Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Carbon Dioxide's Anti-Mormon Training Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You make him sound like a contributing author to FairMormon.org.
    his argument came directly from there.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_a...s_the_practice

    Source: Fairmormon

    Critics generally refrain from citing the very next verse:

    30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30).

    © Copyright Original Source



    Which still begs the question of why God keeps changing his mind about polygamy, one minute it is an abominable practice, the next it is required to be exalted, and then it is abominable again.

    Mormons seem to think "abomination" simply means "not required at the moment"

    So I guess God could at any instant change his mind on other abominations, like homosexual behavior.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      Not all of the men were true to the faith, and not all of the men were in the position to support a family. So, the number of men is not the whole issue.
      Jeff? Is that you?
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        For starters, I have to give 7up some props for at least attempting to answer a lot of the issues brought up here when no one else will. (Though we do seem to have to prompt you to respond to posts/points you've overlooked.) Carbon Dioxide hasn't been on this thread (though maybe he hasn't visited the forum since it started), and back when I first came here, OC and Jeff and the others didn't seem too keen on responding to hard questions. And you can forget about a non-LDS being allowed to bring up hard questions on an LDS-run forum. Anyway, I do appreciate your willingness to debate, 7up.

        I am referencing the site wivesofjosephsmith.org in this post, which is a site owned by a lifelong LDS member whose goal is to provide information about polygamy without anti-Mormon rhetoric.

        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        So, the Book of Mormon text says that one wife is the standard, but in different situations there may be polygamy in specific times if God commands it.

        Even killing another human being can be categorized in this way. There are some situations where killing another man may be justified.
        This is, on the surface, a legit argument. God has in the past commanded people to do things that would be horrific sins if someone decided to do them on their own. E.g. Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac and the genocides carried out by Israel.

        But if we compare these cases, it turns out there is a big difference between the supposed command to have multiple wives and the commands to kill in the OT.

        1. The people who were to carry out the commands clearly knew the commands were from God. Abraham had seen miraculous signs from God and heard his voice before, so he knew when God was speaking to him. The army that cleared out the Promised Land for the most part got their commands from Joshua, who they knew to be Moses' legit successor and who God used to perform at least one miraculous sign in front of the nation (parting the Jordan). Peter, before being told to preach to Gentiles in a Gentile house, had a vision from heaven. The early church either saw or had reports from reliable witnesses that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. Etc.

        What evidence did the average LDS family have that the "command" to practice polygamy was actually from God and not Joseph Smith? I don't recall hearing of Smith performing any public miracles -- people had to take Smith's word that he'd had a revelation, or the word of his pals that he "translated" the LDS scriptures.

        From the story of Mary Lightner:

        Source: WivesOfJosephSmith.org


        Initially, Mary did not accept Joseph’s proposal. She wanted a witness from God. Mary recalls, “If ever a poor mortal prayed I did”. By February 1842 Joseph had convinced her it was a correct principle and she, “went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing...for time, and all Eternity.”

        © Copyright Original Source



        Why didn't God give Mary a clear sign, when he supposedly wanted Joseph to marry her so badly that he had threatened to kill Joseph for not obeying on three separate occasions (same link)?

        2. There are legitimate explanations for why God commands what was previously or normally forbidden. Abraham was obviously being tested. Jesus explained about foods not being unclean in and of themselves. Peter's vision explained that "unclean" things had been made clean. The Israelites were told why the nations they were wiping out were being punished. Granted, I don't think the Bible says straight out why God used them to punish the nations, but I suspect it had to do with them seeing firsthand the punishment for idolatry and other sins that they as a nation turned out to be very prone to.

