U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2012, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,308 posts, read 14,293,987 times
Reputation: 15790

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
The FOUNDERS of the Mormon church said polygamy was good - so if the bedrock of the church is unstable, what does that say about the church itself? The church of 'flip-flop'? Mitt has learned his lessons well.
Yeah. Well, the Catholic church once sanctified public disembowelment and burning of heretics. Does that make the Catholic bedrock unstable?

And let's not even talk about what the Southern Baptists used to preach from their pulpits. Or the Presbyterians, or any of them. Every church has it's own ghosts in the closet.

Every religion changes over time. Those that don't die out. how many Shakers have you seen lately? In 1900, there were still hundreds of thousands of them. They were once a far larger group than the LDS.

The Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints is nothing but a modern radical offshoot that rose in the late 1950's and is now dying out fast. They have never been accepted by the main LDS church.
There is also another branch of the church that is not polygamist, or ever has been. It split off when polygamy was declared, stayed in Illinois, and it's as old as the Utah based church. It, too, is not recognized.

This has to be the most ridiculous post I have seen so far this year on C-D. The sooner it's locked, the better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2012, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,750 posts, read 83,373,533 times
Reputation: 41580
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
The FOUNDERS of the Mormon church said polygamy was good - so if the bedrock of the church is unstable, what does that say about the church itself? The church of 'flip-flop'? Mitt has learned his lessons well.
Churches views change as years go by just like human's ideas change. Why are you so anti Mormon? I thought liberals were the party of fairness and open mindedness?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,308 posts, read 14,293,987 times
Reputation: 15790
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
Churches views change as years go by just like human's ideas change. Why are you so anti Mormon? I thought liberals were the party of fairness and open mindedness?
You mistake Kramerkat for a liberal. Big mistake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,750 posts, read 83,373,533 times
Reputation: 41580
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPON View Post
I am all for allowing polygamy. I think all forms of marriage are ok...government needs to get the hell out of marriage business.
OMG, this isn't a government issue but a social issue and NO, NO, NO, it isn't ok, Do you remember your wedding vows and do you remember marriage is one man and one woman. Thinking poligamy is ok, is off the wall for heavens sake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,012 posts, read 4,183,495 times
Reputation: 3018
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
The FOUNDERS of the Mormon church said polygamy was good - so if the bedrock of the church is unstable, what does that say about the church itself? The church of 'flip-flop'? Mitt has learned his lessons well.
KRAMERCAT, there are a lot of Mormons who support Ron Paul. I know several actually. Do you honestly think it is productive to launch an all-out assault on the Mormon religion just because you don't like Mitt Romney?

It seriously makes me worry about the eventual fate of what Ron Paul has begun after he is gone. If the ranks of his current supporters are filled with religious or racial bigotry, that poisons the entire tree and the movement dies and early death. Ron Paul belongs to the Southern Baptist faith -- a religion founded solely for the purpose of defending slavery and establishing that it is God's will that blacks should be slaves to whites. Some Southern Baptist clergy went so far as to say that black people did not have souls and were no better than common animals. They built a Christian religion around bigotry and dehumanizing some of God's children.

It's in the past. It does not make Ron Paul or any other Southern Baptist a racist. What their religion used to do does not necessarily have any bearing on what they are today. It does not affect my support for Ron Paul in any way. Their 180 degree change in position over race and racism does not make them an evil or bad religion. My suggestion is to afford the Mormons the same consideration and let the issue rest.

Leave the past in the past and move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,012 posts, read 4,183,495 times
Reputation: 3018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
I think it is reasonable to assume the Mormon prophets found justification in their holy texts for plural marriage, because it had the side benefit of allowing rapid expansion of the young church
As an avid student of the Bible, I can confidently say that you need look no further. Polygamy is commonplace throughout the Bible. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David -- so we're talking about the folks that God gave his seal of approval to. In some of those cases, polygamy was commanded. Likewise, the Torah (Law of Moses) commands polygamy to be practiced in all cases where a wife loses her husband. It was the duty of the brother or closes male relative to marry the deceased man's wife. Not only that, it was is duty to father children on her. All such children were considered to belong to the deceased and by this means the dead man had heirs to inherit his property, etc. But it was also specifically about having more children. And polygamy outside of this "commanded by God" form was considered perfectly acceptable throughout the Old Testament.

