Speaking of Mormons....What would you do?

893 Views | 40 Replies | Last: 20 yr ago by ibmagg
Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Because a law is passed does not mean that the constitutionality of that law can not be challenged.


The Mormon Church acted in direct defiance for 40 years after the law was passed. They were not challenging the constitutionality of the law, but rather they were just acting immoral because that is what they saw fit.

Even if that was the case, Reynolds v US was settled by the Supreme Court in 1878 - a full 12 years before Woodruff "ended" plural marriages.

quote:
After the Woodruff Manifesto, no new plural marriages were authorized by the Church.

Absolutely not true. Woodruff himself married a young woman in 1897 - seven years after he pretended to end polygamy.

In addition to that, Woodruff just sent couples seeking plural marriages to be married in Juarez, Mexico - a nation that likely wouldnt imprision for the plural marriages.

In November of 1906, Joseph F. Smith pled guilty to unlawful cohabitation and paid a fine.

From 1909 to 1910 - the Salt Lake Tribune printed the names and marriage information of over 200 couples married after 1890.

Apostle John W. Taylor was excommunicated for his plural marriages.

Half of the apostles between 1890 and 1904 entered into plural marriages after 1890.

On the day that Woodruff accepted the 1890 manafesto, Woodruff approved 7 plural marriages.

Woodruff appointed George Q Cannon to approve all plural marriages from 1892-1898, so he could pretend that he knew nothing about the marriages.

In 1896, Woodruff approved of the plural marriage of Abraham H Canon.

In 1901, Loronzo Snow authorized Matthias Crowley to enter into a plural marriage.

Plenty of plural marriages were authorized by the church.


quote:
The Lord commanded the prophets and kings in ancient Israel in the principle of plural marriage


You are completely and totally making this up. As you admitted, this is not in the Bible - nor do you care that it isnt in the Bible.


I will not get over a false prophet blatently breaking the laws of America to fulfill his deviant sexual desires.
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You better to learn to read your Old Testament! Again plural marriage is not the issue. I challenge you to document your claims about the plural marriages. Were these sealings to live or deceased individuals?

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 2/6/2006 9:13p).]
Bracy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
You better to learn to read your Old Testament!


For some reason, I just had a vision of Ray Charles critiquing a Rembrandt painting.
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bracy, you sure don't know how to do it and you don't even realize a significant is long gone. It's what happens what you rely on old documents that had to be copied over and over by hand, and some of those people doing the coping had a different agenda. than the Lord's purpose. Satan, hard at working thinking he can thwart the purposes of God.

Guitarsoup, you better read real Church history and not that made up junk be the enemies of the Church produced. I can't wait for you to cite the sources of your accusations. Probably, the same people who accused Reed Smoot of being a Polygamist to keep him from being seated in the US Senate. Charges proved to be blatantly false.



[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 2/6/2006 9:23p).]
Bracy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ibmagg:

If you can't read Hebrew, you've never actually read the "Old Testament."
bizag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:

Bizag.....Did you even read my orig post??

I mean honestly...Go back and re-read - or read - it and you will find questions, not statements or insinuations.....Your interpretation of my intention for the post is disturbing, to say the least....



Yes, you are right it was a little more subtle that some of the other posts I have seen about the LDS faith recently. That is why it irritated me, instead of posting what you think, you pose quesions designed to elicit responses about the wierd Mormons, but let others make the comments. Here is what I interpreted the post, "There seem to be a lot of posts recently about how idiotic Mormons are for their beliefs, Joseph Smith being a fraud, and Mormon people either being mislead (stupid) or trying to deceive others. Why don't I bring up a strange group, who I can claim have the same beliefs and get some of the same comments, with actually saying it myself." Do you really think you would get comments about this group. Take a look at the comments on the thread. Most LDS people don't even know who they are. I only know about Colorado City because I spent some time in Southern Utah at the National Parks in the area.

quote:

Tell you what...Do me a favor...Every time you see a Question Mark in my Orig Post, please answer it....



quote:

- What the members of the Mormon Church thought of this off-shot or "excommunicated group"?



Great, another opportunity for people to confuse some fanatical group with the LDS church and pose the question, "Do you have more than one wife, or Does your dad have more than one wife?" Or ask questions insinuating that I am a male chauvinist in some way. Yes, I have seriously been asked these questions. Most of this group has never been members the LDS church. They were nevery baptized and not excommunicated (how can someone who has not been a member of a group be excommunicated?)

quote:

- A civil matter - What do the folks in El Dorado TX do if the group takes over Gov't (it is an interesting question)?



How will they take over the government? by voting? Are you asking if this right should be taken away? Would you take this away from any group of people you thought strange, who determines this. Yes, I also think this group is strange, but I wouldn't propose that they not have the same rights that I enjoy.

quote:

- When, if ever, do Civil/Religious Freedoms become a sacrifice for perceived local safety or following local customs/norms?



The world changes all the time. I don't like all the changes either. Customs and norms change. I have moved from areas I didn't like or didn't move to a place I didn't like in the first place. I happen to like Texas more than any other state I have lived (9 states). I plan on staying here. I hope that doesn't make you feel unsafe or that I will take away your customs/norms.

quote:

- And, does the Triune God mandate some of the practices of the FLDS, and if not then is Cult or Sect status appropriate or fitting?



I don't know what the beliefs or practices of the FLDS church are, other than they are polygamous. I do not agree with this. I think you would need to ask the FLDS people about their beliefs.

On a final note, I hope you are trying to have a dialogue. I would ask you to put yourself in my shoes and look at the numerous posts lately that seem to be saying the same thing. "Mormons are mislead or trying to deceive others, Joseph Smith is a fraud, Mormons practiced polygamy and it is wrong." Everyone has different views on what is right, as for the polygamy, I am not, my father was not, my grandfather was not, and my great-grandfather was not and my great-great-grandfathers were not polygamists.

I understand you don't agree with the LDS faith. You and some others have made this VERY clear. Here is my question, Is this disagreement so deep that it would bother you to live next to a person of the LDS faith or be friendly with a LDS member? I don't hold this animosity towards Catholics, my wifes grandparents were all Catholic (and accepting of my wife beliefs)?



[This message has been edited by bizag (edited 2/7/2006 12:08a).]

[This message has been edited by bizag (edited 2/7/2006 12:12a).]
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well stated bizag!
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.