by flipper 86 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Fact, the book of Mormon by Joseph Smith recommends polygamy.
I have more than a passing interest in where the book of Mormon recommends polygamy, as there are two Mormon missionaries (girls) who stop to see us. I'm wondering if they were following Joseph's Smith's example rather than the book of Mormon itself.
Bonnie - it doesn't. The mindset of the LDS is very much that of the Mosaic Exodus, God will tell you what you need via revelation in the moment you need it and will directly lead his people issuing day by day instructions that supercede those given yesterday. Therefore scripture is useful in recording what God told someone to do at the time it was written but it never supercedes what God says now. The scriptures I listed above do mention that if God wants something else to happen he will 'command otherwise'. Thus for a brief period God reinstituted polygamy but - within LDS thinking - God can give commandments and then alter them based upon how they are acted upon (the LDS received a commandment to build a temple and then were released from that stricture at that time - the LDS still believes that at some stage it will have to build it just not right now.) A similar, biblical example is given with Ninevah and the discussion over the destruction of Sodom.
So polygamy was instituted along with other modern revelations despite scriptures recording a time in the Book Of Mormon when God clearly did not want His people to do it. Why it was removed will vary as to which side of the LDS fence you sit and I know that for the majority of you that is pragmatic self survival rather than divine revelation. Mind you who said God wasn't a realist:)
QCMBR
my government does not know better than I do what my children need.
And if you are not violent or a sexual pervert or someone who wants to brainwash their children to only accept their own beliefs then the government has no business micro-managing your child rearing.
But if you raise your children in a way that infringes their rights, the government has every right to take them away from you.
You see for me government is secondary to family - when governments fail or are overthrown families survive.
Governments are merely an institution to help protect my family and to enshrine some rights that otherwise I would need to trust my sword to do.
And sometimes (not with you obviously) governments need to protect children from their parents.
I do not believe that the government is greater than the family - ever.
As my above example shows, that opinion is simplistic and wrong. Parents can be bad and evil, and when they are, the government must be able to protect their children from them.
Governments are notoriously bad at deciding what is best for people IMO (Communism and Facism come to mind as two recent examples of poor government choices).
And those governments were run by people who were parents, and your point was? That somehow the members of the Nazi party or Communist party were bad at governance but perfect parents? Just as governments made out of people do bad things to people (although being checked by strong legislation to protect human rights helps prevent this), so do parents who are bad people do bad things to their children.
Parents do not have a divine right to screw up their children's lives, even if some parents (not you) think they do.
I will never agree with anyone that the government trumps my responsibility for my family.
Yes, because you are someone who doesn't harm their children. If you were someone who harmed their children then even if you thought 'I will never agree with anyone that the government trumps my responsibility for my family', it wouldn't matter as you would be a criminal who was trying to evade justice.
This is one of the reasons why I absolutely abhor state aid for people - the state should never be responsible for my ability to provide for myself merely for ensuring I have an opportunity and framework within which to conduct my economic and social life.
Fine, don't accept state aid and if you object to paying for it then either respect the decision of the democratic majority you live with or move somewhere where you can step over lots of beggars and have a violent society where the rich run things and the poor starve. Like Brazil, or America.
On the role of Government:
1 - To control the media portrayal of and sexualisation of women especially minors.
Provide what is portrayed is legal, no, you are wrong. The government should have no right to control distasteful things that are not against the law. Why do you make such a theme of how it's down to parents and then take them; the people who buy their daughters thongs (as one example) off the hook by saying the government should interfere.
2 - Sexual education not simply focusing on the 'Do what you want - its your body - just use protection' approach but emphasising appropriate responsibility for long term consequences and the desirability and achievability of social control. I wouldn't advocate US style abstinence programs but more frank discussion of women's rights (just as we have made it - in the UK - a case of extreme behaviour to make a racist comment so should also be a punishable behaviour to sexually abuse someone verbally within a school/public setting.) Sexual education (the mechanics) should be introduced years after the social consequences parts of education but certainly preceding puberty. The law and why the law exists regarding underage sex should be explained.