        The explanation given for LDS polygamy is so that the LDS church would grow. I already mentioned that God caused the Israelite nation to grow from an infertile couple. But let's look at the whole history of the Bible:
        • God populates the earth from one couple
        • God repopulates the earth from 4 couples
        • God creates a nation for himself via Abraham and Sarah, who were infertile, and whose family experienced infertility issues for the next two generations
        • God caused a family of 70 to become so numerous that the Egyptians felt threatened by them. Despite the Egyptians' subsequent persecution, designed at reducing their numbers, God not only preserved Moses but protected other babies through the Hebrew midwives
        • God intentionally decimated the Israelites as punishment and exiled them, but kept a remnant alive and returned them to Jerusalem
        • Meanwhile, God causes prophets (Samuel, John the Baptist) to be born to infertile parents
        • God causes his Son to be born of a virgin
        • God grows his church and spreads his gospel message throughout the known world, not only in spite of intense persecution but using the persecution to further the spread


        Yet suddenly, when we reach the time of Joseph Smith, God no longer appears capable of growing the church by causing marriages to be fruitful and enabling people to recognize his truth. And God is apparently so desparate that he doesn't just command single people to get married -- he commands polygamy, even polyamory (Mary Lightner was already married when she married Joseph Smith).

        3. The commands God gave in the Bible were out in the open, at least to the Israelites or whoever was expected to obey them. The only exceptions I can think of were Abraham not telling Isaac about his sacrifice until the last minute and kings being anointed in secret to avoid the wrath of the current king. Those were one-time acts. Every other command God gave was carried out openly, even when it put the person's life at risk. Prophets announced punishment from God and risked their lives, and sometimes died. The early church wouldn't shut up about Jesus, even when persecuted and told to stop by the authorities, again at great cost.

        Joseph Smith lied repeatedly about his polygamy and kept it a secret as much as possible. FAIRMormon's response:

        Source: FairMormon


        It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.

        http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smit...ding_the_truth

        © Copyright Original Source



        Really? This command was so important that God threatened both Joseph and Emma with death for refusing to submit to it. Wouldn't it have been important for other church members to obey as well? Yet God was okay with Joseph not only not teaching it for some time, but teaching it and then immediately retracting it (documented in the link above). When has God ever in the Bible endorsed a prophet or teacher not teaching God's people his commands?

        If God wanted polygamy carried out so badly that he threatened Joseph and Emma with divine punishment, why would he not do the same for those who opposed Joseph's teaching and practicing it publicly?

        4. In Joseph's case, we have God telling him via angel to marry Mary Lightner or face certain death on three separate occasions over a period of eight years.

        Source: WivesOfJosephSmith.org


        According to Mary, Joseph said, “The angel came to me three times between the year of ’34 and ’42 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.”

        http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/09...nsLightner.htm

        © Copyright Original Source



        I can find three instances in the Bible of an angel with a sword showing up to do business with someone, and all three times the person obeys immediately. There's Balaam and the donkey in Numbers 22, David in 1 Chronicles 21 and Joshua in Joshua 5:13-15. Joshua and David do as commanded immediately, and in David's case the angel sticks around while he builds an altar and offers sacrifices. Balaam is already on his way to his destination and goes there and obeys God.

        Yet Joseph would have us -- or rather Mary -- believe that an angel shows up threatening to slay him if he doesn't do what God commands, but then gives him eight years to get around to doing it -- and doesn't provide Mary with any sign, when that's the only reason she's holding back.

        5. In the Bible, when God gives a command that people have honest reason to object to because it contradicts a former command, he is understanding and gracious. (Even when he's just announcing what he plans to do, when the person he's telling it to is upset and asks him to relent, he does.) God understood that Joseph, Mary's husband, would assume she was a slut and told him directly that it was okay to marry her. God gave Peter a vision so he would know it was okay to go to a Gentile house and preach the gospel. Etc.

        When the people around Joseph Smith objected to polygamy, Joseph either backed down and lied, or he told them about his visions of destruction. Did anyone besides Joseph hear directly from God on this issue? Again, why did Emma, Mary, etc. not get a direct confirmation from God when they objected to what was clearly a sin and therefore the only way it could possibly be right was if it were directly commanded by God?

        If something is clearly wrong, it's wrong unless God makes it really clear that he is directly commanding otherwise. This is the clear teaching and pattern of the Bible. What happens when someone chooses to follow what a prophet claiming to speak for God says over following a direct command of God? 1 Kings 13 is what happens. If anyone claims to speak for God, and says people should do something different than what God has already told them to do, and they give no sign of having divine authority to say so and there is no direct confirmation from God, it's wrong to obey them. That is the clear teaching of 1 Kings 13.

