Candace Smith Patten
John Patten, Jr. and Candace Smith were newlyweds when John built their home in Manti, Utah. Constructed in 1854, the Patten home is now a museum that “stands as a symbol for the same industry, faith and hope” as does the LDS temple in Manti, according to Deseret News. The LDS Church-owned newspaper recently highlighted the Patten pioneer home, calling it “one of Manti’s treasures.” Deseret News reported,
“It served as a home to Patten and his two wives and their 13 children. (As was an accepted custom of the time, after the death of his first wife, Candance [sic] Smith, Patten married her sister Emily.)”
Whether or not that was an accepted custom of the time, that’s not what John actually did.
According to a Google-cached genealogical record on rootsweb (dated May 3, 2010), John married Candace’s widowed sister, Emily, as a plural wife 10 years before Candace’s death. On November 8, 1858, about a year and a half after John and Emily’s wedding, their first of five children was born.
If these records are accurate, in marrying his wife’s sister, John Patten, Jr. became a polygamist according to the dictates of his Mormon religion. But in doing so he ignored God’s law: “And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive” (Leviticus 18:18).
If Mormonism were true…. you'd expect them to be proud of their doctrine (for what it really is), proud of their history (their real one), proud of their prophets (and what they really did)…
but it's always with the cover-up, and trying to spin a little. Yikes, it never ends.
Mormonism is so filled with cover ups, spin, removing things that were said or taught and never any mention of that being made, and much other stuff, yet LDS do not seem to get this and/or dont care. Then people like Justin come along and say, LDS would never lie or do not lie. Tell exactly how spin, covering things up, denying it in the face of evidence, etc, is not lying?
The church is doing a deception game to become mainstream, and to get more political power – we can see that their main goal is to get Mitt Romney in the white house…
That´s the reason they cover stuff up, that´s what every con-man/group has to do to keep making a life out of deceiving people.
I really appreciate the comments here especially the observation from setfree about being proud of your religion. I can't get my head around how mormons today are so diffident about what they believe. When I was a Mormon we were proud of being different and of being "weird" in the eyes of the world. The Mormon Church, as Rick observed, is full of cover ups and always has been but f melo hit the nail on the head by saying its about Mitt Romney and the Whitehouse. They see the main chance and the first thing they do is backpedal, lie and deny. Jesus said that when Satan, the father of lies, tells lies he speaks his native tongue. If the shoe fits…
Mormon Apostle George Q. Cannon taught ,
" …..it is gratifying to know that we are only FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS of those who
have preceded us in the work of God, and that we, today, are only carrying out the principle
which God's people observed, in obedience to revelation from Him, thousands of years ago."
[ J.of D.v.13 p198 ]
The Church publication, Millennial Star , vol.19 p.473-474 said, " Among ancient Israel, marriage
was forbidden within certain degrees of consanguinity….The polygamist was not only laid under
the same restraints as the Monogamist, but placed under ADDITIONAL RESTRAINTS in reguard
to persons whom he should select as wives.
cont.
He was not permitted by the law of Moses to marry the sister of his wife,( see Lev 18:18 ) . Neither
was he permitted to marry any mother and daughter…..( Lev.20:14 )…. the Polygamist Israelite was
under a law restricting him within certain limits. Though he had a right to marry many wives, yet he
had no right to marry a mother and daughter or two sisters."
Question: did Joseph Smith FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS of the O.T. polygamists RESTRAINTS ?
[ the above are from, " For any LDS, one investigator's unanswered questions " p290 ]
Joseph Smith thought himself so powerful that he didn´t answer to the Bible – he answered only to himself and God was only his "right hand man"…
too bad for him that the Lord said:
Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
He rejected the very thing he claimed to be able to give people, his exaltation!
F-melo, perhaps you are correct about J.S. and the Bible. I just found it interesting how
Mormon leaders could give scriptural counsel through Church publications, and then
proceed to practice a lifestyle that contradicted that very counsel. To teach that a
man was forbidden to marry sisters, or a mother and daughter , and then proceed
to do that vey thing, signifies these men were not listening to God.
ww
The irony of that is when mormons come here accusing us of believing that faith in Christ is a free pass for a sinful lifestyle – but in the case of early mormonism, the priesthood was actually the free pass for you to do whatever you wanted…(but, of course, the only ones who got those benefits were the almighty leaders).
