It was against Illinois law. See two posts up.

Yes, but it was not the "law of the land" per se, which was the inference made by the poster. Additionally, polygamy is still legal in many countries today, thus one is able to not be a "criminal" in the global sense.
Point being, no "fishy"

That being said, i am not sure what the difficulty is here.
After all in some countries "equal rights for women" is illegal, do we assume that equal rights for women is not ordained of God, thus not to be supported by the church because it contradicts a man-made law?

Wow, that's your argument? It's okay to disobey state law? Seriously? That's a pretty desperate move. It makes it sound like you've lost but just can't admit it.

You said if it was in accordance with Moroni 7 then the child would die. I am asking how Moroni 7 could ever suggest that this is ok.



People have already shown that it was the LAW of the land. Show where Sate law is not in force but the federal laws are in regards to the church.



The evidence for lying is clear, and most apologists admit such. It is relevant because it really goes toward trusting that Joseph was telling the truth that an angel commanded him.

Joseph stated that he and the church believed in honoring and obeying the law.



Well the church still does not treat women as equals, and the church today actually does a decent job of honoring and sustaining the law even in these countries, even if they may not agree with them.

aside from not being the issue, when one considers the context of what State laws meant at that time, the law of Illinois really has little to do with the law in any other states....especially prior to the the Civil War.
What is desperate is to hang your hat on the notion that since Illinois had bigamy outlawed, the Poster's argument of "it was illegal" is a strong one.
It can "sound" however you want it to, but one thing is true, no sound came from you on the point raised by equal rights for women - after-all, i can still claim that a woman's rights to vote is "illegal" with the same sensibility as the argument "bigamy was illegal then".

1. Read what i wrote again. Moroni 7 does not say what you conclude, and neither do i. I stated that the manner by which you discern is described in Moroni 7.
Ultimately if God has commanded action, then the choice is to be made between (a) I will contradict God's will, OR (b) I will conform to God's will. Now if you actually understand Moroni 7 and know that it was a commandment from God, what would you choose?
It would be completely irrational, unreasonable, and illogical to choose anything but compliance. To counter God's will would be arrogant, self-centered, and primitive.
Now, understand that you must receive confirmation, as described in Moroni 7.
The test is simple.....what is of greater value? That which is temporal or that which is spiritual? Do you consider your self or God to be the one that "knows better"?

2. People have only shown that it was the law of the land of Lincoln. In the context of the time ,i do not consider that a valid foundation for the broader applied statement of "it was illegal". Do you obey the most restrictive laws even though they are only enforced out of the jurisdiction you live, work, or play in? ( i think not).
i do not understand the second part of your response with regards to state/federal, please clarify.

3. As for Joseph's sincerity about the angel of polygamy - i do not see the relevance or application to life today. The facts seem to be arguable, historically obscure, ambiguous, and contrary. However, i would suggest that one look to Moroni 7 and allow the Spirit to clarify the issue. It may well be that he lied, that he succumbed to the frailties of being human, that he was "less than perfect". It would not surprise me to find flaws in any man or woman, both tragic and endearing. But i do not agree that it is an issue of condemnation, nor do i assume that it has any influence on the opening post's question of "what would i do".

No, morality does not come from God. Morality is simply a system of principals concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad among individuals. Morality differs slightly from culture to culture and, indeed, from person to person. Many, if not most, persons in Joseph’s day considered his sexual promiscuity to be immoral; “plural marriage” was Joseph’s attempt to legitimize his sexual promiscuity. In other words, when he couldn’t play by the rules he tried to change them…much like the Cochranites before him and the Oneida Perfectionists after him.

For what it’s worth, the sexual behavior of two (or three, or four) consenting adults doesn’t bother me. What does bother me are Joseph’s lies and manipulation: “An angel with a drawn sword told me to do it.” Yeah, right. Equally objectionable are certain Mormon apologists who misuse the term “civil disobedience” in an attempt to legitimize Joseph’s obfuscation and sneaking around.


It was against the law of the land of Illinois. Therefore it was against the law of the land.


Interesting.


According to whom did the God command the action? Joseph? An untrustworthy individual with a history of deception for the purpose of personal gain and enrichment? (This assumes of course that this strange creature known as "God" (a) exists, and (b) behaves in a consistent and predictable manner.)


Interesting.


Right, enquire of the Lord as per Moroni. Is this how J. Reuben Clack determined the truthfulness of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? (Yeah, I know I talk about JRC an awful lot, but I can’t resist. He’s the gift that keeps on giving.)


You don’t agree that Joseph’s alleged sexual battery is an crime worthy of condemnation? Interesting.

Joseph practiced bigamy in Illinois. It was illegal in Illinois. Ergo, he broke the law. End of story.

If you doubt the importance of state law, I suggest you try breaking some and see how seriously it's taken.

And yet this whole thread I have yet to see your actually quote from Moroni 7. Maybe you could do so to back up what you think it actually says.



Now showing with Moroni 7 how does one know it is God commanding you?