I generally agree with you. Unfortunately in the UK the action of a small minority of religious parents has resulted in a sex education system where the mechanics are taught in Biology class and the social side is taught in tutor groups, typically with non-specialised teachers - and those most in need of this social education are often those who miss it as parents have a right to opt out.
3 - Sexual attraction to minors should be treated as a mental disease that should be counselled for by local GPs and local psychiatrists and men encouraged to seek non-stigma, private counselling and a voluntary nameless register (linked only through national insurance number) to ensure that they don't inadvertantly gain a job that would put them in temptations way. In other words try and give men the tools to control their feelings prior to them committing secret acts of abuse. If I had such feelings I would rather know that I could gain help in a private non-judgmental medical way rather than being tormented by these feelings and ultimately maybe acting on them. Would offer an ultimate medical solution of chemical castration for those who wish to protect their children from themselves.
Hear hear.
4 - Ditto the above for those who feel a need to rape.
I don't think this would be as effective as those who want to rape already do not recognise consesuality. Many people with a sexual attraction to minors still respect consensuality and thus do not become offenders.
5 - The use of sex in all forms of media should be controlled so that it isn't displayed outside of appropriate areas (my particular bee is with our newspapers and magazines showing nude women in sexually provocative poses on the front pages so everyone is forced to see - I would prefer that people could choose when to see sexual imagery rather than only have the choice how to explain it to their children.) I have a gut feeling (probably religion taught) that engaging in titillation can lead (men especially) to lose a certain amount of rational control (just like a starving person would act differently to well fed one) and I think the over stimulation of our sexual responses may tip a few people over the edge of control and to perform acts of abuse. So in a nutshell - reduce the public, unchosen, exposure to sexual ideas and imagery. Where sex is portrayed it can be encouraged as part of stable healthy relationships rather than as the transient non-committal acts of no consequence. Because as a society we still have IMO immature ideas of sex we tend to cater for hollywood sex rather than the healthier and more realistic joyful experience it is where not every man has to last for hours and every women has balloons for boobs and every possible position is required every time. Still before I end off topic back to my suggestions.
You cannot legislate matters of taste. You can use your power as a consumer to force change in shops or to boycot what you find distastful. And 'hollywood sex' (your description is of mainstream porn, nothing like the 'sex' in Hollywood movies) is just like most of the entertainment industry; super polished hyper-reality. Why are most actors attractive? Because no one wants to stare at ugly ones. Why is porn like it is? Because dull 'relationship' sex ("Oh, is it Tuesday already darling?") is not something people pay to see.
6, 7, 8, all yes.
9 is seemingly too based on your own opinions in these areas, and would not seem to be feasable in a 21st Century secular democracy
One problem with that would be no one lives at a kingdom hall. Two If a raid did happen and you knew there was a danger of abuse and you were knowingly exposing your kids to it. You should lose your kids and have to prove you are fit parent.
I would disagree. Abuse is abuse - if members understand that a specific room is used for physical punishment of it's members, it doesn't matter if they live in it or not. The fact that it exists for the purpose of punishment, the fact that it is used and seen to be used, heard to be used, if a stick or paddle is inside the door of a room for the purpose of punishment - then every member who attends the hall, who congregates there knowingly and willingly, who accepts that room and punishment as normal and usual - they are guilty. Living there has nothing to do with the issue. If you believe that every child within that compound is at risk for some sort of abuse - wether or not the abuse has happened - then it is reasonable to believe that every child within a KH is at risk for some sort of abuse if there is a room for punishment - wether or not that punishment has yet happened to them. Thats my thought anyway - many would disagree ..sammieswife.
So, if the book of Mormon condemns polygamy, why did Mormons, mainstream Mormons get the idea of polygamy. I believe it is a fact that mormons were well known for their polugamy, and much of the persecution of Mormons in the 1800s was directl related to the fact that Mormons pracyiced openly polygamy? This would be a good question for a Mormon on this board to answer, if they haven't already.
