Mormons and polygamy

[phlogistician]

Mod note: Split thread from here.

Still, calling a third party something is meaningless without evidence. phlogistician refuses to elaborate.

'Refuses'? I'm in a different time zone bub, and I have to sleep.

OK, let's get onto Joseph Smith.

Womanising:

"Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. Regarded as a prophet by his followers, Smith was also a theocrat, city planner, military leader, political theorist, and polygamist."
(Wikipedia)

Polygamy is sanctioned womanising. Except, the rest of the USA denied it was sanctioned and as you know, the church officially ended this practice. Except you should know it still goes on, quietly. If you deny this, you should go and read the testimonials at exmormon.org

(http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon_polygamy.htm)

which detail that Smith had sexual relations with a child too.

You should also know that Smith excluded non-whites from the Church. But you say that isn't racist. We now understand exclusion and differentiation to be racist ideas. This proves Smith was a racist.

"Early Mormonism had a range of policies and doctrines relating to race in regard to African-descended people. References to black people, their social condition during the 19th century, and their spiritual place in Western Christianity as well as Mormon scriptures were complicated, with varying degrees and forms of discrimination against black people."
(Wikipedia)

Smith and being a liar. In NYC he was well known to Police. He used a 'seer stone' to locate 'treasure', and later supposedly translated the golden plates from Egyptian (er, why Hieroglyphs? Egyptians did not believe in the Abrahamic God, but Smith probably didn't know that) into the 'Book of Mormon'. Here is a nice dissection of Smith's account of finding of the golden plates, proving his account to be fallacious, and therefore, Smith to be a liar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxWnGt96Xk

 

[MrMormon]

Okay, I'm finally back to the forums. I said you (phlogistician) refuse to elaborate because you made a post without evidence after I asked you for it, but I'm glad you provided it now. Anyway...you accuse Joseph Smith of coming up with the polygamy and race-based policies himself. Channeling God's policies - that's what prophets do. God makes temporary commandments for practical purposes, like for populating (polygamy happened in the Old Testament too), and I suppose the social complexities associated with African-Americans up until the time the Priesthood was extended to them had something to do with God delaying that extension.

You might find this excerpt from an article about polygamy in LDS history interesting:


Although polygamy is no longer practiced in the Church, no account of the Church’s history can be complete without some discussion of the practice. It was first announced by Joseph Smith at Nauvoo in 1842. Many of those close to him knew of it and accepted it as a principle of divine pronouncement. However, it was not publicly taught until 1852.

In the families that practiced polygamy, each wife, with her children, occupied a separate house, or, if the wives lived in the same house, as was sometimes the case, in separate quarters. No distinction was made between either of the wives or the children. The husband provided for each family, was responsible for the education of the children, and gave both the children and their mothers the same advantages he would have given to his family under a monogamous relationship. If it was thought he could not do this, he was not permitted to enter into plural marriage.

While the practice was extremely limited—only a small minority of the families were involved—it was the kind of thing of which enemies of the Church could easily take advantage.

Reaction against the doctrine developed throughout the country, and it entered into the presidential campaign of 1860. When Lincoln was asked what he proposed to do about the Mormons, he replied, “Let them alone.” In 1862 Con-gress passed an anti-polygamy law, but it was aimed at plural marriages and not polygamous relations. Ten years later the Congress passed a bill prohibiting polygamy. It was considered unconstitutional by many people in the nation, and generally by the Mormons. A test case was brought into the courts of Utah and carried through the Supreme Court of the United States, resulting in a decision adverse to the Mormons.


Some bad stuff happened, and it was revealed that the church would have a bleak future unless the practice were to be stopped. So it stopped. I've read somewhere that Smith had a hard time accepting the practice too.

Anyway, this is old, over-repeated stuff that doesn't really have anything to do with the legitimacy of my religion. I have a testimony of this church and now I need to put my two cents in the nanotube battery thread that was started without me!

Feel free to respond, but don't trust anti-mormon literature. Ridiculous junk comes out, misunderstanding happens. Read my intro post. See ya.

 

[chimpkin]

The LDS church is no more annoying than any other mainline sect.