Quote:
(Plus, the geezers were assured a steady supply of nubile bed warmers ).
LOL! This is exactly what we see when David was getting old. He gets a cute young virgin wife named Abishag and her entire function was to be a bedwarmer! When David died, she was still a virgin (no need to explain I hope). Later on when one of David's sons took her as a concubine/wife (take your pick there) and "violated her virginity" it was considered scandalous and sinful.

The feminist movement would pitch a fit about such a scenario today!

Anywho, the point is that the Bible fully endorses the practice of polygamy. It never gets around to prohibiting it either.

As I already stated, banning or legalizing polygamy or polyandry or gay marriage or adultery or premarital sex whatever else -- in my mind it comes down to whether it is the government's job to police morality. I'm fine either way you go, but pick a side and be consistent.

Quote:
It's kind of obvious that the practice was only reluctantly suspended, for reasons more political than spiritual.
No different than any other religion there. It's not terribly important why they stopped practicing polygamy. The point is that they stopped a very long time ago. How many other religions are constantly getting beat up over practices that are over 100 years gone? That's one of the really puzzling things about your Mormon-haters: They act like something that your great grandparents did makes you a bad person, but such prejudice is reserved for Mormons and other undesirable religions.

Funny how history repeats itself. That's exactly what they did to the Jews!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,886 posts, read 22,024,555 times
Reputation: 10646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
Not an expert, but as far as I can tell, LDS dropped the requirement of plural marriage in 1890, under pressure from the US Government. However the practice continued clandestinely, until 1904, when a second manifesto put the ki-bosh on it once and for all.

However, as we all know, the practice is still going strong in some areas, by Mormon fundamentalists who don't buy that the Church's decision to suspend the practice was anything but a politically expedient decision.
Regardless of what you may want to call them "Mormon fundamentalists" are not members of the Church Mitt Romney is a member of. Therefore, any discussion of polygamy in the context of this election has absolutely no relevance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,012 posts, read 4,183,495 times
Reputation: 3018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
Regardless of what you may want to call them "Mormon fundamentalists" are not members of the Church Mitt Romney is a member of. Therefore, any discussion of polygamy in the context of this election has absolutely no relevance.
To quote the smartest man I know from earlier in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Coming from a Protestant background, the tendency is to assume that Mormonism functions a lot like any other Protestant faith. Get a closer look and you find it is quite different. So when somebody tosses out terms like "Mainstream Mormon" vs "Non-mainstream Mormon" your average Protestant is thinking they all show up and attend church in the same building on Sunday, but they just disagree about certain things -- in this case polygamy. But that isn't the reality. Those that practice polygamy are excommunicated, their names are stricken from the records and they are officially outcasts (much like you see with Catholic excommunication.) Then have their own congregations, their own buildings, their own ecclesiastical leadership and they are in every way, shape and form a completely different religion. They are welcome to attend Mormon Sunday services just as any non-Mormon is. But in order to rejoin the Mormon Church, they would have to stop practicing polygamy, denounce the practice and be re-baptized.

The confusing bit is that they still call themselves "Mormons" and everyone just takes their word for it. One way of looking at it: Imagine if the Anglican Church had decided to instead adopt the name "The Real Catholic Church" for
itself rather than Anglican. Usage of the word "Catholic" in the title would not make them part of the Roman Catholic Church, would it?
Why do people have to keep bringing up religion anyways??? It gets old and it's totally irrelevant here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,886 posts, read 22,024,555 times
Reputation: 10646
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
To quote the smartest man I know from earlier in this thread:


Why do people have to keep bringing up religion anyways??? It gets old and it's totally irrelevant here.
It's called bigotry. And I've got to agree with you... That godofthunder guy really is pretty smart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,886 posts, read 22,024,555 times
Reputation: 10646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
Not an expert, but as far as I can tell, LDS dropped the requirement of plural marriage in 1890, under pressure from the US Government. However the practice continued clandestinely, until 1904, when a second manifesto put the ki-bosh on it once and for all.

However, as we all know, the practice is still going strong in some areas, by Mormon fundamentalists who don't buy that the Church's decision to suspend the practice was anything but a politically expedient decision.