They are guilty of the same sin JS accused the religions of his time – they worship god with their mouths but their hearts are far away from him.
correction – actually JS accused all Christian religions of the world, and those accusations are still standing today.
I just found it interesting how
Mormon leaders could give scriptural counsel through Church publications, and then
proceed to practice a lifestyle that contradicted that very counsel.
f-melo, I'm sure our LDS friends would simply dismiss our concerns for them in
calling their attention to how their leaders are'nt reliable guides, by saying that
everything is ok because they have an inner witness from the Holy Ghost etc.
However, there are examples in Mormon history where sincere LDS had no
clue of what was going on with their leaders. One example: In the 1920's
Mormon Apostle Richard Lyman who for nearly the next two decades was in
an affair with another woman.Yet, for all those years he was consistantly
sustained as a leader. No doubt faithful LDS , submitting to their prophet
through personal revelation, kept sustaining him.
cont.
I wonder what faithful LDS would do if at Conference this year, Thomas Monson
would stand up and declare that he had been living true to the "Everlasting
Gospel" by practicing "the Principle", as revealed in D&C 132. So because
of this he was testifying that God had given him a revelation for the Church
that all faithful LDS are to now practice polygamy. What would happen ?
Are LDS ready for this ? Would they continue to obey their leaders cry to
" follow the prophet" ?
ww
cont.
Mormonism's sixth modern-day prophet testified before a U.S. Senate
committee many years after the 1890 promise that the Church made
with the government to stop it's practice of polygamy, that he had not
only broken the " laws of the State", but also the law his Church, in
his practicing of polygamy. How many sincere LDS will this year at
Conference quietly submit to their leaders who have told them ,
" When the prophet speaks the debate is over " , by raising their
hands in sustaining vote , never giving it a second thought ?
The sincere Mormon people are striving to serve God. May they be aware
of the false prophets among them. Matt 24:24 ; 2 Pt.2:1
I'm not a Mormon and never have been, though I had a "close encounter" when working in an office for about four years in which everybody else was a Mormon (two were Bishops).
Does anybody else get a sense that, effectively, much of Mormonism revolves around the worship of the family?
Essentially, then, it doesn't matter about which combinations of husbands and wives you get because, as long as Mom and Dad and the kids are together, it's OK.
Now, I'm NOT saying that family is not a good thing. Nobody here has to convince me that Dad + Mum + kids (+ extended family) provides the optimum environment for the well-being of everyone involved. In my experience it needs to be honored and vigorously defended, and in this context I'll support your everyday Mormon as he or she tries to do the right thing for the family.
However, the family is a created thing. It's a very precious thing, yes, but it's not worthy of our worship (in practical terms). It's like all of God's good creation. Rather like sex and the body, about which Paul writes euphamistically in 1 Cor 6:12-14
In other words, we need to honor the family (a practice that starts in bed), but the family is not the be-all and end-all – the Lord Jesus Christ is. We honor the Lord with our families, not vice versa.
Incidentally, I seriously suspect that Jesus saw a similar "worship of family" in the Pharisees. Think about it – they were so proud that they had been born into the "right" family, and they did everything they could to sustain their heritage. They thought that being physical descendants of Abraham entitled them to the Lord's covenant with Abraham (see Matt 3:9, Luke 3:8). Anyway, this is how I read Luke 14:26
In other words, you've got to relinquish your reliance on your "breeding" and you've got to put your faith in something else to be a follower of Christ; and that is Christ and Christ alone.
Martin,
The current president of the church has put out a new piece of what I like to call Mormon paraphenalia (things that you can buy at Walmart or Deseret Book, and clutter your walls with to show that you are being good). It has four phrases, and I'm not sure I can remember all four, but one of them is "You have a heritage, honor it!" Now, as an once-Mormon, I see that as a reminder that "if it was good enough for your grandparents, it's good enough for you."
The "family" does help GET IN THE WAY OF Christ, in this way as well. Just because one of your ancestors got sucked into Joseph's Myth, and their kids and grandkids and so on and so forth have decided not to question, but just to take, what has been handed to them and go on their merry way… the pressure to not deviate is A LOT. You start reading the Changing World of Mormonism, or something, and you're letting your entire family down. For generations.
I guess I can only remember one other of the other four, for now:
"You will face temptation. Overcome it!"