I would disagree. Abuse is abuse - if members understand that a specific room is used for physical punishment of it's members, it doesn't matter if they live in it or not. The fact that it exists for the purpose of punishment, the fact that it is used and seen to be used, heard to be used, if a stick or paddle is inside the door of a room for the purpose of punishment - then every member who attends the hall, who congregates there knowingly and willingly, who accepts that room and punishment as normal and usual - they are guilty. Living there has nothing to do with the issue. If you believe that every child within that compound is at risk for some sort of abuse - wether or not the abuse has happened - then it is reasonable to believe that every child within a KH is at risk for some sort of abuse if there is a room for punishment - wether or not that punishment has yet happened to them. Thats my thought anyway - many would disagree ..sammieswife.
OK Like I said no is living at a Hall besides the occasional CO. These people were living at the hall so to speak.
The only way for this to become anything close to that would be for witnesses to move to Bethel with said spanking room.
Secondly if CPS can prove there is a danger at a hall to a judge and you keep going to the hall you are putting your child in danger and can have them removed from your custody.
(better example) A mother takes a child to her work a house of ill repute do to the fact she can not find a baby sitter for work. If CPS were to find out about that what do you think her chances of keeping the child. Even though she has no intention of letting them be harmed. If the police bust the house CPS might take the kids it's CPS's discretion if they think the mother had extenuating circumstances they might let her keep it. If it happens again CPS won't have much choice left, do to the history of the parents behavior.
False Prophecies of the Mormon Church
We receive more requests for information on the false prophecies of the LDS Church than I can count. So in light of these events, we’ve assembled several that we’ll be posting for now but come back often to see the updates!
Above all, to establish what a false prophecy is, we must first turn to the Bible. I was being interviewed on a radio show in early 2006 when the host of the show asked me if we could discern true prophets by the prophecies that come true. Without trying to sound ambiguous, the answer to that is no we cannot; and yes, that is part of it. If a man calls himself a prophet, and his prophecy comes true then yes, that’s a good sign that he is from God. However, if that prophet prophecies a word and claims it is of God and it is proven false, then it doesn’t matter how many he got right before or after the false prophecy; he’s a false prophet.
The LDS Church says in “Answers to Your Questions about the Doctrine and Covenants”, pg. 4; “"The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned," affirmed President Ezra Taft Benson, "is the one who is living in our day and age. This is the prophet who has today's instructions from God to us today. God's revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Every generation has need of the ancient scripture plus the current scripture from the living prophet. Therefore, the most crucial reading and pondering which you should do is of the latest inspired words from the Lord's mouthpiece. That is why it is essential that you have access to and carefully read his words in current Church publications" (in Korea Area Conference Report, 1975, 52).”
The God of the Bible has given us several examples of how we can discern what He wants for us to know, so let’s begin in His word before we delve into LDS theology. God has always had this thing about being consistent so it’s fairly easy to find the subjects needed and know there aren’t any new updates to worry about! Here are a few examples and I’m sure you’ll be able to get more for your own studies.
Deuteronomy 13:5; “And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.”
Deut. 18:20-22; “But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
Jer. 28:9; “The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.”
All About Jesus
Where was Jesus born?
Alma 7:10; “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.”
Luke 2:15; “And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.”
The LDS Church tells its members that these two cities are actually “suburbs” of each other. This is not true! Bethlehem and Jerusalem are about eight miles apart from each other.
From Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 3:51; “These words have spawned a host of heckles and sneers directed at the Book of Mormon. Persons of a skeptical and cynical spirit ask: "Didn't Joseph Smith know that Jesus was born of Mary in Bethlehem?" We answer: Yes, he was born in Bethlehem, but he was also born at Jerusalem, meaning that Bethlehem, the smaller community, was within the environs of Jerusalem, the larger city. In our day it would be as if someone froth [sic] Sandy or even Provo, Utah, had said to one somewhat unfamiliar with the Wasatch Front, "I am from Salt Lake City." (See A Sure Foundation, pp. 3-4.)”
