Mormonism's Greatest Downfall.

[_rcrocket]

I think the question you should ask yourself is how would a infallible religious leader viewed as second to Christ be able save his reputation and power base if he engages in unlawful adulterous intercourse with another woman and is caught?

Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith was pained over breaking his marital vows with Emma and causing her anguish when he had sexual relations with his other wives?
He seemed to be very passionate about ending traditional monogamous marriage in his teachings and practice. Taking 33 wives in a few years time doesn't sound like someone who is troubled by the pain it was causing his first wife.

Any writings that express Joseph Smith's reluctance to accept this command? (besides the ridiculous angel with the sword story he used to coerce married women)

If you accept as an a priori argument that polygamy is wrong and evil, then there really isn't any permutation of argument that could possibly satisfy you.

If you accept the notion, as the Church does, that polygamy was condoned and sanctioned by God (as in the reward to David of Saul's wives), then the question becomes more difficult for people like you, don't it?

Who's to say, without more evidence, that a marriage to Fanny Alger was unlawful in God's eyes? (I think the evidentiary basis for the marriage is extremely iffy, but Andrew Jensen apparently didn't think so.) I mean, God has done some odd things -- proclaiming that any man with injured testicles cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord, or Jesus calling a Gentile woman begging for a blessing for her daughter a "dog."

God can certainly, and he has, order than men take mulitple wives. And, since such marriages would have been unlawful in Ohio and Illinois, and given the further fact that Ohio denied Mormon elders the right to perform marriages, and given the further further fact that Mormon elders did not construe civil marriages as marriages ordained by God, well then we have a circumstance where pure theocracy reigns. Marriages are solemnized in God's own way and to as many women as God ordains. And, it isn't like there's no Biblical precedence to any of that.

Under today's sensibilities, such notions are offensive. You'd say, you're an idiot to follow such things. But the same things were said about the Church when Joseph Smith advocated freeing the slaves through a national purchase system. The Church was reviled when Utah voted to grant women the right to vote. Your current frame of reference isn't God's.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Blah, blah, blah.

I suppose that the only reason I'm appalled at God's death penalty for interracial marriage is that I don't have God's frame of reference?

If God would put people to death for miscegenation, then I don't care if He's the creator of the universe; I will fight Him with all I've got.

[_Ray A]

Marriages are solemnized in God's own way and to as many women as God ordains. And, it isn't like there's no Biblical precedence to any of that.

Then what do you make of Deuteronomy 17:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

And what does polygamy in the Old Testament when practised, anywhere, have to do with "exaltation"?

These questions never get answered, unless you resort to BC's rationale: God can override old prophets with new ones. But that doesn't explain why God himself would change his mind about the importance of these statutes.

So let me repeat "God's words" (if you accept the Old Testament as "the word of God"):

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.

What changed in the 1830s?

[_EAllusion]

It turns out that I am a morally perfect being. Any fault you might have with what I decree merely shows that you lack my frame of reference. Anything I say or do is, for all intents and purposes, by definition good. Forget polygamy for a second even though on occasion I have seen it fit and proper to declare it good. If, for instance, I were to lie to you about eternally progressing towards godhood, that would be a good thing if only you appreciated my frame of reference. The same goes for ordering the nuclear destruction of Isreal or raping your 3 year old daughter.

The only thing I wonder is why you wouldn't trust that I'm a morally perfect being? I mean, everything I do is good, so it should be obvious.

[_rcrocket]

Blah, blah, blah.

I suppose that the only reason I'm appalled at God's death penalty for interracial marriage is that I don't have God's frame of reference?

If God would put people to death for miscegenation, then I don't care if He's the creator of the universe; I will fight Him with all I've got.

Very eloquent.

The problem here is your frame of reference. If you think the Bible is a bunch of nonsense, and you march to the drum of relativism as the norm, then I don't blame you for thinking that anything that is not your version or right and wrong is idiocy. You get to define the standard of propriety and you win all the time.

[_rcrocket]

It turns out that I am a morally perfect being. Any fault you might have with what I decree merely shows that you lack my frame of reference. Anything I say or do is, for all intents and purposes, by definition good. Forget polygamy for a second even though on occasion I have seen it fit and proper to declare it good. If, for instance, I were to lie to you about eternally progressing towards godhood, that would be a good thing if only you appreciated my frame of reference. The same goes for ordering the nuclear destruction of Isreal or raping your 3 year old daughter.

