So there are some pretty hilarious responses from TBMs to the Hans Mattsson/Sweden situation.


One of them includes them claiming this is 'proof' that the end of time is near due to this 'time of great trial and tribulation' for 'The' church.

Another response was a common Mormon defence of polygamy, stating that many Biblical characters also practised polygamy and it is something of their generation now not sanctioned by the church.

Other Mormons are saying that there are certainly problems(Oh just a Few!!) in Mormonism but(and I quote)'Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater'.

Other Mormons still are claiming 'doubt is a terrible thing which is why the Lord commands us not to do it'!


Have any of you heard any Mormon responses to the whole situation?

How many Biblical characters practised polyandry? What chapter and verse are the gang bangs in?

at least they used to. It was not a gangbang. It was a marriage.

Yeah, I don't get why polyandry is so often discussed as if it's so much worse than polygyny? There are actually several polyandrous societies/cultures throughout the world and have been throughout history. It's been mainly for purely economic reasons/necessity involving land ownership, which is similar to why polygyny has also been practiced in certain times and places (or giving birth to an heir when one wife is infertile, etc.). Some cultures actually have had to do one or the other, always for one reason for another. In some cases it had nothing to do with sex or power. The Mormon practice of polygyny, as it's been practiced ever since the beginning, is just pure abuse and exploitation, often pedophilia, and essentially sexual slavery, however.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2013 06:20PM by woodsmoke.

Polyandry is often discussed among us exmos because Joe Smith's polyandry involved marrying women who were already married to other worthy priesthood holders, as well as to otherwise worthy non-LDS husbands. It's not because one woman marrying many men is especially abhorrent. It's because Joe was a huge hypocrite and fake, and what he did was specifically condemned in harsh terms by Jesus Christ in Sec. 132 D&C.

Marrying another man's wife is seen as much worse than marrying virgins, or singles. To do so, you violate all ethics and morality of marriage, and do great harm to other people and their sacred relations.

No, I understand that. I meant in the reference to it as constituting a "gangbang" (while polygyny is, I guess, not that weird?) and in general society.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2013 09:10PM by woodsmoke.

O I see. Yeah, such a relationship is not necessarily a gangbang, whether many ladies, or many men. Or, it can be.

You're right in that case, one is not "worse" or "better" than the other.

Well the Mormons are claiming that Isaac,Abraham and Moses were also polygamous,not just Smith!
Not sure if that's true or not,they're more well-versed than me!

Yes, the Old Testament contains references to polygamy, and many other ignorant and uninspired events, practices, and ideas. Joseph Smith managed to go even lower than that incredibly low bar, however, by taking other men's wives (polyandry) and exploiting 14, 15, and 16 year-old girls.

Maybe we can call on James Cameron to "raise the bar"* after the Mormons took it so low. LOL


----

* South Park reference.

Got it...awesome! :-)

It is not about MEN taking other men's wives.
Men do not practice polyandry (unless they are gay), women do.

Good point, but in Joseph Smith's case, *he* was the reason for the polyandry, as he coerced other men's wives into the practice.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2013 06:38PM by snuckafoodberry.

I am sure the name Jacob with he 12 sons if Israel with 4 diferent wifes ring a bell.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

And mormons, and christians, have the gall to denounce gays, lesbians, swingers, masturbators, multi-partner lovers, multi-racial lovers, and porn lovers.

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! "Beam, meet mote."

Using the bible as justification for Joseph Smith's philandering and hebephilia is a pretty weak argument. Says I.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2013 05:53PM by schlock.

Jacob 2:23-24 says:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning [Biblical King] David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

(Ref. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2.23-24?lang=eng)

However, supposedly 'revealed' scripture from Jesus Christ to JS in July 1843 stated: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—" (Ref. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.1?lang=eng)

According to the LDS Church, the BoM's Jacob wrote about the "abominable" practice of Israelite kings David and Solomon of having "many wives and concubines" "About 544–421 B.C.", quoting the church's chapter summary for Jacob 2.

Fast-forward 23.5 centuries and 'the Lord' supposedly informed polygamist JS that he "justified my servants...David and Solomon...as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines."

However, 1 Nephi 10:18 says that "he ["the Son of God"] is the same yesterday, today, and forever;" (Ref. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/10.18?lang=eng)

So, why the glaring discrepancy between what the BoM and D&C state relative to David and Solomon practicing polygamy (i.e., having "wives and concubines")? Because in July 1843, when lying philanderer JS wrote his 'revelation' about "the principle of plural marriage", he forgot what he'd written in the BoM manuscript 13+ years earlier! Oops!!

