Mormons and polygamy

Socratic Spelunker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Moral beliefs are religious beliefs. Religion, in a sense, has everything to do with law. Sorry.
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
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?
Click to expand...

Three different sources, all pointing towards the same thing, that Joseph Smith wasn't an honest man, nor is the church run in an honest and open fashion.

Also, I used to know some Mormons, and ex-Mormons.

I could also give you this clue, go google 'joseph smiths arrest record', and you'll find he was well known for petty crime in NYC, including charging landowners for using a 'seer stone' to find buried treasure.

The LDS is very good at revisionism, rewriting and reinterpreting it's own history. Using the excuse of 'revelation' does not paper over the facts however.
 
MrMormon said:
Moral beliefs are religious beliefs. Religion, in a sense, has everything to do with law. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Some religions forbid the eating certain things, or certain actions on certain days, and these are personal choices, and should never be enshrined into law and bind non-believers.
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
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?
Click to expand...
The physical weight of gold is fairly easy to verify... I mean seriously.
 
gmilam said:
The physical weight of gold is fairly easy to verify... I mean seriously.
Click to expand...

And what Mr Spelunker seems to miss, is that the content is rather more important than where it's hosted. But then again, it's rather easier to sling mud than debate facts.
 
phlogistician said:
Some religions forbid the eating certain things, or certain actions on certain days, and these are personal choices, and should never be enshrined into law and bind non-believers.
Click to expand...
One idea of what marriage should be in a society is not superior to another idea just because it's more inclusive. Both ideas are religious in a way because they are beliefs, and as long as someone is participating in a political process, that person is trying to promote one's ideals, which are beliefs.
 
MrMormon said:
One idea of what marriage should be in a society is not superior to another idea just because it's more inclusive. Both ideas are religious in a way because they are beliefs, and as long as someone is participating in a political process, that person is trying to promote one's ideals, which are beliefs.
Click to expand...
Marriage carries with it a legal aspect in regards to taxes, insurance and other niceties. Are you claiming that only religious people should have these legal rights/responsibilities?
 
phlogistician said:
Three different sources, all pointing towards the same thing, that Joseph Smith wasn't an honest man, nor is the church run in an honest and open fashion.

Also, I used to know some Mormons, and ex-Mormons.

I could also give you this clue, go google 'joseph smiths arrest record', and you'll find he was well known for petty crime in NYC, including charging landowners for using a 'seer stone' to find buried treasure.

The LDS is very good at revisionism, rewriting and reinterpreting it's own history. Using the excuse of 'revelation' does not paper over the facts however.
Click to expand...

He was not dishonest, nor is the Church; there are many Church articles that treat its interesting past. This feels like Bible-bashing, choosing the sources we want to claim are accurate. Were your Mormon friends in good standing with the Church?

I'm also curious, do you try to disprove other religions too?
 
MrMormon said:
Moral beliefs are religious beliefs. Religion, in a sense, has everything to do with law. Sorry.
Click to expand...

True, but the law is a work in progress. Even spiritual laws are put on the back-burner for the sake of the non-believing. You can't condemn or punish them for not living up to covenants they didn't make.

gmilam said:
The physical weight of gold is fairly easy to verify... I mean seriously.
Click to expand...

True, but the womanizing is more difficult to prove, especially when the witnesses clearly aren't objective. The information is clearly one-sided, biased, and incomplete because Joseph Smith ordained several African-Americans to the Priesthood. I noticed that was casually left out. In fact, the opposite was asserted.

phlogistician said:
And what Mr Spelunker seems to miss, is that the content is rather more important than where it's hosted. But then again, it's rather easier to sling mud than debate facts.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The source of information has a huge effect on the validity of the content. I can tell from the sources you've chosen that what little research you've done has been one-sided. Have you even bothered to see what Mormons in good standing with the church have to say? Have you checked out FAIRlds or FARMS?

phlogistician said:
Not at all. Some religions forbid the eating certain things, or certain actions on certain days, and these are personal choices, and should never be enshrined into law and bind non-believers.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

MrMormon said:
One idea of what marriage should be in a society is not superior to another idea just because it's more inclusive. Both ideas are religious in a way because they are beliefs, and as long as someone is participating in a political process, that person is trying to promote one's ideals, which are beliefs.
Click to expand...

Also agreed.

gmilam said:
Marriage carries with it a legal aspect in regards to taxes, insurance and other niceties. Are you claiming that only religious people should have these legal rights/responsibilities?
Click to expand...

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I just want to propose the idea again that the idea may be to TAKE AWAY these right/etc from the religious rather than giving them to the irreligious.
 
MrMormon said:
...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..
Click to expand...

Hey, I want to have sex with more than one woman at the same time too, but at least I'm not trying to pretend God told me so.
 
Just another instance of the "person's ideas versus prophet" argument. You have a lot more prophets to argue against than this one.
 
MrMormon said:
Just another instance of the "person's ideas versus prophet" argument. You have a lot more prophets to argue against than this one.
Click to expand...

Bring it on. Science totally eviscerates Joseph Smith. I actually sat through an intro to what Mormons believe at their temple in D.C., it was entertaining to say the least. :m:
 
spidergoat said:
Bring it on. Science totally eviscerates Joseph Smith. I actually sat through an intro to what Mormons believe at their temple in D.C., it was entertaining to say the least. :m:
Click to expand...
So we're going meta. :) What do you think science has to say (specifically) about Smith? Remember, anyone who uses "a statement outside of science cannot be true" as an argument is professing a religious belief.
 
He said Middle Easterners went to America before it was discovered by Europeans. There is no genetic or archeological evidence of this, which one would expect to find.
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
True, but the law is a work in progress. Even spiritual laws are put on the back-burner for the sake of the non-believing. You can't condemn or punish them for not living up to covenants they didn't make.
Click to expand...
If only those words were true..
how many laws are made without my/our approval..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top