Warren Jeffs' compound

[_harmony]

Hat tip to Chronos. The present fundamentalist sects are not Mormons and, in a very real sense, have no connection to the LDS Church at all except in the most tenuous historical sense.

In another vein, one may as well ascribe present trends among sects and cults claiming descent, in one manner or another, from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to the philandering of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and other of the Lord's anointed (if you accept that they were, indeed, the Lord's anointed), as to Joseph Smith. Joseph did nothing, regarding plural marriage, other than what some of the great patriarchs and prophets of the past had done under the authority of the Priesthood, as is well documented in the Old Testament.

Joseph took many more wives than Abraham and Jacob. Joseph also introduced a doctrine that polygamy was required by God for exaltation. This seems very different from the Bible where it seems more like God tolerated a cultural practice rather than commanded it.

And I yes there is a connection to the LDS Church. Many of the doctrines are the same. And many they hold are right out of 19th century Mormonism all though I think they have bastardized polygamy. I don't see that it in general was near as abusive in 19th century Mormonism for the most part.

This is the core of my problem with polygamy. It supposedly existed in the Old Testament (although no one can confirm that Abraham or any of the others really existed), but practicing it was not considered a requirement for exaltation with God. Joseph may have restored an ancient custom (although there is ample evidence that it never was lost), but he changed it considerably, and made it a requirement that had not historical foundation.

[_Brackite]

This seems very different from the Bible where it seems more like God tolerated a cultural practice rather than commanded it.

This is an old EV trope. The law of Moses contains explicit rules for the maintinence of plural wives, (Deut. 21:15-17) and Nathan unambiguously upbraided David for not qualifying himself for the reception of more plural wives than he presently had.

According to the Book of Mormon, King David committed a abomination for having many wives and concubines. Please See (again): Jacob 2:23-24: And the Book of Mormon agrees that the Lord God just tolerated the practice of Polygamy, by some of his people in the Old Testament. Here is Jacob 2:26, in the Book of Mormon:

Jacob 2:26:

[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Now Here is the 1828 Webster's Dictionary Definition of the word tolerate:

tolerate

TOL'ERATE, v.t. [L. tolero, from tollo, to lift.] To suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices.

...

tolerated

TOL'ERATED, pp. Suffered; allowed; not prohibited or restrained.

( http://www.cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm , Bold Emphasis Mine. )


Conclusion: The Book of Mormon totally agrees that the Lord God just tolerated the practice of Polygamy, with some of his people in the Old Testament.

[_beastie]

In another vein, one may as well ascribe present trends among sects and cults claiming descent, in one manner or another, from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to the philandering of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and other of the Lord's anointed (if you accept that they were, indeed, the Lord's anointed), as to Joseph Smith. Joseph did nothing, regarding plural marriage, other than what some of the great patriarchs and prophets of the past had done under the authority of the Priesthood, as is well documented in the Old Testament.

That's right, coggies. The LORD has a long history of distributing bootie to his alpha males.

[_Jersey Girl]

This is an old EV trope. The law of Moses contains explicit rules for the maintinence of plural wives, (Deut. 21:15-17) and Nathan unambiguously upbraided David for not qualifying himself for the reception of more plural wives than he presently had.

Let's take a look at that in context:

21:1 If [one] be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, [and] it be not known who hath slain him:

21:2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which [are] round about him that is slain:

21:3 And it shall be, [that] the city [which is] next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, [and] which hath not drawn in the yoke;

21:4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley:

21:5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be [tried]:

21:6 And all the elders of that city, [that are] next unto the slain [man], shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley:

21:7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen [it].

21:8 Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

21:9 So shalt thou put away the [guilt of] innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do [that which is] right in the sight of the LORD.

21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn:

21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his.

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.


Those are provisions for the maintenance of plural wives how?

[_Jason Bourne]

Joseph took many more wives than Abraham and Jacob.

So what?

Uh let me see. You compared LDS plural marriage to the Patriarch's plural marriage. I noted a difference. Abraham took Haga because Sarah gave her to him because she was ashamed of being barren. This is quite different from God allegedly commanding this.

Joseph also introduced a doctrine that polygamy was required by God for exaltation.

Only for those who were called to practice that principle. which the overwhelming majority of Saints at the time were not. Even if we really high ball the numbers here, and claim that some 10% to 15% of LDS practiced polygamy, or even somewhat more, this leaves 80% to 85% of the Saints never called to the practice, and hence, by your argument here, barred from exaltation. And since none of the BorfM peoples were called to practice it, none of the Book of Mormon saints ever attained exaltation. My patience with this nonsense is running thin, as is my patience with the lack of homework those who claim to be long time members of the Church have done pertaining to the broader doctrines and philosophy of the Gospel that mediate principles such as plural marriage, or any other (any principle of which we are aware, understand, and have covenanted to accept and live becomes a requirement for our exaltation. Plural marriage is just a specific and special case of this general principle).