        Now let me ask you something, and this is an honest question. I would expect you to say that if God clearly commanded you to take another wife, you would obey him. I don't have a problem with you saying you will obey a direct command from God, even if it goes against what God has said previously. What I would like to know is, would you do so if it wasn't a direct command from God? If the authorities in the LDS church start claiming they've had a revelation from God that he's commanding polygamy again, are you going to take their word for it? IIRC, you wouldn't just take their word for it if they started teaching ex nihilo.

        If you would take their word for it, why? If you wouldn't, why are you taking Joseph Smith's word for it?

        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        So, in your church, do you wait around constantly for miracles to happen? Do you just sit around and wait for God to do everything for you? Does God expect us to do nothing at all?
        I'm not impressed with your response here. If you didn't get the point I was making before, I hope you do now.

        Of course God wants people to act, and works through them to accomplish his goals. You're setting up a false dichotomy. There is no reason why God could not have worked to increase the LDS church as he increased his people in the past, without resorting to less-desirable measures like polygamy.

        God using polygamy to increase his church is the equivalent of God telling the Israelite army, "You guys need to be tougher to defeat this next enemy, so I want all of you to start eating bacon." And Joseph Smith's carrying out this command is the equivalent of the commander of the army eating not just bacon, but raw pig meat with blood in it. If God were seriously commanding polygamy, wouldn't he at least expect the LDS church to obey the guidelines he gave the Israelites when he tolerated their polygamy? As in not marrying two sisters, or a woman and her daughter? And not marrying women who already had husbands?

        Source: WivesOfJosephSmith.org


        Patty wrote in her journal: “I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo, for time and all eternity...Sylvia my daughter was presant when I was sealed”. Patty was 47. Her daughter Sylvia had married Joseph a month earlier on February 8. (http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/10...ttSessions.htm)

        Four days after his marriage to Emily, Joseph married Emily’s sister, Eliza. (http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/20...aPartridge.htm)

        © Copyright Original Source



        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        For starters, Joseph was sealed to many, many people without actually having sexual intercourse with all of them.
        Wow, there were some LDS women Joseph didn't sleep with! Let's give him a medal of honor!

        Originally posted by 7up
        Second, this was an extremely difficult thing to do, and it wasn't always handled the right way. I cannot claim that I would be able to handle it well either.
        "Mistakes were made." --Richard Nixon

        Are you going into politics? You'd gain a lot more credibility, with me at least, if you would at least openly admit that Joseph Smith really screwed up and shouldn't have lied and shouldn't have married sisters, already-married women or mothers and daughters.

        Why are you defending this, anyway? (Another honest question.) Does it really make sense to you that God commanded polygamy? Or is it something that you're defending because if it isn't true, then it throws Joseph's credibility as a prophet into question? (I'm not blaming you if it's the latter; there are things I defend about the Bible because they're in the Bible, not because I like them.)
        Last edited by Kind Debater; 06-02-2014, 09:21 AM. Reason: cleanup

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          his argument came directly from there.

          http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_a...s_the_practice

          Source: Fairmormon

          Critics generally refrain from citing the very next verse:

          30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30).

          © Copyright Original Source

          Looking at the greater context of a passage is hardly a unique argument.

          So I guess God could at any instant change his mind on other abominations, like homosexual behavior.
          Given the PR-savviness of the LDS church, I fully expect they will reverse course on homosexuality once it becomes clear that only us crazy fanatics who uphold the integrity of the Bible are going to be against homosexual relationships. If they've learned from their delay in renouncing racism, they will probably do it sooner than that.

          Heck, if society continues the downward slide it's on, polyamory will be fully accepted, and then they can have a "revelation" that multiple spouses are okay again.

          Comment


          • #35
            EXCELLENT post, KD.... and some new information of which I was unaware.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              You make him sound like a contributing author to FairMormon.org.
              No, he just steals most of his arguments from them.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                Looking at the greater context of a passage is hardly a unique argument.



                Given the PR-savviness of the LDS church, I fully expect they will reverse course on homosexuality once it becomes clear that only us crazy fanatics who uphold the integrity of the Bible are going to be against homosexual relationships. If they've learned from their delay in renouncing racism, they will probably do it sooner than that.