I think the explanation for the fact that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy and JS embraced it stems from the fact that Joseph Smith was only a tool in the hands of other men when he got involved with the Book of Mormon scam. Others are more versed in the different possible texts that formed the book of mormon story, but the doctrine came from Sydney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery. The teachings of the book of Mormon are pretty straight forward 19th Century frontier chrisianity. After the chuch moved to Ohio, Joseph became drunk with power, he instituted sex with Fanny Alger and likely other young girls in the Smith household, he instituted a system of taking wealth from people who joined the church (Law of consecration), illegal land deal and banking scams and he used the antiquities dealer who passed through to come up with a marvelous new theology laid forth in the Book of Abraham that was not Christian, and started on his use of "the Endowment" to introduce polygamy and polyandry into his power scheme.

Great catch. I have read the BOM and the D&C each several times, and I never noticed that contradiction.

CrispingPin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great catch. I have read the BOM and the D&C each several times, and I never noticed that contradiction.

It has always been the first on my long list of "Mormon Contradictions" at http://packham.n4m.org/contra.htm

There are a number of others there, that most Mormons (and even exmormons) have apparently never noticed.

A couple of missionaries, when confronted with that contradiction, tried to get out of it by claiming that in Jacob the Lord was condemning the fact that David and Solomon took "foreign" wives. But that word isn't even in the text. The phrase "which thing" obviously refers to the mere fact that they had many wives and concubines.

TBMs are fond of pointing out that Jacob ends with God approving polygamy to "raise up seed", but they miss the whole point of the passage.

God condemns David and Solomon, and not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Because Abraham, Isaac and Jacob really were raising up seed as there were few of the chosen people around at that point. This was the point Sidney (probably) was making; he was fond of explaining away biblical problems in the BoM. By David's time there was no practical reason for polygamy - it was just hedonistic. Sidney was probably excusing the polygamy of the early patriarchs as an anomaly dictated by the specific circumstances, and as such, not a justification for David's, Solomon's or modern behavior.

Joseph's polygamy was contrary to both the bible (he married sisters, a mother & daughter, and women already married to members) AND the BoM. There is no way to reconcile Joseph's behavior and D&C 132 with the Bible or BoM.

Where's the freakin' "baby"? What baby are they talking about? The warm fuzzies of false faith and false community?

Ah, yes...the old "but they did it in the Bible, too" canard. This is a variation of my very favorite Mormon fallacy, which usually goes something like this: "Well everyone else is just as bad as us, so you can't hold it against us. Therefore the church could still be true."

Only, everyone else isn't claiming to have Jesus as their CEO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2013 06:05PM by resipsaloquitur.

It's interesting to watch the logical disconnect that these people have to make in order to defend the church. They're totally willing to leave reason far behind them in order to maintain their current emotional attachments. I actually sympathize to a degree because most of them have had this drilled into them since they were in nursery.

Yeah. Took me 6 years personally. Not many people are going to read the article and leave the church the next day. Most of them will need time to process things. Some will want to leave, but feel they can't.

The Bible is full of rape, incest, and men owning multiple concubines purely for sexual pleasure--forget polygyny, that was a picnic in the OT, that was like a compliment. In addition to the genocide, God-sanctioned murder, and slave ownership. So arguments based on that really tend to bore me.

Which bore is it?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bore

;)

Any and all, looking at the definitions, lol. Take your pick.

I have always heard the "well it's in the bible" as proof that it must be approved by God. What a well-informed and knowledgeable response.

There is a great explanation of biblical polygamy at this site close to the bottom of the page under the title "Polygamy".

http://www.thecrossunveiled.com/Verses_Mormons_Misuse.html

What really shocked me was what they took from the whole thing was not realising the enormity of irregularities(to put it politely!) in Mormonism which Prove it can't be true but they really put this down to a sign of the end of times.

Really?Really!That's what they took from it?

Oh and to quit doubting.

I mean,what kind of a person would doubt such a farce...

I love that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater thing.

I looked long and hard for the baby, but after thorough examination I determined that there was no baby--just dirty, slimy, bathwater.

So I threw it out and moved on!

I haven't heard any mormon reactions to his story. I think 99% of mormons aren't aware of what happened with him.