Sorry to put it like that, but I'm an American queer person who's married to someone with the same set of secondary sex characteristics...and those aren't factory-original... and too I want to do testosterone do that in the end I will look somewhere between male and female...
And there are a lot of mainline churches who would like to legislate if I can even marry and who to. Which is not fair.

The Mormons fought hard against gay marriage in California. Bet they like transgenders even less?

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Mod note: Split thread from here.




'Refuses'? I'm in a different time zone bub, and I have to sleep.

OK, let's get onto Joseph Smith.

Womanising:

"Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was an American religious leader and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. Regarded as a prophet by his followers, Smith was also a theocrat, city planner, military leader, political theorist, and polygamist."
(Wikipedia)

Polygamy is sanctioned womanising. Except, the rest of the USA denied it was sanctioned and as you know, the church officially ended this practice. Except you should know it still goes on, quietly. If you deny this, you should go and read the testimonials at exmormon.org

(http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon_polygamy.htm)

which detail that Smith had sexual relations with a child too.

You should also know that Smith excluded non-whites from the Church. But you say that isn't racist. We now understand exclusion and differentiation to be racist ideas. This proves Smith was a racist.

"Early Mormonism had a range of policies and doctrines relating to race in regard to African-descended people. References to black people, their social condition during the 19th century, and their spiritual place in Western Christianity as well as Mormon scriptures were complicated, with varying degrees and forms of discrimination against black people."
(Wikipedia)

Smith and being a liar. In NYC he was well known to Police. He used a 'seer stone' to locate 'treasure', and later supposedly translated the golden plates from Egyptian (er, why Hieroglyphs? Egyptians did not believe in the Abrahamic God, but Smith probably didn't know that) into the 'Book of Mormon'. Here is a nice dissection of Smith's account of finding of the golden plates, proving his account to be fallacious, and therefore, Smith to be a liar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxWnGt96Xk

So, just to be clear, your sources of information are the entirely and absolutely reliable Wikipedia, a totally unbiased, objective site by former mormons, and the stronghold of scholarly opinion, YouTube?

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

The Mormons fought hard against gay marriage in California. Bet they like transgenders even less?

Mormons were about 5% of the voters and not all Mormons voted against it. We were not the only contributor, and we did not even contribute the most. We're just an easy target for the ill-informed.

We don't dislike homosexuals and we don't dislike transgenders. We simply have an opinion and we vote accordingly. I can't speak for others, but I don't dislike people simply because they disagree with me. If a mormon tells you he has any ill feelings towards people of a different lifestyle, then I'll be the first to agree he's a terrible person.

 

[chimpkin]

We don't dislike homosexuals and we don't dislike transgenders. We simply have an opinion and we vote accordingly

But y'all did donate a sizable amount, $9 million, to publically promote your opinion.
...That opinion being that we don't get to marry who we love if y'all don't approve...
Do I get to sign off your wedding plans? no?
Y'all gonna cut me a tax break for being a second-class citizen? no?
This should be a protected minority right. Not something up for majority vote.

But only the FLDS has multiple marriage, and they are critically inbred at this point. Starting to get really weird genetic diseases.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Mormons were about 5% of the voters and not all Mormons voted against it. We were not the only contributor, and we did not even contribute the most. We're just an easy target for the ill-informed.

We don't dislike homosexuals and we don't dislike transgenders. We simply have an opinion and we vote accordingly. I can't speak for others, but I don't dislike people simply because they disagree with me. If a mormon tells you he has any ill feelings towards people of a different lifestyle, then I'll be the first to agree he's a terrible person.

Wow !1 more L.D.S.

Is there 5% on this forum or something . I might have to start counting . So here is what I was told . Out live as many wives as you can and then you will have lots of wives in heaven . I wonder how many Mormons think that ?
Romney ! What is the chance that thought runs through his mind ? Maybe that is not the Mormon Christian way to think of it and that thought would never cross Romney's mind . Don't know ? It ran through some Mormons minds cause they told Me that . At the least it is topic of discussion with in the Mormon Church . Have any of you other Mormons, Jack and practicing ever had that discussion ?We did when I was still going to church , Hurley Way Sacramento branch of de church . I can get the address for you . Oh god Cynthia Vinkamolder !!! Yes . I Ah I Ah . One hot Mormon !!! Cynthia what are you doing now . I thought she was the most beautiful girl that ever lived when I was in the 4th grade . Now if she would have been Me girl Friend . Let Me tell you . I would be a Bishop of my own Church by now . Well it is her fault I am a Heathen . Hope she don't rot in hell for it .