The Mormon religious solution: Be Good!
So helpful.
lol
Love your insights, as always, Martin.
General conference: All about pornography. Again.
(in 8 hours of conference i almost didn´t hear anything about Jesus… but there were lots of praise to Thomas Monson)
Interesting, we have here a group of Evangelicals who not only seem to be unashamedly acknowledging that God sanctioned (and not merely "tolerated") polygamy in the Law of Moses, but they have even gotten out their Bibles & are condemning the specifics of the ways in which Mormons practiced polygamy versus how the Law of Moses ordained for it to be practiced.
But before we get overly condemnatory towards the Mormons & their biblical failings, I suggest you read the very next verse (19) & ask yourself when was the last time you failed to so much as touch your wife (never mind, sexually so) during her menstrual cycle?
And having said that, I don't intend to end simply by throwing the Law of Moses "back atchas." (After all, Mormons & Protestants have more or less the same theological reasons for rejecting the Law as fully relevant in post-salvation history).
No, my quibble isn't just with the hypocrisy, but with the exegesis as well. (Or the assumed exegesis, anyways.) We must be careful when we are dealing with the legalese of the Torah. You will first notice that unlike many of the laws in Leviticus 18, the one forbidding wife-sister polygamy (vs 18) is not classified as either "depraved" or "unclean." This is one indicator that we are not dealing with a statute, but with an admonition. In this spirit, some translations of this verse understand it to read that a man is forbidden to marry his wife's sister "to vex her." In other words, if he is to take a second wife (which was his legal right under the Law of Moses, of course), in the case of taking his wife's sibling, the wife is suppose to have had a say in the matter (otherwise, she apparently did not have a say in his desires to take additional women). Even still, the weakness of the language in vs 18 seems to suggest that ultimately the wife couldn't have legally stopped her husband for taking her sister, even if she didn't approve. But the husband was to know that the LORD did not approve of his actions if that is indeed what he chose to do.
Truth be told, Mormon polygamy very typically involved sisters because they often were the ones most comfortable in sharing a man and household with one another. I have a hard time believing that such wasn't also the case in antiquity. I doubt Father Jacob was the last of his namesake tribe to betroth daughters of the same father.
Just a thought for my fellow Bible-believers to consider.
Sincerely,
mutu.
Mormon polygamy most often involved sisters because siblings were easier prey. If ya got one, you can work on her to get others.
Mantis Mutu,
Here is the problem I have with what your saying. God never said we could practice polygamy, He knew it would happen, but never said, you must do this. JS and other LDS claimed God Commanded things that He never did.
Then For many years in the LDS teachings, the issue of JS and plural wives was denied, JS never did that, or never allowed it or those kind of cover up's. It's one thing for us Christians to admit, yes this stuff was done in the Bible, it's another thing for us to practice it and then say were not, or to say God commanded it when He never did that.
To further clarify on my exegesis, the issue of Lev 18:18 wasn't the depravity or uncleaness of a man marrying & bearing children to blood sisters. This was not considered an incestuous affair, as many assume. The Law almost always classifies such infractions as a "depravity"/"abomination." The text doesn't classify wife-sister polygamy as such. Rather, the issue seems to have concerned the wishes of the wife (& thus, applied only "for as long as she lived"). While the Law of Moses did not give her jurisdiction over her husband's marital affairs, she was granted a say over the household of her own rearing (but, as I said, her "say" did not seem to amount to true jurisdiction, & she therefore seems to have had no legal power to stop her husband from marrying a sister against her wishes). Even still, the Law did at least respect & acknowledge her rightful say over her own native household — & told the husband that he was to respect & acknowledge her right in that regard.
There is no good reason to believe that sisters didn't often share the same husband in ancient Israel — as is typical of most polygamous cultures. But who wants to share a husband with a woman who has proven to be your rival since childhood? As in modern times, siblings in antiquity were sometimes very dear friends, & sometimes, unfortunately, not friends at all.
And this calls to question the accuracy of a good many translations of the Bible out there. On a trite matter, perhaps — for us, anyways. But a legitimate question of literary accuracy all the same. As all translators are well aware, the Bible is chock-full of such literary challenges.
Sincerely, mutu.
"And having said that, I don't intend to end simply by throwing the Law of Moses "back atchas."
