<p>Whew, those are a lot of ‘should’ statements.</p>
<p>They DO understand it. The Mormons I spoke with did not deny it. They were just concerned that I know that polygamy is no longer approved by their church NOW.</p>
<p>But, to apply your logic in reverse, if they don’t change the name of BYU then that implies they might not really be against polygamy…that’s a stretch.</p>
<p>Also, it’s important to understand that Mormons are already on the defensive when among other Christians, because their faith is not considered ‘Christian’ by the born-again Christians. Mormonism is listed as a ‘cult’ and that bothers the Mormons a LOT. Their religion is not respected, so it makes sense that they would try to show us the good aspects of their religion in an effort to set the record straight. I don’t think this means they are necessarily ‘sugarcoating’ it any more than you’d think a Catholic or Protestant was ‘sugarcoating’ their religion if they didn’t immediately mention the witch trials in casual conversation. And I’ll bet there are still some schools named after some of those perpetrators as well, if you were to look for them.</p>
<p>Why is Mormom polygamy an issue and Muslim polygamy not an issue? I ask that especially in light of the fact that the LDS church no longer endorses polygamy any more than Jews who also historically practiced polygamous marriage endorse it? Couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that we have a Mormon running for pesident could it?</p>
<p>Just out of curiousity why is it that the NY Times never forgets to omit the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon but never seems to notice that the Democratic Majority Leader in the senate Harry Reed is also a Mormon. I am not suggesting the OP on this thread was doing anything but asking an interesting question but I am not entirely sure of everyody else motives. I also don’t want to distract this thread into discussions of the media and politics as polygamy is actually a more interesting subject.</p>
So maybe we should change the name of Washington DC, Washington state (and all the other Washingtons) because George Washington was a slave owner - something I think most people today would find much more egregious than the polygamy practice.</p>
<p>No–one of the basic tenets of the Mormon religion is continuing revelation. You can’t be a “true Mormon” if you don’t accept the revelation that polygamy is no longer to be practiced.</p>
<p>The Mennonites??? Not familiar with their history…must wiki them to get a maybe inaccurate story…</p>
<p>Did a quick read through wiki–didn’t find anything really juicy…nothing on the par with polygamy…</p>
<p>“The Mennonites??? Not familiar with their history…must wiki them to get a maybe inaccurate story…”</p>
<p>elle - I’m Lutheran and one of the unsavory bits of history in our Church is the terrible condemnation and persecution of the Anabaptists (Mennonites) by followers of Luther during the Reformation years. </p>
<p>So yes, history can be ugly and I don’t think too many religions have a clean record. It’s worth examination, if only to avoid repeating past mistakes.</p>
<p>The belief in revealed truth creates a very different situation for Mormons than it does for followers of some other faiths. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the Mormon faith allows for the possibility that Smith could have been wrong about God’s will (a luxury that many other denominations have in reconciling the history of their church with their own conscience) since God or the angels told things directly to Smith. So I think the basic position is that polygamy was right for Smith and the early Mormons because that’s what God wanted them to do, but it’s wrong now because God wants something different at this point in time. </p>
<p>That creates a harder issue than it does for people of say my denomination. (I can accept that way back in the day, the denominations that were early forerunners of mine believed it was OK to burn witches without my also having to believe that God really did want them burnt). </p>
<p>The site above, written by a devout Mormon talks about how agonizing the issue was for him (he eventually left the church over it). He felt he either had to believe that God wanted Smith to marry underage girls and other men’s wives–and was going to kill Smith if he didn’t do it–or believe that Smith lied. And once he decided that Smith lied, it shook the very foundation of his beliefs.</p>
<p>It seems that the “revelation” was more of a political one that a religious one</p>
<p>Then, as other posters have described, there is lots of teachings about why they practiced polygamy, from not enough men, to old women, to no support, to God’s directive, etc.</p>
<p>And now the Mormons talk about the evilness and wrongness of polygamy, though that was a HUGE tenent of their religion- and saying, well it was “revelation” that caused the Church to denounce polygamy/bigamy/child brides etc, would they have done that without the external pressures of the United States government, other states, etc…</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, I think the difference between slavery and polygamy as it was practiced in Smith’s day is more quantitative and of degree than it is qualitative. Though no doubt some women went along willingly and at least some women were able to refuse proposals, the historical record makes it pretty clear that others were simply appropriated or given as property.</p>
<p>I have never considered myself a feminist, but whenever I talk to my morman friends we always get in a heated debate.</p>
<p>They are very quick to explain to me the polygamy or polygyny is not condoned anymore, however they have never said whether or not they themselves condone it or not and instead quote that they must live by local laws.</p>
<p>The polygynous mindset still exists.</p>
<p>A man can marry a woman, become sealed for all eternity, become a divorcee or widower, and marry and seal again. A woman can under no circumstances, be sealed again. If a woman divorced her husband because he cheated on her, that’s it for her. She could marry again, but never be sealed again. Would a morman man marry her if he could not be sealed to her in all eternity?</p>