Just Joking Cynthia if you are reading this . I still love you and you can come to heaven . You won't be one of my wives , but what the hey . What are we to do ? Better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all . Yeah Can can dig that . Its all good . I bet you are still hot Sizzle my dear . At least to Me you are . Even if you lost an eye and a leg . Yeah Baby !! It don't matter . Your a goddess

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

But y'all did donate a sizable amount, $9 million, to publically promote your opinion.
...That opinion being that we don't get to marry who we love if y'all don't approve...
Do I get to sign off your wedding plans? no?
Y'all gonna cut me a tax break for being a second-class citizen? no?
This should be a protected minority right. Not something up for majority vote.

But only the FLDS has multiple marriage, and they are critically inbred at this point. Starting to get really weird genetic diseases.

True, but many groups contributed to both sides. My point was that Mormons got a disproportional amount of crap for it because we're easy targets.

Do I think it's right that we have to approve your marriage? Not really. But I think it shouldn't really be an issue at all. In my mind, the "separation of church and state" issue isn't that it DOESNT support your marriage. The issue is that it DOES support ours. Marriage is a religious ordinance and its not fair of the gov't to give people advantages for being married. I say separate it completely. People don't get benefits for having Bar Mitvahs do they? Are Jews infringing on my human rights because I can't have a Bar Mitvah?

Speaking of which, don't same-sex couples in civil unions get all the same benefits as "married" couples? That's a serious question. I'm really not sure. Are they just fighting for the name?

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Wow !1 more L.D.S.

Is there 5% on this forum or something . I might have to start counting . So here is what I was told . Out live as many wives as you can and then you will have lots of wives in heaven . I wonder how many Mormons think that ?
Romney ! What is the chance that thought runs through his mind ? Maybe that is not the Mormon Christian way to think of it and that thought would never cross Romney's mind . Don't know ? It ran through some Mormons minds cause they told Me that . At the least it is topic of discussion with in the Mormon Church . Have any of you other Mormons, Jack and practicing ever had that discussion ?We did when I was still going to church , Hurley Way Sacramento branch of de church . I can get the address for you . Oh god Cynthia Vinkamolder !!! Yes . I Ah I Ah . One hot Mormon !!! Cynthia what are you doing now . I thought she was the most beautiful girl that ever lived when I was in the 4th grade . Now if she would have been Me girl Friend . Let Me tell you . I would be a Bishop of my own Church by now . Well it is her fault I am a Heathen . Hope she don't rot in hell for it .

Just Joking Cynthia if you are reading this . I still love you and you can come to heaven . You won't be one of my wives , but what the hey . What are we to do ? Better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all . Yeah Can can dig that . Its all good . I bet you are still hot Sizzle my dear . At least to Me you are . Even if you lost an eye and a leg . Yeah Baby !! It don't matter . Your a goddess

I'm not trying to be rude, but I literally didn't understand any of that.

 

[chimpkin]

Speaking of which, don't same-sex couples in civil unions get all the same benefits as "married" couples? That's a serious question. I'm really not sure. Are they just fighting for the name?

Short answer: no

Long answer, copied and pasted from here: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Number of Legal Benefits:

* Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)
* Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)

Tax Relief:

* Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
* Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

Medical Decisions:

* Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
* Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

Gifts:

* Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
* Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.

Death Benefits:
* Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
* Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.

Child/Spousal Support:

* Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
* Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

Immigration Rights:

* Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
* Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members. (more on gay immigration rights)

Your church doesn't have to marry me, but when someone makes me less under the law because of their religion, I get mad.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Your church doesn't have to marry me, but when someone makes me less under the law because of their religion, I get mad.

I understand. i wouldn't like it either, but my point is that the law should have nothing to do with it. The fact that it does shows that church and state are not separate. No one has a right to a rite and the gov't shouldn't support it.

 

[chimpkin]

The fact that it does shows that church and state are not separate.

Uh-huh
I should be able to walk in to a courthouse with my partner and get a marriage license.
Doesn't mean any church has to perform the ceremony.