Yes, but mormons resurrected the old law of moses and mixed it with some teachings of Christ – Joseph pretty much made up a new set of laws, picking and choosing from both Old and New Testaments without any consistency whatsoever – and your entire apologetic tactics hang on the Old Testament, specially the Law of Moses… that´s what you use to justify your practice of poligamy. So, if you can use it to justify it, why can´t "we" use it to see if you´re doing it according to the scriptures?
"This is one indicator that we are not dealing with a statute, but with an admonition"
Actually your exegesis is the poor one, if you can call that exegesis at all. Let´s read the verse again(i´ve actually read the entire chapter):
Lev 18:18 "And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive."
I don´t know about you but the "you shall not" sounds to me just the like the "you shall nots" of the 10 commandments – and they don´t say anything about being "depraved" or "unclean."
By your own logic then Lev. 18:21 "You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD" is not a statute, but an admonition. Maybe you mean that "the LORD did not approve of" offering your children to Molech, even though God "couldn't have legally stopped" him. What kind of logic is that?
"And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister" – Well, how else could a man take a wife´s sister to wife without making them rivals? Again, your logic is lacking.
"Truth be told, Mormon polygamy very typically involved sisters because they often were the ones most comfortable in sharing a man and household with one another. I have a hard time believing that such wasn't also the case in antiquity. "
HUH?!? Have you ever read about Rachel and Leah? You know, their lives as rival-wives wasn´t as fun as you would have us imagine, just read their history in Genesis again to see all the bickering and disputes between the two – then come back here and convince us "that such wasn't also the case in antiquity."
"Just a thought for my fellow Bible-believers to consider."
I´m not your fellow Bible-believer. I don´t believe the Bible has been corrupted, let alone that it can be replaced by teachings of living "prophets".
"No, my quibble isn't just with the hypocrisy"
Don´t get me started – about that i think Rick answered it very well. The real hypocrisy here is that you take the Bible as true when it serves your agenda – but as soon as it contradicts it, well, the Bible is no longer reliable and it has been translated so many times, how could anyone know what it really says…
f melo: Actually your exegesis is the poor one, if you can call that exegesis at all. Let´s read the verse again(i´ve actually read the entire chapter):
Lev 18:18 "And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive."
Actually, melo, what is "poor" here is your ESV translation, which would have us believe that the verb tsarar (to vex, distress, oppress) should be understood as a adjectival element within a prepositional phrase ("as a rival wife"). Not only is tsarar not an adjective here, there is absolutely no justification for "as" or this second occurrence of "wife"/woman. These last two words are provided as filler to make the mis-translated adjective work in the sentence. Like all Bibles that tend to stray from a literal translation of the Hebrew text, the ESV sacrifices textual integrity for what it believes to be literary clarity. In reality, the "clear" reading it's provided amounts to an interpolation which promotes a reading that's not likely what the author had in mind. If the Hebrew text is in some degree ambiguous, then the most honest rendering of the text is to preserve its ambiguity through a literal (word-for-word) translation into English. As I explained, the Leviticus text doesn't forbid a man from taking his wife's sister, but specifically forbids him from taking "his wife's sister to vex [her]." While there is indeed some ambiguity in the text, unlike the ESV, the Strong's enhanced KJV text (which I'm quoting) acknowledges that ambiguity by bracketing the possessive "her." Say what you will about my intentions, melo, but Strong's text & lexicon favors the reading that I provided, as do a good many non-Mormon commentators. The likely issue in Lev 18:18 wasn't regarding the rightness or wrongness of a man marrying his wife's sister, but in marrying his wife's sister against her wishes.
As for your parting shot, melo: "The real hypocrisy here is that you take the Bible as true when it serves your agenda – but as soon as it contradicts it, well, the Bible is no longer reliable and it has been translated so many times, how could anyone know what it really says…"
What I see here is a group of people rallying around a poor biblical translation that endorses a reading that conveniently "serves (their) agenda" – the clear agenda to denounce Mormons as unbiblical. "You take (a single) Bible (translation) as true when it serves your agenda – but as soon as (someone provides sound biblical reasoning that) contradicts it, well," it's just convenient to fall back on your single translation as if it came straight from the Lord's finger on Sinai. Sorry to inform you, melo, but the ESV is an easy-reading edition that is not literalistic in its translation scheme, & is not widely respected as a critical rendering of the text. If you really respected the word of God as you claim, you would not so easily denounce my arguments. They're arguments that have the Hebrew text in mind, & the ancient Hebrew culture as well.