I could care less about YOUR patience. Be honest about plural marriage and what it was and was not. The 19th century church leaders taught it was necessary for exaltation and said ONLY those who enter it become Gods. Please show me where the Bible teaches this sense you claim it is the same.

This seems very different from the Bible where it seems more like God tolerated a cultural practice rather than commanded it.

This is an old EV trope. The law of Moses contains explicit rules for the maintinence of plural wives, (Deut. 21:15-17) and Nathan unambiguously upbraided David for not qualifying himself for the reception of more plural wives than he presently had.

EV's make good arguments at times. This is one of them.

And I yes there is a connection to the LDS Church. Many of the doctrines are the same. And many they hold are right out of 19th century Mormonism all though I think they have bastardized polygamy. I don't see that it in general was near as abusive in 19th century Mormonism for the most part.

You've said nothing here other than what I've already admitted. There is a tenuous historical connection. The fact remains that they are not Mormons, and, most of them at least, have never been. They are not Latter Day Saints, and they are no more Latter Day Saints than Pope Ratzinger is a Latter Day Saint.

I don't see why LDS get so hung up if the LDS fundies want to be called Mormons. We want to be called Christian and get really ticked when other Christians argue we are not because of this, that or some other non orthodox belief. Like it or not these groups have a lot in common with Mormon Doctrine and are a direct result of the problems with polygamy and the abandonment of it.[/quote]

[_Dr. Shades]

Joseph did nothing, regarding plural marriage, other than what some of the great patriarchs and prophets of the past had done under the authority of the Priesthood, as is well documented in the Old Testament.

??? So the great patriarchs and prophets of the past married other men's wives? And where is their having married other men's wives "well documented in the Old Testament?"

But something seems to be wrong with non-serial sexual relationships, in which, not only does a man engage in sexual relationships with multiple woman, but produces offspring from such relationships, whom, along with his wives, he supports economically and takes personal responsibility for.

Joseph Smith never economically supported either his plural wives or their offspring, nor did he take personal responsibility for them.

Is it the sex that one finds so reprehensible about Joesph's plural marriage?

No, it's the spiritual manipulation he used to destroy their moral barriers against such conduct.

[_GoodK]

I'm wondering what died-in-the-wool liberals like...
I'm still at a loss then, to understand what problem secular liberals have with plural sexual relationships, whether practiced in non-serial form by Joseph Smith, or in modern serial form by Hugh Hefner.

I don't understand why religious people call less religious people "liberals" as if being an atheist means you are automatically liberal. I was called a liberal over at CARM, and I was flabbergasted. And I see Cogs here calling people liberals.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I'm wondering what died-in-the-wool liberals like...
I'm still at a loss then, to understand what problem secular liberals have with plural sexual relationships, whether practiced in non-serial form by Joseph Smith, or in modern serial form by Hugh Hefner.

I don't understand why religious people call less religious people "liberals" as if being an atheist means you are automatically liberal. I was called a liberal over at CARM, and I was flabbergasted. And I see Cogs here calling people liberals.

Quite true. Why certain segments of society are assumed to have staked out certain positions is beyond me. I'm agnostically atheist and quite conservative (for economic reasons/socially libertarian).

As to Cogs...well he has a long history of calling anyone who he disagrees with a liberal. That's just how he rolls.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm wondering what died-in-the-wool liberals like...
I'm still at a loss then, to understand what problem secular liberals have with plural sexual relationships, whether practiced in non-serial form by Joseph Smith, or in modern serial form by Hugh Hefner.

I don't understand why religious people call less religious people "liberals" as if being an atheist means you are automatically liberal. I was called a liberal over at CARM, and I was flabbergasted. And I see Cogs here calling people liberals.

Religous people don't. Right wing reactionaries like Coggins do.

[_GoodK]

I'm wondering what died-in-the-wool liberals like...
I'm still at a loss then, to understand what problem secular liberals have with plural sexual relationships, whether practiced in non-serial form by Joseph Smith, or in modern serial form by Hugh Hefner.

I don't understand why religious people call less religious people "liberals" as if being an atheist means you are automatically liberal. I was called a liberal over at CARM, and I was flabbergasted. And I see Cogs here calling people liberals.

Religous people don't. Right wing reactionaries like Coggins do.

Yes, I meant mostly the right wing followers of the Limbaugh cult... I am quite an atheist, yet am no where near a liberal (or democrat, for that matter)