However, if you're a heterosexual and married, you get a bunch of legal protections, tax, breaks, joint returns, etc.

Do you advocate that heteros give those up, and that marriage means nothing under the law...so that essentially those that get married have to make up a contract, rather than getting prefab legal protection?

If so that's fair and I applaud your decision to support the abolition of marriage as we currently know it.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Uh-huh
I should be able to walk in to a courthouse with my partner and get a marriage license.
Doesn't mean any church has to perform the ceremony.

No you shouldn't, just like I have no right to a bar mitzvah or to go to Mecca. I'm not a member of those religions and have no right to their ordinances.

Edit: oh, I see what you're saying. But then you're just arguing for civil union to have the same benefits, correct?

However, if you're a heterosexual and married, you get a bunch of legal protections, tax, breaks, joint returns, etc.

That's unfair, but I don't think having MORE people sell out a religion is the answer.

Do you advocate that heteros give those up, and that marriage means nothing under the law...so that essentially those that get married have to make up a contract, rather than getting prefab legal protection?

If so that's fair and I applaud your decision to support the abolition of marriage as we currently know it.

That's actually exactly what I'm saying. Tax breaks, etc, could just as easily be based on the number of people in a household and not their relation to one another. Or relations could be defined through blood, not marriage (or whatever equivalent), there are lots of other ways people could receive benefits in a way that would help them survive regardless of sexuality or marital status. Homosexuals should then be happy that there is equality and heterosexuals should be happy that their idea of marriage is actually being held as more sacred than it is now, since there would be no financial motivation. It would become a strictly spiritual rite.

 

[chimpkin]

Wow !1 more L.D.S.
..... Oh god Cynthia Vinkamolder !!! Yes . I Ah I Ah . One hot Mormon !!! Cynthia what are you doing now . I thought she was the most beautiful girl that ever lived when I was in the 4th grade . Now if she would have been Me girl Friend . Let Me tell you . I would be a Bishop of my own Church by now . Well it is her fault I am a Heathen . Hope she don't rot in hell for it .

Just Joking Cynthia if you are reading this . I still love you and you can come to heaven . You won't be one of my wives , but what the hey . What are we to do ? Better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all . Yeah Can can dig that . Its all good . I bet you are still hot Sizzle my dear . At least to Me you are . Even if you lost an eye and a leg . Yeah Baby !! It don't matter . Your a goddess

(Wow, I didn't realize how right this thing was when I made it...)

 

[chimpkin]

No you shouldn't, just like I have no right to a bar mitzvah or to go to Mecca. I'm not a member of those religions and have no right to their ordinances.

I just said a courthouse.
That's different.
I'm wanting equal treatment under the law.

I don't care about Christian marriage, I'm not a Christian.
I want legal marriage.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's?"
Whatever happened to that?

Homosexuals should then be happy that there is equality and heterosexuals should be happy that their idea of marriage is actually being held as more sacred than it is now, since there would be no financial motivation. It would become a strictly spiritual rite.

Hmm...marriage has always been about property though.
You look at its' history, it's always been about kinship obligations and ownership, not love or spirituality.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

I just said a courthouse.
That's different.
I'm wanting equal treatment under the law.

I don't care about Christian marriage, I'm not a Christian.
I want legal marriage.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's?"
Whatever happened to that?

I understand. I realized that after and edited. Sorry for the confusion.

Hmm...marriage has always been about property though.

Maybe from a secular or academic point of view, but I'm guessing most theists would disagree.

 

[chimpkin]

you're just arguing for civil union to have the same benefits, correct?

If civil unioning did confer the same rights...
But I'm naturally suspicious of that.
Separate but equal didn't work out for some other folks.

 

[kx000]

If the world became mormon I would leave

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

If civil unioning did confer the same rights...
But I'm naturally suspicious of that.
Separate but equal didn't work out for some other folks.

Well, Ideally, we would have learned from the past. Maybe we could just have one legal code regarding all the rights and just apply it to both.

I dunno, but it's actually another reason why I don't think extending rights is the answer. We'd extend the wrong ones, or not all of them, or not far enough, or not really enforce it. There's too much to go wrong. Just take it away from everyone and tweak the system to continue helping people survive.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

If the world became mormon I would leave

Good contribution.