A mother takes a child to her work a house of ill repute do to the fact she can not find a baby sitter for work. If CPS were to find out about that what do you think her chances of keeping the child. Even though she has no intention of letting them be harmed. If the police bust the house CPS might take the kids it's CPS's discretion if they think the mother had extenuating circumstances they might let her
I still follow through on my belief that abuse is abuse - matters not if a person lives in the house as long as it is known and understand that abuse is occuring in the environment and the parent willingly and knowingly exposes their kid to it. In the case of the KH - a paddle on the door is pretty obvious, the police being called, people knowing and understanding - wether or not it's written - that the washroom is the place of discipline, or the school room. The fact is that there is a place of punishment inside that building, used for that reason. Intent to inflict harm on a child becomes obvious. To my mind, that's kind of like saying theres a 'sex room', like the one the FLDS apparently had, in the basement of the KH and everybody knows what goes on down there but nobody really talks about it. It's hidden but the intent is clear. sammieswife.
So I'm going to answer my own question. OK so it wasn't the book of Mormon that introduced polygamy into the Mormon religion, but it was its horn-dog leader Joseph Smith who did it, apparently against his own words in the Book of Moron. It's funny that Qcumber couldn't be honest enough, though I know he/she knows full well that mainstream Mormons practiced polygamy for decades with the consent of their leaders Smith and others. Why couldn't Q just reveal exactly who and what started it all. Sure, so it's not in the book of Mormon, but it is in other "inspired" writings of J. Smith, yet Q is acting like polygamy was never practiced by Mormons.
http://www.bible-infonet.org/ff/articles/denominations/111_08_07.htm
The Inconsistent of the Mormon's Doctrine of Polygamy
By David R. Kenney
The book of Exodus contains an important event in the life of Moses. In Exodus 4:24-26 we see an example of the importance of keeping a covenant with God and the peril of neglect. Circumcision of a male was the symbol of God's covenant with the descendants of Abraham. All male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day (Gen. 17:9-14).
Moses was approached by God to go to Egypt to lead the Israelites out of bondage. God sent Moses' brother Aaron with him since Moses complained he was a poor speaker (Ex. 4:10, 14).
Before Moses left to go to Egypt, his wife Zipporah bore him a son named Eliezer. Zipporah was a Midianite, thus not concerned with the covenant made with Abraham's descendants. Moses did not insist on the child's circumcision and neglected to keep the covenant. As great a man as Moses was, God would have killed him for neglecting to keep the covenant.
This short passage teaches us lessons about the importance of doing what we should, not procrastinating, and choosing a faithful companion who has respect for the law of God.
One of the distinguishing doctrines of Mormonism is polygamy. Polygamy is defined as having more than one husband or wife at one time. Polygamy originated not with God, but with a man named Lamech (Gen. 4:19).
In direct opposition to the teaching of Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:4-9, the Mormons embraced polygamy. Not only were they permitted to have multiple wives, they were required to do it to reach the highest heaven. Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, Ill., on July 12, 1843, made the following "revelation" concerning polygamy from the Lord:
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant [polygamy]; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my [Lord's] glory (Doctrine and Covenants 132:4).
So, not only was one permitted to have multiple wives, it was demanded to progress into the highest heaven (Mormons believe there are three heaven- kingdoms and three levels in the highest of three heavens). Not only did Joseph Smith's "revelation" contradict the Bible, but it also contradicted his Book of Mormon (Jacob 1:15; 2:24; 3:5; Mosiah 11:2).
In 1847 the Mormons entered the Great Salt Lake Valley in an effort to escape persecution for their views and practices. Utah was owned by Mexico and would be ceded to the United States in March 1848 in accordance with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, New York, The Christian Literature Company, p. 1579).
The Mormons organized their own government, and on March 10, 1849 they drafted a constitution. This constitution formed what was called the "State of Deseret" with Brigham Young as governor (Marguerite Cameron, This Is the Place, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, Ltd. pp. 154-255).
The Mormons dwelt rather independently of federal law until the Organic Act of 1850 created the Territory of Utah. Mormons were free to engage in polygamy as required by Joseph Smith. Mormons petitioned for statehood in 1849 and 1856 but were denied admittance into the Union.