How would it be arrogant, self centered and primitive? Be specific now.



Where in Moroni 7 does it talk about confirmation? You don't seem to know what Moroni 7 is about.



What laws I may break(not that I am) are irrelevant. Joseph claimed to believe in sustaining the law while breaking it, and yes he was breaking the law of the land (Illinois) with polygamy.



You were trying to weasel out by suggesting state law didn't so Joseph could be sustaining the law as long as it wasn't a federal law. I asked you to show where Joseph suggested that idea.



In what way? I notice you want to avoid this. Apologists even agree Joseph lied and broke the law of Illinois. What facts are in question regarding Joseph's polygamous activities?



I am not convinced you understand What Moroni & is asking, not that it is very good anyways.



So we can't condemn the mistakes of an individual. LOL Everyone makes mistakes so we can't condemn Joseph for making some very big mistakes most people would not have. I have to laugh at the pathetic excuses people give to defend some of the worst behaviors of their religious leaders. The whole reason for looking at someone behavior is to see whether they are someone that can be trusted. Moroni 7 actually says to use this method, although it never gives good specifics.

agreed. story ended over a century ago.


been there done that.
never doubted the importance of state law, usually just its jurisdiction.

so, do you believe the notion of equal rights for women to be transcendent of man-made law?

The church has never been in favor of equal rights for women. I'm not sure why you're choosing that example.

In any case, the church is so forcefully in favor of the importance following of human law over religious principles that it excommunicated a latter-day saint for breaking the laws of Nazi Germany in helping Jews escape the Holocaust.

says you, prove otherwise.

does not prove it is not from God, but congrats on having a dictionary.

the former does not agree with the latter. according to you, Joseph could very well have been " good morals" because "good morals" differ from person to person, etc. So, "morality" is irrelevant in this discussion.

congratulations

why does it bother you? What may seem to be bad moral actions by you are certainly able to be seen a good moral actions by others.


ugh


?


obviously you do not have a correct notion of God.


double-ugh, posts like that bring to mind the question of what your goal is here.
Also *inquire, minus 2 points, see me after class - tabloid variants are not amusing.


No, i do not agree. I do not agree that any "alleged" action is worthy of condemnation. But some people do not require confirmation of facts or truth to condemn others, and usually these people are called atheists.

Evading now. I notice you seem to be avoiding my questions, especially about Moroni 7. Joseph broke the law. That has been established.



Yet you wanted to suggest it was ok for Joseph to break it. hmm



This is another dodge. It is irrelevant to the fact that Joseph stated that he and the church believed in honoring and sustaining the law and yet was also breaking it. Joseph also did not treat women as equals, nor does the church today even though it is much better then it used to be. I admit that many religions also still do not treat women as equals.

I don’t think the women that Smith bedded were necessarily harmed or abused significantly and I think that many were probably likely responsible for their choices to some extent. Not all accepted his advances. Of course hired help in his household were likely put under undue pressure and perhaps women whose husbands were out on missions may have been put under undue pressure. But J. Smith was the instigator of a kind of polygamy which was completely abusive and disrespectful of women. It is organized to treat women as slaves to replace hired workers and for sexual pleasure and breeding. That breeding would keep a steady supply of additional young females to be used by the older men in the mid to upper hierarchy within the Mormon society. So there is a no regard by Smith and any followers of his polygamy to treat women as human beings with any sort of respect or rights.

So what smith instigated ultimately caused more harm than Warren Jeff’s actions. Warren Jeffs is a product of the FLDS , which is a product of Smith’s religion. They are following Smith’s religion more closely than the current LDS church.

Yes it’s immoral that Warren Jeffs had sex with females as young as 12. But in the FLDS community even if females are of legal age, it’s just as terrible that they get married off, when they know of no other way of life. They are just as helpless and unable to make a decision on this for themselves as a 12 year old, when they have been brought up with limited education and heavily indoctrinated to accept one role ..that of being assigned as slave/wife to men and know of no other choices.

So I really detest when any person makes apologies for J. Smith’s polygamy, because in effect they are making apologies for the sort of polygamy he started and can be seen in the current FLDS, in which young females are exchanged, bred and given over to older men to be slaves. The women are so indoctrinated and crippled in their thinking..that they don’t appreciate they are being outrageously abused.

I understand the motivation by apologists to make apologies for Smith and his polygamy..they want to paint him in a positive light. But none of the apologists seem to appreciate that the sort of polygamy Smith promoted was immoral, was completely disrespectful and abusive of women. And Smith's polygamy is the same polygamy practiced by the current FLDS. I've never seen any apologist arguing and pointing out there was anything immoral about the sort of polygamy Smith taught, encouraged and set into motion. And as well the LDS church does not condemn that polygamy as being immoral against women.

Marge said:

Hi, Marge. "Sexual battery" does not necessarily mean that Joseph beat any of his plural wives...so far as we know. Rather, sexual battery is an extra-legal term denoting unwanted physical contact or coercion of a sexual nature, such as when Joseph locked Nancy Rigdon in a room in Orson Hyde’s home. That said, I agree with everything in your post. Joseph Smith junior was a charismatic predator.