<p>I also have concerns with the mainstream LDS church drastically evolving positions on bigotry and racism, and their great effort to be seen as reversing policy with regards to minorities. But what do you do when the Book of Mormon specifically says:</p>
<p>2 Nephi 5: 21- ‘And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.’</p>
<p>Mormons have historically stated called American Indians Lamanites who were descendents of Hebrews who had strayed and become cursed with ‘dark skin’.</p>
<p>Alma 3: 6- ‘And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.’</p>
<p>I’m a little wary of all the current Church proclamations against bigotry. It just seems very convenient given we now have major presidential candidate who happens to be Mormon.</p>
<p>And that’s a shame, because I’ll bet that you believe many of the things feminists do. The problem is that our society has so much hostility toward the gender equality movement that women are reluctant to identify with it no matter how much they enjoy the benefits.</p>
<p>If you like being able to vote and having the option to go to medical school or to major in anything besides teaching and nursing, these are all things that feminists won for you over the years. </p>
<p>Before the 70s era wave of the feminist movement, in my state, if a couple owned a house together (even if the wife owned it free and clear before the marriage), under the “Lord and Master” law, the husband could sell it on his signature alone, without her consent or even her knowledge till after it was done. </p>
<p>My mother worked as a buyer in the construction industry in the 1970s (one of the first women to do this in our area), having worked her way up from an entry level position. Her company hired a young man right out of college to work in that same entry level position and paid him double what she was making as buyer. The boss explained that the man “needed” more money than she did because “he has a wife to support.” (Mother had seven children and a husband who retired early due to a service-related disability). Fortunately, she was able to move to a better position in another company, but if the labor market had been tighter, she would have had no choice but to stay where she was and accept the nickel an hour raise she was offered as consolation. </p>
<p>Unless you’re really opposed to these changes, the odds are you’re a feminist. Don’t let anyone make you ashamed or afraid to own it.</p>
<p>It looks like the major change (allowing blacks to become priests) was made back in the 1970s. But the Church has never formally taken back the “Curse of Cain” doctrine.</p>
<p>To me this seems similar to the fears brought up in the 1920s and 1960s that a Catholic would be a terrible president because Rome and the Pope would take over the United States. </p>
<p>Even in this century concerns were raised that our country would fall apart because an observant Jewish president couldn’t work on Saturdays. Lieberman had to repeatedly assure the public that he could meet his religious obligations without sacrificing the responsibilty of the Presidency.</p>
<p>Also, I can relate the personal experiences of a good friend who was kicked out of the Mormon church. She became pregnant out of wedlock when she was a teenager and refused to go before the elders (one of which was her own father) to make some sort of ceremonial public apology/humiliation. She said there was intense pressure to give her baby up to a Mormon family since the boy in question was not Mormon and not inclined to convert and marry her. Bless her heart, she did not succumb to what amounted to, imho, harrassment and she was expelled from the church for her failure to cooperate and be publicly contrite. According to her, publicly the church does not forbid unwed motherhood, but privately the pressure to marry or give the baby up is extreme.</p>
<p>She had a very hard life as a young mother with little support. Today, she is remarried to a lovely (nonMormon) man with whom she had more children and who adopted her oldest child…and that child is a now a happy, successful adult.</p>
<p>That’s pretty much how the pope is in the Catholic religion. I haven’t been Catholic in 30 years, so I don’t know whether it’s changed or not, but when I was growing up, I remember my parents having these heated debates about whether there were any boundaries to the pope’s ‘infallibility.’ They were in agreement (it was a given among Catholics) that the pope could not make a mistake on important church matters, but the question was whether he could ever make a mistake as a human on non-church matters. So really this is no different from how the Mormons view Joseph Smith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well what about the abominable things supposedly sanctioned by God in the old testament? Telling the Israelites to stone their own people for very minor transgressions, have slaves, take additional wives (or was it just mistresses? oops, there’s that polygamy again, or was it just adultery?), perform blood sacrifices, invade other tribes and leave no survivors, etc.</p>
<p>My point is not to criticize Christianity/Catholicism, but to point out that all the religions seem to have some variation of questionable practices supposedly deemed acceptable or even ordered by God.</p>
<p>I think you’re on to something there. With the current establishment, there have been many concerns of a push towards theocracy. (Fortunately that hasn’t happened.)</p>
<p>conyat - I believe there was a new ‘proclamation’ on the ‘Seed of Cain’ doctrine in early 2007…for the purpose of clarifying that while the Church membership does believe in the contents of the Book of Mormon, it does not agree with racism (say what?)…and for purpose of smoothing things a bit for Mitt Romney.</p>
<p>Not too shabby. Most threads, no matter what religion they are discussing, or no matter how remotely connected to the topic of religion, hit the Catholic Church at around 20-something. The restraint shown here has been admirable, I must say. Post 96 on a thread about “polygamy and Mormans (sic) and the boys”–congratulations. (Discounting the mention of priest sexual abuse, of course, since that’s a given on any thread.) And no gay Popes mentioned yet!!</p>