Posted on 05/06/2008 7:30:45 AM PDT by sevenbak
And regretted wholeheartedly. It was done as an expedient to keep the sovereign on the farm, but only as long as he didn’t promote it. Martin was quite fallible, but admitted and lamented it. [FC]
I agree with FC's presentation of history here. Allow me to say a few words about "motivation"--that of Luther's and that of 19th century LDS polygamists.
Certainly, we would probably agree or partially agree to the following:
Many 19th century Mormon polygamists were never motivated to take extra wives by lust...or at least, that wasn't an initial or even primary motivation when they first engaged in the practice. [I can't say the same thing about Joseph Smith considering the way he and his brother Hyrum hid the practice & condemned other Mormons like Hirum Brown for preaching polygamy at the exact time Joseph was philandering!]
Likewise, take a look at Luther's motivation with that royal union. Luther knew from Scripture that polygamy led a man's heart astray (Deut. 17:17; 1 Kings 11:3-4, 9-11). But he also knew from Scripture that divorce is something God "hated" (Mal. 2:16).
He knew that this royal union was going to take place, anyway. The only question was whether a divorce to the first wife would or would not precede it. Since Luther knew God "hated" divorce, he likewise hated it with every fiber of his being.
So Luther was indeed between "a rock and a hard place." Does it make what he did right? (No) Does this context that Mormons "conveniently" leave out help explain his action? (Yes).
The fact is, Luther's ethics in this case were more motivated by being "anti-divorce" than by being "pro-polygamy"--which, BTW, he also despised. (And what was his main motivation for despising polygamy? He felt it would be a scandal to potential new converts, who would be chased away by its practice if common among Christians.)
So, Rameumptom, I would wish that you & every Mormon who continues to bring this up to speak the fuller truth about polygamy in the 16th century. How about by starting a simple acknowledgement that Luther wished polygamy to be "quarantined" to that royal quarters. (And "quarantine" is hardly a role of advocacy).
If you want me to, I can point to very specific Mormon leaders, who, in the early 20th century, wanted to "quarantine" polygamy in the Mormon community. Reed Smoot and his secretary, Karl Badger (even though Badger was himself the product of a polygamous union), for example (circa 1904-1906). By about that time, and a few years after, half of the Mormon general authorities were monogamous...and many of them wished it would be so quarantined. The LDS prophet Grant in the 1930s likewise went on an anti-polygamy reform even though he himself had had three wives. He, too, wished to "quarantine" it.
I guess I'm just not understanding how it is that Luther gets finger-point from Mormons for wanting to quarantine polygamy, but LDS reformers early in the 20th century receive commendation for the same thing? (Anybody want to explain that little inconsistency?)
I'll betcha if you looked, you could find exactly one time in which it was purposeful because of a post you issued in which a moderator hinted at booting you due to a post where you threatened to sue other posters who annoyed you.
(Just as you don't look in the eyes of an enraged nearby person threatening to take the whole world on, or communicate directly with a seething road-rage driver for the same reason, I was actually respecting your wishes at the time...you didn't want to be annoyed then...who knew if a ping would set you off?)
It is.
It don't fall far from the tree; eh?
Ya just can't resist the TarBaby's call!
More stuff from that ignorant, 14 yo farmboy who was deceived by two Satanic messengers?
Hot
Mama?
Which of your teachers has told you THESE things?
Matthew 25:1-13
1. "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2. Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
3. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them.
4. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps.
5. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6. "At midnight the cry rang out: `Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'
7. "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps.
8. The foolish ones said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'
9. "`No,' they replied, `there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'
10. "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11. "Later the others also came. `Sir! Sir!' they said. `Open the door for us!'
12. "But he replied, `I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'
13. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
He does??
SHAME!
Are you refering to the PoGP again??
The Book of Abraham??
Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.
- Colin Powell
Well, you should go back and read the post. Your ignorance, wilful or natural, is showing. I never uttered a threat against anyone and you know it. It is not a threat to make a polite request and give a reason for it.
From what I've seen in the past, the mods do not look too kindly on FReepers who pass on messages from banned FReepers so they can post *In Abstentia*.
You can believe that that parable is about mormons...but that doesn't make it so.
You can believe that mormons are the "special one's", but again that doesn't make it so.
You can believe that once a mormon, always a mormon...but again, that doesn't make it so.
Yeah, your’re right, probably wasn’t a good idea. Thanks. This was a request which I honored, but have no idea why this person is a former FReeper.
This post?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2008967/posts?page=335#335
Didn’t so much sound like a polite request to me. To me, it sounded like a threat.
People who matter considered it a threat as well, based on the replies that the post got.
Well, when you consider that the post was not direced at you, perhaps you were sticking your nose where it does not belong. Or you don’t matter.
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.