Regardless of Mormon history, Israelite history was far more entrenched in polygamy than most modern Christians are willing to admit. In fact, several of the Reformers (including Luther) weren't against criticizing how thoroughly monogamy had become entrenched in Christian ethics over the centuries. There's no good biblical reason for it. It's a reflection of Classical ethics, plain & simple — not biblical.
Sincerely, mutu.
Well, Rick, that's because you don't believe that God spoke through Joseph Smith. While I'll admit that the Bible nowhere in which I'm aware commands polygamy — as it was in the revelations to Joseph & later in the preaching of Brigham — neither does it proscribe polygamy or treat it in a way that we should categorically denounce as "unchristian" or "unbiblical" post-biblical revelations that claim the Lord to reinstate it.
The real issue here has nothing to do with polygamy, but in the sanctity of post-biblical revelation. That the Lord would call and speak through prophets in the modern era as he did in biblical times.
As for there being denial of JS's involvement with polygamy, you're simply misinformed. The only ones who denied JS's involvement with polygamy were the RLDS (Missouri based) Church, though nowadays they have "repented" of their century-plus denial. While many Mormons & even some of the LDS leadership show signs of being ashamed of their polygamous history in ways that fairly invite criticism from insiders & outsiders alike, they have never been in denial of JS's polygamy. The general secrecy of polygamy was limited to the Nauvoo period & for several years after (for all except Joseph, the 12 apostles, & their wives & select others), & it became openly acknowledged in 1853, I believe — & soon after strongly admonished & even commanded of the general church membership (though no more than a third of the eligible male members seemed to have followed it even in its most popular era). Most men in those early western settlements never had the means to afford or reasonably attract more than one wife. Their lives for the most part were very hard & simple. But for those who could establish polygamous households, they proved incredibly self-efficient for the isolated life on the very difficult & infertile frontier. Even many non-LDS historians acknowledge that polygamy played an important role in the Mormon's seemingly impossible task of pioneering the valleys of the Rockies.
For many of us believing Mormons, we see the command to practice polygamy as we do all the prophetic commands of the Bible — it provided a way of blessing to the faithful.
Sincerely, mutu.
Thanks for your reply setfree,
I was actually thinking it could me more serious than an admonition to "be good".
What I meant was that the Mormon idea of God is subjugated to the Mormon idea of family. In other words, God is made to 'fit' into the family environment. The trouble is, 'family' can be a rather fluid concept, which can include, among other combinations, one husband and plural wives, which allows Mormonism to justify its ever-changing theology (there is One God/there are many Gods, God is eternal/God has a father and a mother).
So, the 'family' becomes the fixed point or datum, and God is remolded to suit, which is, of course, a reversal of the created order. The family therefore becomes, for all practical intents and purposes, a false god.
Mutu wrote
You've got a real problem here, mutu, because Joseph and the Prophets declared that the Bible did command polygamy.
My point is not whether polygamy is commanded in the Bible (it's not, as you rightly point out), or whether Joseph and his successors commanded it (they did). My point is that Joseph and his successors claimed that it was commanded in the Bible (see D&C 132), which it wasn't.
The conclusion is inescapable – they got it wrong.
mutu,
You find enough legal loopholes to make any lawyer proud.
Actually, I find your weasel-words utterly unconvincing, but before wrangling the details I've got to ask you one question;
Why, in heaven's name, are you trying to justify yourself on the basis of law?
Haven't you read Galatians 2:6, among many other verses in what you claim to be the Word of God?
Let me remind you
Mantis,
How can the NT teach a LEADER is supposed to have ONE WIFE, That was what God said way back in the beginning, Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Eve, and Shelli, and Jane, and Rachel Etc. Then Smith comes along and says, God said multiple wives, and then BY ran with it and said, we will be damned if we do not practice polygamy since it is a LAW OF GOD. Then then US said, Stop doing that and the LDS caved and said OK, it is no longer of God. WHAT THE …….
Your kidding, God can be put aside that easy? Please, cannot you really see how stupid this is?
" As I explained, the Leviticus text doesn't forbid a man from taking his wife's sister, but specifically forbids him from taking "his wife's sister to vex [her].""