Subgenius:

The name Warren Jeffs mean anything to you?


Well, if you're going to say that "morality comes from God" then you need to prove that He/She/It/They exist before you can assert that He/She/It/They radiate His/Her/Its/Their morality down upon us poor earthlings. So get to it, junior birdman.


See previous response.


Regarding inquire vs. enquire...the dictionary is your friend.


No need for questions, youngster; I'm here to corrupt impressionable young minds like yours.


You're ignoring--disingenuously--the fact that Joseph was also subject to the collective morality of the society he inhabited, i.e. the "law of the land". Hence the criminal nature of his bigamous relationships.


Well yes, that's why I said "alleged" as in "alleged sexual battery". Would you agree that sexual battery, alleged or otherwise, is a bad thing? Or do you approve of, for example, Warren Jeffs' bad acts?


Would you agree that sexual battery, alleged or otherwise, is a bad thing? Do you approve of, for example, Warren Jeffs' bad acts?


So how does this explain you?


Right, "ugh" is your codeword for "I concede your point.”

Whatever blows your skirt, dude.

Corpsegrinder

I wasn't thinking of primarily physical abuse. I have a hard time accepting all the women with J. Smith didn't willingly choose and weren't responsible for their choices. I see Joseph Smith as similar to a modern day rock star with women willing to throw themselves at them (in the bed). I don't see all his so called wives as being under undue influence with few or no alternatives. That's why I specified that women who worked in his home might have been under undue influence and perhaps women whose men were away on missions. But the women for the most part back then were not in the same position for example as Warren's Jeffs wives who had a life time of indoctrination, and few if any alternatives available to them.

That's why I think ultimately Smith is responsible for more harm and abuse to more women than Warren Jeffs. Not the women Smith was with but the women who ended up being in the polygamous system he created which indoctrinates females from a young age, provides little education and little other alternatives available than being a plural wife of some man.

Yeah, I think I see where you're coming from. Either way it's clear that Joseph is the one started it all, which means that any organization that draws its ecclesiastical authority from him--polygamous or not--is fundamentally tainted.

Yes that's the way I see it. I don't believe the church has renounced the sort of polygamy that Smith started..the taking of other men's wives, the request for daughters, taking advantage of hired help, the exchange of women..they've not said that that was a morally egregiously abusive system to impose on women, for the many trapped in the system. They've renounced polygamy only because it's illegal.

So to some extent anyone apologizing for Smith's polygamy without noting the immorality of the abuse it can inflict on women..such as arguing Smith & Fanny thought they were married..by extension there's nothing wrong with Smith's polygamy or Smith thought an angel was threatening him..again by extensioon there's nothing wrong with his polygamy... are guilty to some extent of supporting arguments sanctioning egregious abuse of women.

And actually anyone supportive of the LDS Church aware of its past polygamy..share some responsibility for the FLDS communities' actions of a polygamous system highly abusive of women. I realize the system is also abusive to many of the males as well.

I really detest liberal views on polygamy of the sort practiced by the FLDS..which is an extension of Smith's polygamy. Such views neglect to recognize that when children are highly indoctrinated in such a system...and even if they reached adulthood when they enter into such a polygamous marriage...they are not freely choosing that system. Their options have been limited, their minds crippled.

Nope, does not mean a thing to me, why? Is he a friend of yours? Is there any meaningful conclusion you are trying to draw (with crayons)?


To prove God to you would simply result in your claim that you were "tricked". A predisposition such as yours is often seen in feeble arguments.
But if you want to start at the ground floor, resolve your assertion of a subjective morality without recognizing that there is, indeed, an absolute morality.


no thanks, i feel sorry enough for it not to read it again.


apparently not yours....look in the "V" section under 'variant', and then actually use the "E" section to look up enquire.....see the magic? variant.


worse attempt ever. your potency of corruption is about as strong as Richard Dawkins' will to refuse a book signing.


amateur mistake. Morality and law are hardly the same thing. You contradict your earlier assertion with "subject to the collective morality". Still got the floaties on do you?


But you condemned "alleged acts".
alleged sexual battery is completely different than sexual battery. Much like one could allege that you are intelligent, but in reality you could be less than that. Key word "allege" - your flaw is by trying to associate "alleged action" with "action" - to most people these are completely different - with only the latter deserving condemnation or praise.


absurd statements, absurd conclusions, and absurd question.


It does not explain me.

[/quote]
actually ugh is also in that dictionary you have
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ugh
i subscribe to the "disgust" option, though your leaps in reason are "horrific".

pretty much describes all of 19th century american society (-plural). I see no reasonable argument to draw such conclusions against the Church as an organization. The doctrine and principles of the Church are not at all "tainted" by the flaws of one man (or even a few) no matter their position - the scriptures, etc. stand on their own merit, not on the merit of men's or women's actions.