In 1882 the Edmunds Bill was passed by Congress making polygamy illegal. When the Mormons failed to comply with the law, the United States threatened to send the U.S. Cavalry to confiscate all their property and disperse them. Ironically, the leader of the Mormons, Wilford Woodruff, had a relieving "revelation." On Sept. 29, 1890, Woodruff issued a Manifesto which was approved (voted on) by the general conference on Oct. 6, 1890. The Mormons cited Doctrine and Covenants 124:49 as a loophole for getting out of the revelation of Joseph Smith (as well as other false prophecies of Smith in the past) (Marguerite Cameron, This Is the Place, p. 131).
The Mormons were no longer required to keep the everlasting covenant of polygamy. The cavalry left, and the threat of invasion was over. Six years later, Utah became a state.
It is quite amazing how the Mormons overcame their reputation and dark history. Many examples of this sinister history have been documented in numerous places, but the Mormon church has weathered them.
In 1995, Turner Network Television released Riders of the Purple Sage based on Zane Grey's classic western novel which probably is the most famous western of all time. In the book and movie, a young lady named Jane Withersteen is being oppressed by a ruthless bunch of her church. She is being pressured to marry a man named Tull. Fortunately, maybe even providentially, she is rescued by Lassiter, an infamous gunslinger who hates this religious group.
The movie failed to mention the location and religious group, but the book did not. The location was Utah, and the religious group was the Mormons. Tull and his cronies were killers and cattle rustlers. There was no mention in the movie that Tull was already married, hence attempting a polygamous union (Zane Grey, Riders of the Purple Sage, New York, Grosset & Dunlap, p. 71).
It is incredible that the most famous western of all time provides such an explicit proclamation of the Mormons' reputation, and the movie conveniently omits these details and events to the point of not mentioning the state of Utah. Perhaps no one could believe this group of people could have a history so sinister since they seem to be such nice people (and many of them are).
Mormons do not desire to talk about these events and the implications of what happened. How could the God of Israel, who removed armies to protect the Israelites when they kept his covenant, allow this to happen? Would God permit the threat of the U.S. Cavalry to change his will (Mal. 3:6)? Did the Mormons lack the faith that God would protect them (Psa. 46)? How can a sincere God-seeking Morman rationalize these events? He can not.
If a Mormon holds to the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, he is faced with an impossible dilemma and a religion plagued with numerous contradictions. The only way a person can have a religion of no contradictions and logical difficulties such as this is to reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and his books, and accept the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice.
This is the first entry I found when I did a search of Mormons and polygamy. I'm sure there are better articles out there but I think this is good enough to establish that Mormons practiced polygamy, and that it was a part of their doctrine for a time. I guess Morons have a "light that gets brighter" doctrine as well that like JWs turns off and on when a teaching becomes burdensome or inconvenient. In this case it was the threat of going to jail that made them about face on the polygamy issue, not a "convenient revelation" from god.
Shawn said, The LDS Church tells its members that these two cities are actually “suburbs” of each other. This is not true! Bethlehem and Jerusalem are about eight miles apart from each other.
LOL! Wow, a whole eight miles? WOW!
Guess what? I live six miles outside the county seat. When in the large city 100 miles away, guess where I say we live? In this little pass-through blink and you'll miss it berg, or the larger town only six miles away? Who in the large city knows the name of this tiny berg? About one in 10,000 if that. Who knows the name of the county seat? Everyone.
So that's here, in our own time, our own state, with television, newspapers and all. When we lived in California, we lived in Orange County. When in another state such as Hawaii, Arizona, or Washington DC, would we name the small town in Orange County CA as where we were from? I guarantee not one in a thousand in this room would know it by name. No, we would say we were from LA. Everyone knew where LA was.
We often met people "from New York". How many were actually from the city? Within city boundries? Not a lot. When pressed further, they would name another town, close by. Some place we'd never know by name.
The Book of Mormon people were on another continent, another time, without benefit of our modern technology. I find no fault with naming the larger city that they would all know the name of rather than the obscure smaller berg which is what Bethlehem of that time was.
Eight whole miles!!! LOL
We were an hour outside of LA and that was with fast cars, and yet we claimed it, as did most travelers.
This is such a lovely example of anti-mormons grasping at straws.
SusanHere