Sorry, man, but when you put the verse in the context of the chapter, it doesn´t say that at all – as i explained in my last post.
Alright then – let´s address that verse as found in the KJV, using the same kind of logic:
Lev 18:18 "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time."
Besides the reason "to vex her" we also have "to uncover her nakedness". They both go together, you can´t exclude one condition from the other. So i suppose the guy could marry a wife´s sister and live with her without uncovering her nakedness – yeah, right! Ýou would see it if you stopped taking scripture out of context.
"What I see here is a group of people rallying around a poor biblical translation that endorses a reading that conveniently "serves (their) agenda" – the clear agenda to denounce Mormons as unbiblical."
Well, i answered you using the KJV! Happy now? What´s my agenda now?
"If you really respected the word of God as you claim, you would not so easily denounce my arguments"
I just did!
Question: You quoted my closing remarks without really addressing them – do you believe the Bible has been corrupted? If you do, then my remarks are correct, and you can cry all you want.
"In fact, several of the Reformers (including Luther) weren't against criticizing how thoroughly monogamy had become entrenched in Christian ethics over the centuries. There's no good biblical reason for it. It's a reflection of Classical ethics, plain & simple — not biblical. "
You know, you need to tell God he forgot to create more women for Adam other than Eve. I honestly can´t see if God wanted to populate the planet why then not give Adam 20 – 30 wives? hmmm…
What about the admonition in 1Ti 3:12 "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well".
Maybe Paul was mistaken, maybe it should read "Let the deacons be the husbands of 30 wives…"
"It's a reflection of Classical ethics, plain & simple — not biblical. "
What an absurd… polygamy is better suited as a reflection of ancient customs and not biblical, because you never see God commanding anybody to take more than one wife… if you want to live polygamy that´s your problem, but don´t go around deceiving people telling them to do so because "god commanded", and "only those who live this principle will be gods in the hereafter" – that´s not biblical at all!
"we should categorically denounce as "unchristian" or "unbiblical" post-biblical revelations that claim the Lord to reinstate it. "
for God to reinstate something, it means that it was previously instated – i can see your word games here, very subtle… and you just shoot yourself in the foot, since by saying that you proved it not to be biblical.
"The real issue here has nothing to do with polygamy, but in the sanctity of post-biblical revelation"
Which ones, the originals in the book of commandments, or the edited revelations that came later in D&C?
"For many of us believing Mormons, we see the command to practice polygamy as we do all the prophetic commands of the Bible — it provided a way of blessing to the faithful"
Sure – it´s a new Law of Moses. I question, why did the leaders of the church discard that "commandment" easily after government pressure? shouldn´t they have remained faithful as the now fundamentalist mormons?
In 1869 Wilford Woodruff, the church´s future fourth president, taught,
"If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 – p.166).
The voice of the Lord is weak, worthless if he really speaks through those men you call prophets.
Worse than that – their God is a polygamous man, and polygamy is an eternal celestial principle, and unless you live it you can´t attain that highest glory.
Polygamy is at the core of mormonism even though the members are not caring about it at the moment.
I wonder how an investigator would react if the missionaries taught that straightforward, without the feel good emotional conditioning they mistake by the Holy Ghost.
sorry for sidetracking from your point, Martin.
Mantis Mutu said to me,
Let me say that you are correct, I do not believe God spoke to or through JS. But you do believe God did speak to JS, So since you believe that, then how do you reply to this.
You guys no longer hold to this teaching.
But lets say you try and find away to blow off the teachings of your prophets in the JoD, Then how do you reply to your Doctrine found in the D and C?
I will provide more as needed.
Mormonism is a make up as you go religion.