The only thing I wonder is why you wouldn't trust that I'm a morally perfect being? I mean, everything I do is good, so it should be obvious.

Gibberish.

[_Ray A]

And if you come even closer to Joseph Smith time:

1 Tim 3:2

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:6,7:

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God;

Suddenly, in 1843, polygamy is a "commandment" and a "requirement for exaltation" under D&C 132, and supposedly a "restoration".

A restoration of what? Something that never was?

[_EAllusion]

Gibberish.

On the plus side, the argument contained therein is accepted by nearly every philosopher, regardless of whether they believe in God, whose professional work relates to the subject. When you try to deflect any moral criticism of your assertions about God by appealing to his moral judgment being beyond your ken, that has certain consequences. One, it goes both ways. You are no more in a position to judge a command good if you are incapable of appreciating God's "frame of reference" than you are evil. Two, any command from God is morally arbitrary from our point of view since we cannot appreciate its moral basis or lackthereof. Three, you cannot predict what God will do based upon being allegedly good, since the content of "good" given God's frame of reference could mean anything. All you are left with is "Whatever God says, goes." But that's no more helpful or justified than saying, "Whatever EA says, goes." That includes everything from giving alms to the poor to raping babies for fun.

You could, instead, try to argue that you have lots of prior reason to believe God is filled with benevolent wisdom, so sometimes God might order something you can trust is good but you do not understand. The catch there is that anytime you are presented with something that appears ostensibly evil, you have to acknowledge that this weighs against whatever reason you think you have to believe God is benevolent. You can't just wave your hand dismissively and claim you already know God to be good. You appear not to be interested in that. I can't blame you, as your religion is filled with claims that describe a rather malevolent deity.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Blah, blah, blah.

I suppose that the only reason I'm appalled at God's death penalty for interracial marriage is that I don't have God's frame of reference?

If God would put people to death for miscegenation, then I don't care if He's the creator of the universe; I will fight Him with all I've got.

Very eloquent.

The problem here is your frame of reference. If you think the Bible is a bunch of nonsense, and you march to the drum of relativism as the norm, then I don't blame you for thinking that anything that is not your version or right and wrong is idiocy. You get to define the standard of propriety and you win all the time.

I'm not a relativist, troglodyte. If I were, I would have nothing bad to say about the death penalty for miscegenation.

That's your stance, not mine.

[_beastie]

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

One of the things I find intriguing about these conversations is how believers tend to completely ignore half of this equation – concubines.

What is a concubine?

I’ve read two possibilities:

1) a woman with whom the man engages in intimate relationships without the benefit of marriage, but he does take care of her and her children (ie, a mistress)
2) a wife of lesser status

For the believers on this thread: what is a concubine?


Rcrocket

Who's to say, without more evidence, that a marriage to Fanny Alger was unlawful in God's eyes? (I think the evidentiary basis for the marriage is extremely iffy, but Andrew Jensen apparently didn't think so.) I mean, God has done some odd things -- proclaiming that any man with injured testicles cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord, or Jesus calling a Gentile woman begging for a blessing for her daughter a "dog."

It is absolutely true that according to the Bible, God has ordered behavior far more egregious than polygamy, no doubt. He’s ordered ethnic cleansing, and the subsequent rape of the young female virgins left unkilled. There is no doubt that the “sins” of early Mormonism pale in comparison to the “sins” of the Bible.

So yes, I suppose if one is willing to not only believe in, but worship and adore the God of the Bible, then polygamy should pose no moral dilemma whatsoever.

EA:

It turns out that I am a morally perfect being. Any fault you might have with what I decree merely shows that you lack my frame of reference. Anything I say or do is, for all intents and purposes, by definition good. Forget polygamy for a second even though on occasion I have seen it fit and proper to declare it good. If, for instance, I were to lie to you about eternally progressing towards godhood, that would be a good thing if only you appreciated my frame of reference. The same goes for ordering the nuclear destruction of Isreal or raping your 3 year old daughter.

The only thing I wonder is why you wouldn't trust that I'm a morally perfect being? I mean, everything I do is good, so it should be obvious.

And rcrocket replied:

Gibberish.

I trust you’re not so dense that you really don’t grasp EA’s point, so the only conclusion I can draw is you have no effective rebuttal. Of course, EA already responded effectively to “gibberish”.