Said Why were these people, including First Presidency counselor George Q. Cannon in prison for practicing polygamy? Because polygamy was illegal DU.
A sorry example, the marriages happened first, then the law was passed and people were incarcerate, are you in favor of enforcing laws after the fact? Why don't we just shred the constitution now and be done with the illusion of freedom?
Wrong, polygamy had been illegal since before Cannon was born. You break the law – you go to jail. Cannon had his full options under the constitution, and the laws were upheld. Smith didn’t challenge the law in 1844 when he denied being a polygamist during a court trial where he was accused of that crime.
We already talked about the City Charter for Nauvoo, Blood atonement was a theory, not a practice, based on David's experience, and goes to the death penalty for murder, I am again not surprised that when you are losing a debate you attempt to drag red herrings across the topic of the Biblical nature of polygamy and how it's not what was so reprehensible about what was happening in Texas, but the force, torture and illegal nature of the proceedings there.
(EYES WIDE OPEN WITH AMAZEMENT) Nauvoo charter dealt with already, but red herrings, my my DU you are projecting (or misdirecting). The hero for these folks is joey smith, his example – their example.
U Said One of your former living prophets and seers clarified this for us:
If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law' [Articles of Faith 1:12]. One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.
This is funny, earlier in this very post you called me disingenuous for saying the 12th article of faith was why we stopped practicing polygamy, either I was not disingenuous then, or you are now.
Right, the late Gordon B. Hinckley made that statement. He specifically states that being in violation of a civil law places one in violation of Article 12. No weasel words involved. You apparently don’t want to condemn TX because they are following the prophet’s moral law – making Art 12 moot.
WOW! Speaking of Disingenuous, there was no federal law in territories until Utah was petitioning to become a state, the law was passed and retroactively applied to polygamous families to try to decimate the church, it was messy, but it like all else that Satan tries has and will fail.
Well fluffy, I guess I have to do all your homework for you. Marriage is a legal contract between one man and one woman. There has never been a law enacted to allow otherwise. All the married Mormons who immigrated to Utah in 1847 had been married under the civil laws of their respective states; each one of those states had laws against bigamy, thus making monogamy the "common law." And for that one year (1847) while still a territory of Mexico, it was illegal under Mexican law. As a territory, Utah was subject to the US common law, which again, prohibited polygamy. The 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy act, the 1879 SCOTUS Reynolds decision, and the 1882 Edmunds Act all reaffirmed the illegality of Mormon "plural marriage. And if the mormon god told Woodruff to obey the laws of the land in 1890, then why did Woodruff himself "plural marry" Lydia Mountford in 1897? And why did other LDS general authorities secretly authorize dozens of other "plural marriages" between 1890 and at least 1906? And why was LDS church president Joseph F. Smith convicted of unlawful cohabitation and fined $300 in 1906?
AFA retroactive goes, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision that:
at common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical [98 U.S. 145, 165] courts, and until the time of James I., it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals, not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons.
By the statute of 1 James I. (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period re-enacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies. - U.S. v. Reynolds, 98 U.S. 145, 164-65 (1878).
The point that the Supreme court made was that polygamy has always been illegal in "civilized" western Christian cultures.
Polygamy was practiced widely in early America, many "Mountain men" had white and Indian wives, white men often had multiple wives, the Indians had no monogamous ideas, as things settled down more provincial ideas took hold and polygamy was outlawed along with alcohol, how well did that work out?
Riiiight, mountain men = mormons. I’ve studied the history of the mountain men, part of my cultural heritage. They were largely law unto themselves and during that period the laws of the US could not be enforced, so they broke a lot of laws. Does that justify polygamy? No more than their murder, theft and other illegal behavior legitimize those actions too. With that, plural wives were the exception, not the norm to the mountain man, more often they just slept around if they wanted it. Inability to enforce does not equal condoning the behavior. Plural wives were illegal and they were law breakers for that. Furthermore, the REST of the country was monogamous.
I'm just going to ignore most of your quote mining, given an sufficiently large volume of work you can find an obscure quote that says anything regardless of what the "work" actually says.
Which generally means that you have no answer for it so you try to poison the well and run around with your fingers in your ears.
Joseph smith and whether he was right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not polygamy is biblically accepted by God and therefore moral. These males (they are not men in my book) would have started a religion on their own, and would have added this in from the Bible if they wanted to, there are plenty of people speaking out for polygamy who are not Mormons, here, Google +Polygamy -Mormon to see a large body of links on polygamy which do not mention Mormons 2,700,000 when I ran it. From what I have seen, you want to beat up on Mormons, you don't really care if Polygamy is Biblical. You don't seem to care about the people in Texas, it's just an opportunity to bet up on us, LOL1 IMHO Behavior like that is really pathetic.