Mantis, good to hear from you again. I'd like to comment on some of the things that you have said. You said, " But before we get overly condemnatory towards the Mormons and their biblical failings ….." I don't look at it that way, rather the issue is Mormon prophets and apostles realiability in dis-pensing scriptual truths. Mantis, thanks for your opinion on Leviticus 18 and the practices in the Mosiac Law, but your attempt to justify aspects of LDS leaders practice of polygamy raised more questions than answers. A man could marry his wife's sister IF she approved, other wise his action would not meet with God's approval. I think that gaining God's approval is what's important. It was Mormon sources that were referenced in regard to Leviticus 18 & 20 { Mill. Star Vol. 19, see my former post } Were Mormon leaders consistant with this ? Was their behavior approved by God ?
con't Your " exegesis " on marriage law in Moses' time was interesting, but I am more concerned
how Mormon leaders viewed the Old Testiment Laws, after all their counsel to all is to " follow
the prophet " Does this sound like it came from Moses? " I understand the law of celestial marriage
to mean that every man in this church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteous and will
not, shall be damned, I say I understand this to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name
of Jesus that it does mean that. " { Joseph F Smith, JofDv20, page 31 }. Another thing, if polygamy
was " legal " under Moses then why was it illegal under the official position of the restored church, by
Joseph Smith?
con't You said concerning a plural sister wife under Moses, "…..she therefore seems to have had
not legal power to stop her husband from marrying a sister against her wishes…." I am glad that
you brought up the legallity part. Did early LDS have any legal power to confront and stop theirs
leaders clandestine polygamist relationships in the 1830s and 1840s, " After all the official /legal
position at that time was one man marrying one woman. Mormon Leaders started by secretly
rejecting the law of the land and then moved likewise to reject the law that they held the Mormon
faithful to, even at one point in 1844 excommunicating a member for teaching false doctrines,
one of which was polygamy ( apparently he knew too much of his leaders hidden lives ). Then in
1890 they again rejected their own law of marriage and submitted again to the law of the land.
Some of them even then secretly broke the law of the land and their church again.
cont. You said, " ….many Mormons and even some of the LDS leadership show signs of
being ashamed of their polygamist history…" Mantis, why would that be ? Are these Leaders
ashamed of their predecessors counseling the Saints to " follow the prophet"? Mormon
heirachy have said that , " When the prophet speaks ,the debate is over" Right now what
quarantee do you have that you're not being led astray by Mormon prophets and apostles?
Did you sustain your leaders recently? How do you know some of them are'nt polgamists
in secret today? May you follow Him who alone can guide you into saving truth. [ Heb7:25 ]
No problem,
I still don't see an answer to my question, though; does Mormonism worship the family?
(Or, am I just making it up?)
I cannot help it, I must state the obvious, When ever someone shows the LDS from THERE SCRIPTURE how it contradicts what the Bible says, or God said, or even their own prophets, the LDS seem to all of a sudden stop replying. Why would that be? HMMMM…. I could guess that just like Scripture says, their hearts are darkened and they want to believe lies. I mean I showed from the LDS D and C and I gave quotes from their prophets and presidents, and guess what, No more reply from Mantis. Come on guys, you tell us were wrong, then we provide evidence and you go away. This is serious, your headed to eternal death and asking people to join you and you seem like you could care less by not looking into this stuff. Why is that?
Hi Martin. You're correct in how you see the Mormonism's concept of God . Mormon
leaders, in the defense of polygamy, declared that polygamy was the " pattern " in
heaven. Since God was a polygamist, so should his followers emulate Him. The
Mormom concept of God is'nt any higher than common man 's view of himself .
ww
Yes, mormonism does worship the family.
Most of the church´s salvation ordinances are centered on the family. Eternal marriage is essential for salvation – and interestingly, if you are not married or sealed with someone for eternity you can´t become god; therefore god himself is subject to that rule! The family (through the sealing) becomes the means of exaltation in the highest degree of glory – the suffering of Christ (in the garden) just gives a free-choice pass to be married in the temple or not, according to a person´s desires.
You´re 100% correct in you assertions!
In mormonism truth doesn´t mean truth. Truth means whatever your leaders tell you it means, and your spiritual feelings are there to confirm it against all evidence.
" I could guess that just like Scripture says, their hearts are darkened and they want to believe lies."
You said it all. As a LDS for many years i was once also like those guys, i blindly defended the church – the criticism wouldn´t hit me, because i was convinced i already had the truth and everything else was the Devil trying to deceive me. It was that pride and arrogance that closed my eyes to the truth, but thankfully, God in His mercy opened my eyes to it, took my pride down, and opened His words to my understanding!
So, keep it up with your efforts, because when God starts acting on peoples lives, they will be looking for answers, and this blog and those very helpful and unapologetic comments will be important to guide people in the right direction!
f_melo,
I am not going anywhere, unless I die or am raptured. Also I will keep up with my unapologetic comments.