Mormonism's Greatest Downfall.

[_Ray A]

Is polygamy. This is the one "doctrine" that marks Joseph Smith, in my opinion, as a probable imposter. It is not only contrary to societal values, but even to common sense. And according to the Book of Mormon, it is "an abomination". Why? Because it is manipulative, abusive and controlling, even when "consent" is given (bear Emma in mind here, and her "choices"). All I can say is that if the founder of Mormonism really did produce this book, the Book of Mormon, then he had a serious case of schizophrenia.

It also cankers Mormons. Imagine them railing against masturbation, while revering a "prophet" who actively stole other men's wives from them. What manner of sickness is this? Some kind of "spiritual sickness"?

I can think of few things more grievious than coaxing another man's wife or partner away. Yet this is what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did - too many times to count. Yet if one masturbates - he/she is "going to hell". I'm speechless.

Apparently, stealing another man's wife is acceptable to further the ideal that "happiness is the purpose and design of existence" (bugger those "unworthy" of the women they married, all in Joseph's "cause" of "uniting real Celestial soulmates").

Those who defend polygamy are spineless hypocrites. On the one hand preaching "morality", then on the other having no qualms about splitting up husband and wife, as happened in the case of Henry Jacobs, "in the name of God".

How can anyone justify this?

PS: I'm having some trouble finding the original William Law Interview, but here is it from MRM. I'm kind of wondering just how far apologists will go, and to what extent they will try to eradicate original material from the Internet. I don't think anything is beyond them.
>
>
>

[Guest]

Is polygamy..

I can think of few things more grievious than coaxing another man's wife or partner away. Yet this is what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did - too many times to count.

I'm kind of wondering just how far apologists will go, and to what extent they will try to eradicate original material from the Internet. I don't think anything is beyond them.

Ray,

I believe in my heart that if every Mormon learned the truth about Smith and polygamy - just polygamy, that the church would fold within a decade. There are just too many good and honorable people among them that could not bear to call evil good and good evil. This is also why I share your emnity (and perhaps even more so) toward Mormon apologists.

The facade of polygamy is a betrayal of everything that I desire to hold sacred. Destruction of marriage by even a God or a prophet is off limits. This is where I drew the line.

I would prefer to make a place in hell if I were to come to a sure knowledge that Smith's god were the real deal. His plan with polygamy is an eternal hell.

If Smith or his thugs were to approach me for a sexual right to the tenderness of my daughter, sister or wife, I would hope I would have at least done as the Law brothers did.

I would hope I had been the one man to stand and say, "this is evil!"

12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.
13 And he fastened on his head–plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—

(Book of Mormon | Alma 46:12 - 13)

What is a Christian if he will not defend his wife and children from those that would bastardize the sanctity of marriage!

[_ludwigm]

... I'm kind of wondering just how far apologists will go, and to what extent they will try to eradicate original material from the Internet. I don't think anything is beyond them.

Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is a fiction. A literature.

It was realized 100% in the east-european socialism and in Mormonism.

'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'

[_Kevin Graham]

Polygamy was a catastrophic social blunder, to be sure.

But I think the greatest mistake by Smith was to try to pass off his "translation" of the Egyptian papyri as valid. In so doing, he allowed his new religion to become falsifiable. He just didn't realize Egyptian wouldn't remain a mystery to scholars.

I am of the opinion that when Martin Harris "lost" the 116 pages of translated Book of Mormon text, he merely hid it from Smith, hoping he would respond by offering a second translation of the same text. In so doing, he would be able to pull up the original, compare it with the second, and confirm with his wife whether or not Joseph Smith was really a prophet. If the two translations match, Smith is clearly a prophet. If not, then he is clearly a fraud. Smith responded the way one might expect a fraud to respond. He knew that if he translated the same text twice, then there is a chance the original version might surface to make his claims falsifiable. So he played it safe and came up with a "revelation" that said God wanted to punish him for letting Harris take the papers with him. His punishment? He wouldn't be allowed to translate that text again.

Funny how the Book of Mormon was supposedly for the benefit of the world, and not Joseph Smith, and yet the world must suffer the consequences of Harris' actions by not having these 116 pages of "inspired" text to guide the "restoration."

[_William Schryver]

Mormonism’s Greatest Downfall … Is polygamy.

… if every Mormon learned the truth about Smith and polygamy – just polygamy, ... the church would fold within a decade.

And yet Mormonism appears to be proceeding forward unhindered by the supposed impediment of its past (and, admittedly, probable future) embrace of plural marriage.

I think the principles and doctrines at the root of plural marriage are undoubtedly the “acid test” for many people. It is what separated the “sheep from the goats” (as it were) in Nauvoo. People like William Law, his brother Wilson, William Marks, etc., could not come to grips with the “principle,” whereas Brigham Young, John Taylor, the Pratts, etc. could and did.

And the body of the Church was not negatively affected by the defections in Nauvoo, just as it was not hampered by the previous periods of defection in Far West and Kirtland. If anything, history shows that these periods of intense apostate activity in the Church are always followed by a corresponding growth spurt that more than compensates for losses to apostasy – almost like an apple tree that, after being severely pruned, rebounds with more and better fruit the following season.

I have found the concepts contained in Joseph Smith’s letter to Nancy Rigdon to be a very reliable sifter of the Saints. Those who take offense at it will, if they have not already, eventually fall away. Those who view it as an expression of the mind of God will always remain faithful.

In my judgment, it is no mistake that these concepts find their expression in a letter written for the express purpose of encouraging Miss Rigdon to enter into the higher order of “the principle.” To me, that fact is not ironic, but rather quite apropos.

[_Kevin Graham]

Most people think of polygamy as the #1 problem, and that is probably true. But I think it is only due to the fact that most people know nothing about the Book of Abraham controversy. Even active Mormons are completely oblivious.

For example, Will Schryver just three years ago thought the KEP were the papyri, and he is supposed to have an LDS knowledge of 10!?

I have had to explain my reasons for leaving the faith to numerous people in various wards, in various places around the world, including several bishops. I have yet to meet a single person in the Church who has even a basic, rudimentary knowledge of the current situation. Some of them don't even realize scholars know how to translate Egyptian today.

Most couldn't even tell you the source of the Book of Abraham. Ignorance flourishes, and it is Will's job to make sure they stay ignorant.

[_Kevin Graham]

Your "judgment" isn't worth spit Will. You've established yourself as a liar willing to deceive for God.

And yet Mormonism appears to be proceeding forward unhindered

Yeah, the baptism per missionary ratio hasn't plummeted at all since 1989 has it? The internet has made conventional missionary work in first world countries futile. Why? For the same reason pyramid scams have lost much of their business; with the exception of Utah, of course.

[_Yoda]

So, Will, is it safe to say that you have no problem with the concept of plural marriage?

You mentioned the future. Do you see the church re-establishing plural marriage?

[_Kevin Graham]

It was the way Smith went about it that makes it stink so badly. He lied about it, he kept it secret, it was originally for only a select group, he was clearly a horn-dog who wanted to take the hottest girls for himself, etc. It even caused the apostasy of Oliver Cowdery because he was in love with someone that Smith took for a plural wife.

It makes no sense to say God wanted it restored and then allowed it to be taken away shortly afterward.

[_William Schryver]

lizzy:

So, Will, is it safe to say that you have no problem with the concept of plural marriage?

Better stated, I have no problem with the concept that what

… is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

You mentioned the future. Do you see the church re-establishing plural marriage?

Perhaps it would be better to pose this question to Dallin Oaks and Russell Nelson. It was them (and others like them) I had in mind when I spoke of “the future.”