                Heck, if society continues the downward slide it's on, polyamory will be fully accepted, and then they can have a "revelation" that multiple spouses are okay again.
                yup. And I second Cow Poke. Your post to 7up was thorough and informative.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Thanks, CP and Sparko!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    So, Cow Poke, can you think of any examples where God destroys, or threatens to destroy people who are not willing to follow God's commandments?

                    I will continue to respond to your mockery, as soon as you explain, in detail .... Let's say , for fun ... Genesis 38:9-10 , where God killed a man for disobeying his orders to impregnate his dead brother's wife.


                    -7up
                    So, rather than give a typical Mormonic evasive answer, can you please try again to actually address the OP?
                    Today's lesson is "Why God would give Smith a "revelation" threatening his dear sweet and obedient wife with DESTRUCTION if she didn't go along with Smith's polygamy scheme which was subsequently recalled".
                    Thanks
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      How to answer Christians...

                      1. Answer the question they should have asked.
                      2. If that doesn't work, use the "yeah but you guys did the same thing" defense.
                      3. If that doesn't work, accuse them of being "anti-mormons" and not worthy of your answers.
                      4. If that doesn't work, throw the Prophet under the bus with "well he was just a man and got some things wrong" excuse. (You can use this in place of #2-3 also)
                      5. run away.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I just added my own comments following the -----------

                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        How to answer Christians...

                        1. Answer the question they should have asked.
                        --------OR just go off on a totally unrelated rant!
                        2. If that doesn't work, use the "yeah but you guys did the same thing" defense.
                        --------Throw the FOR REALLY Prophets or Patriarchs under the bus, or even your OWN "prophets"
                        3. If that doesn't work, accuse them of being "anti-mormons" and not worthy of your answers.
                        --------AND accuse them of using "anti-mormon sources" even when they cite fairmormon.org and lds.org
                        4. If that doesn't work, throw the Prophet under the bus with "well he was just a man and got some things wrong" excuse. (You can use this in place of #2-3 also)
                        --------OR, at "that point" he was merely expressing his own opinion, in spite of the fact that he was "waxing prophetic".
                        5. run away.
                        --------That appears to be the case on the Emma Smith topic.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Today's lesson is "Why God would give Smith a "revelation" threatening his dear sweet and obedient wife with DESTRUCTION if she didn't go along with Smith's polygamy scheme which was subsequently recalled".




                          CP steps away from the blackboard, and hands CD the chalk......
                          Perhaps you find the following language to be more appealing to those who choose to violate a commandment by God:

                          1 Corinthians 11:29: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh DAMNATION to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by carbon dioxide View Post
                            Perhaps you find the following language to be more appealing to those who choose to violate a commandment by God:

                            1 Corinthians 11:29: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh DAMNATION to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
                            Now, if Paul made up a new rule that benefited himself, but violated acceptable practice, then used God as an excuse to threaten people who didn't go along with his new rule, THAT might be more "same".

                            So, no -- not even close -- the Lord's Supper was something instituted by Jesus --- not some self-proclaimed prophet.

                            Try again.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by carbon dioxide View Post
                              Perhaps you find the following language to be more appealing to those who choose to violate a commandment by God:

                              1 Corinthians 11:29: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh DAMNATION to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
                              This is not for Paul's benefit like Joseph Smith's threat was for his benefit. Trying to compare the two is beyond stupid.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Now, if Paul made up a new rule that benefited himself, but violated acceptable practice, then used God as an excuse to threaten people who didn't go along with his new rule, THAT might be more "same".

                                So, no -- not even close -- the Lord's Supper was something instituted by Jesus --- not some self-proclaimed prophet.

                                Try again.

                                Joseph Smith did not "benefit" from "a new rule" that he "made up".

                                Joseph Smith feared damnation for himself if he did not comply with God's will.

                                You are simply arguing from your pre-conceived notion that Joseph invented the concept, and attempting to impose your assumption on others from there.

                                -7up

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Sparko, 04-04-2019, 02:28 PM
                                26 responses
                                11,370 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X