I think it is reasonable to assume the Mormon prophets found justification in their holy texts for plural marriage, because it had the side benefit of allowing rapid expansion of the young church (Plus, the geezers were assured a steady supply of nubile bed warmers ).

It's kind of obvious that the practice was only reluctantly suspended, for reasons more political than spiritual.
It's so nice to hear you admit that you're not an expert. Here's some information which, while it won't change your status in that regard all that much, will at least give you a little bit more accurate information to chew on...

The 1880s was one of the most difficult period of LDS history. The Mormon pioneers had previously been driving from their homes in the dead of winter and forced to haul their meager belongings across 1300 miles so that they could worship in peace. When they settled the Salt Lake valley, polygamy was not against the law. After laws aginst it were instituted, many LDS men and some women were forced to go underground to avoid arrest. Code words were devised so that polygamist families could be warned by telegraph when federal officials were on their way to Utah. Polygamous Latter-day Saints lived in fear of being exposed. While many who were caught and convicted were sent to Utah’s territorial penitentiary (which stood at the northwest corner of what is now Sugarhouse Park), some were sent to out-of-state prisons as far away as Detroit and there served out their sentences. It goes without saying that life in prison must have been pretty horrible, but it wasn’t just the prisoners who suffered. Without a means of support, not one wife and her children, but several wives and many children were left behind to live in poverty. By the end of the 1880s, Utah’s economy, as well as the family life and social structure of the Latter-day Saints had been severely affected.

Considering the obsession the United States government had with legislating the morality of the Latter-day Saints, it’s not surprising that most people today have a vastly exaggerated view of how extensive the practice of plural marriage really was. What percentage of LDS men actually had more than one wife? About 5%. Not a lot. As a matter of fact, taking into account the entire membership of the Church, only 20% or so were living in polygamous families. This, of course, includes all of the woman and children of the polygamous men.

Interestingly enough, most of the LDS women who were involved in polygamy were not opposed to it at all. While there were undoubtedly challenges associated with the practice, Latter-day Saint women found that, in some ways, it actually liberated them. With other wives to share the work at home, many women took advantage of the freedom to pursue vocations and education. Three of Brigham Young’s wives, for instance, studied medicine and helped found a hospital.

What about divorce among polygamous Latter-day Saints? Well, it was discouraged, just as divorce discouraged today. However, Brigham Young allowed polygamous wives to divorce their husbands if they believed they were being neglected or abused. Polygamous men who wanted out of a marriage contract, on the other hand, were generally told to hang in there and try harder.

Plural marriage had been practiced openly during most of Brigham Young’s administration. It had continued throughout John Taylor’s administration. After John Taylor’s death, Wilford Woodruff, was sustained as the fourth President of the Church. During his tenure, the political crusade against the Church continued to intensify. Within just a few short months after he was sustained, Wilford Woodruff came to the undeniable conclusion that, this time, the Church was literally going to be destroyed. After surviving nearly sixty years of persecution, it was essentially going to be wiped off the face of the earth. It was one thing to fight the mobs. It was quite another to fight the Feds.

The time had come for plural marriage, as an earthly practice, to come to an end. On September 24, 1890, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve sustained a document that came to be known as the Manifesto. It was approved by the membership of the Church a couple of weeks later at the October General Conference. Between 1890 and 1904, some members of the Church continued to practice polygamy in both Canada and Mexico since the Manifesto had only forbidden illegal marriages, and there were no laws against it north or south of the border. In 1904, a second manifesto was issued by President Joseph F. Smith, prohibiting plural marriage by Church members anywhere in the world. And of course today, any member of the Church found to be practicing polygamy is excommunicated from the Church. The practice of plural marriage has been discontinued. The principle of plural marriage is, however, eternal in nature. We have never stopped believing in the principle. Anyone who has ever talked to a non-Mormon about President Woodruff’s revelation has heard the same criticism, that being that he simply caved under pressure, that there was no such thing as a “revelation.” Here’s what President Woodruff had to say about it, after his revelation had been accepted by the Church:

“The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter. The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue – to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples… the imprisonment of the First Presidency and [the] Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law?…"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:22 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top