They faithfully follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, who thought it to be moral to defy the law of the land, wed and bed young teens, who hold to the same standard works, have their temples, prophets, apostles, ordinances, etc, just like your true church – oh and they claim it is biblical too. LOL, it is a wonderful opportunity to really examine the fruits of mormonism.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the twelve disciples didn't exactly fare well either, how many of them died of old age in their sleep? Faith in God, that's what's important, Joseph did pretty good on that score.
We are not talking Jesus’ disciples here DU and you know it. What they accomplished no mormon can hold a candle to. Yep, you are pretty heartless when it comes to those young girls facing a life of abuse – all thanks to joey’s teachings.
Lets see, based on these tow posts, I seek after faith, you seek after hatred, how can a person who represents the God of love spew so much hate? Seriously, you expect people to follow you to Christ when you start by preaching hate? We seem to have a lot of Jeremiah Write wannabees among the anti Momrons.
Righteous indignation towards those would condone the abuse of these innocent girls to a life of sexual abuse. That those would condone the rejection of young men from their families so that there would be more women to go around. And unlike Write, I am not condemning the entire peoples – I have focused upon the originator and his follow on enablers, so if you want to play that game, go a head and throw me in the briar patch. And to those who condone the behavior in TX just because of an invalid definition of morality of polygamy and mormon prophets revelation – we have an old saying – throw a rock into a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the one hit.
Do I believe the Lillith thing, I am not sure, it's got some interesting points, Lillith created by God at the same time as Adam making men and women equals, and I like that, it shows why God would ask "it is not good for man to be alone" Gen 2:18
You’d believe that there are people living on the sun and moon too.
You go on and on with Quotations out of context from non canonized sources,LOL!
More credibility than the non-canon sources of your Lillith fantasy.
I guess I will now begin to quote from Jeremiah Wright and Fred Phelps and demand that you to defend it, LOL! It's not doctrine of the church any more than Fred Phelps' bile is your doctrine, nice smear on a private musing, which is not original BTW, and stating clearly that it is a teaching of the church, and I quote "Oh, but wait, Mormons believe Jesus married Mary and Martha" If I were a mean person, I could hang that around your neck and logically drown you with that statement for it is untrue. I am a Mormon in good standing, and I do not believe that, nice try.
Oooh riiiiight. Fred Phelps isn’t my pastor, nor in my particular denomination nor are any like him in my past. As pointed out earlier, the prophet speaking on doctrine is authoritative and these teachings have not been rebuked or revoked. Those I cited were GA and prophets DU in the line and lineage of YOUR church. Whether or not YOU believe it is inconsequential, the fact that it is documented as being taught by the inner circle of mormonism is. DU in TBM reflex, running in circles with fingers in ears. An argument from ignorance again? the teachings of Christians writers like Fred Phelps and Jeremiah wright have not been individually repudiated by you, therefore you support them, LOL! (see how that looks when the same logic is just turned around, it's an invalid argument of it's own weight)
If they were spokesmen for my church you could play. They are no more in my church leadership than you accept RLDS or fLDS leadership :0 follow your prophet, he will never lead you wrong……
Oh please, are you even remotely familiar with the history of Christianity and the coercion that was used whole sale by early churches? Your arguments here should be pilloried on FR as an example of disengenuosness (pun fully and tortuously intended)
Oh, I am familiar. So that justifies it in joey’s case? Just because some violated the Christian faith in the past, does not justify a similar violation on joey’s part. His was a power play like unto a rapist.
This is a "pro Mormon" web site to you? They try to say they are, then they attack us on every font, LOL! so If I set up a "pro whatever your denomination is website then post stuff refuting the Trinity, will truly feel it's pro what ever your denomination is? I doubt it a cursory reading of this site will lead anyone with an IQ above room temperature to recognize that they are liars and not very good at it.
I can only restate what they say about themselves, but typical poison the well argument because they cite the words of the 14 yr old bride of joey. You can’t refute her biography, but call those who built the site liars just because they had the audacity to post the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Anti: Mormon definition – any thing that presents truth contrary to the standard brainwashing and intellectual dishonesty of mormonism.
So is unreasoning (and your attacks are unreasoning) attacks on another religious faith. That said, i do not support what happened in Texas, the under age nature (law of the land) polygamy (also illegal), torture, need i say this is illegal?
Joey practiced polygamy and adultery (both illegal), mentally and spiritually abused members to get his way and women, ordered the illegal destruction of the Examiner. So why aren’t you condemning joey?
The incarceration of those who disagreed and wanted out, also illegal. you keep trying to tie my statement that polygamy is morally approved of in the Bible (which you have admitted) and that makes it moral now (which you have denied) out to be support for these people and it's simply not. Reality won't twist for you and you just end up looking like a liar.
Whos lying here DU, I never said that the bible morally approved of polygamy – at best it was tolerated like divorce (which according to your logic would have been morally approved of too). Jesus made it clear that it was no longer acceptable, which makes it no longer moral now. Reality challenged would be those who condone joey’s behavior while condemning the same behavior in TX.
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.