I would disagree being as the second marraige was done other than the government. If it was acceptable and PROMOTED by his religion then I am also assuming that whatever the government concluded, it didn’t change the religious doctrine to which he subscribes. Therefore he should have kept his 2nd wife.

The punishment was harsh for that time. $500 isn’t chump change and 2 years at hard labor will wreck you. My question is; once he has paid the time, does he get to keep his second wife? No double indemnity and he did pay for it.

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

This statement tells me that it is NOT the interfearence of religion in the State but that of the State to religion that seperation is built. If that being understood, the State is in VIOLATION when interfearing with religious beliefs. There are still societies that practice cannibalism, sacrifice, drug rituals, etc. As long as it doesn’t happen in a “safisticated” society then it is allowed. At this point I would conclude with the following statement; who made the government g-d?

The Reynolds decision is based on one thing: “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an ofence against society….”

No evidence is presented that polygamy is harmful to the Asiatic and African societies that practiced it.

The court has spoken on many matters — not always correctly.

It appears the court has spoken on the matter. Polygamy is illegal AND fattening.

To answer you question about why I don’t add the “O” it is because of Jews I have known who I highly respect. They don’t like to spell it out completely because of religious considerations not to take the Holy Name in vain.

I’m a little confused here which is easy for me. With the above mentioned statement you contridict yourself. Man created the Constitution and government. I will grant you that it was inspired with GOD’s help. That being said, if the people of the U.S. destroyed it, it would hold with the same premiss that it was inspired by GOD to have been done that way. GOD works it both ways or not at all. Which way do you want it?

Curious why you spell GOD as G-d? Have seen that before but don’t understand why you can’t spell it complete. Is this some kind of sin or blasphemy?

I have wondered this myself at times. However, once again this conclusion sounds good if you didn’t understand other related Mormon beliefs. To overthrow the U.S. would go against two other teachings that are of strict, if not more strict, LDS beliefs than polygamy. The first is free agency. Unless there is compelling reasons to do so, G-d will never force anyone to do anything. We are free to choose so that our faith can be as real as we decide. Those who chose to persecute the Mormons and force G-d’s hand will be punished in the next life.

Second, the reason G-d could not destroy the United States government and Constitution was because it was itself created by G-d. To destroy the U.S. would ultimately be “contrary to God’s revelation.” The only way the U.S. can be destroyed is if the people within it destroy it on their own.

Yes, I know that you don’t believe any of this. However, I am just trying get people to stop thinking they “know” what Mormons believe when nine times out of ten they don’t.

What I find interesting is the way the “revelation” that stopped the plural marriage practice is so out of character with what the Bible has in terms of revelation — for example, the book of Daniel in the OT is replete with instances of the faithful servants of God refusing to obey the laws of the land that are contrary to principle and the result is God saving them from the hand of the secular king. One of the most interesting is that of Nebuchadnezzar and the golden statue, and the requirement to bow and worship it. Daniel’s three friends are told either to bow and worship, or they will be thrown into a “fiery furnace”.

“Furious with rage, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. So these men were brought before the king, and Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the image of gold I have set up? Now when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image I made, very good. But if you do not worship it, you will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace. Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?” Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.””– Daniel 3:13-18 NIV

The idea presented is that God’s people do not submit to doing what is contrary to God’s revelation, but would submit to punishment rather than disregard God’s direction. There are several cases of this within this small book, and all of them would lead me to question the position change as being from God. It is out of character with the God of the Bible. In fact, the last act of the Babylonian kings is such a story, and in it, the Babylonian king is told that he would die that very night. The historicity of the account used to be questioned greatly, as the city of Babylon had a very defensible position — the walls of the city were high, and the wall was wide enough upon which a chariot could be driven. The city was particularly difficult to lay siege against, as the wall encompassed fields for food, and a river flowed under one portion of the wall to provide water. With a near inexhaustible supply of food and water, the city was thought to be very secure. But the Persians knew that the only way to conquer the city would be to circumvent what would otherwise be an impenetrable wall. Recent (in the last 100 years) it was discovered that the Persians diverted the river that ran under the wall–essentially giving them an open door to the city through which the marched and conquered Babylon in a single day. God overthrew the government in a day. It would seem that if the Mormons were acting according to God’s revelation, God would act in a similar way in this country–it would have been a small thing to overthrow the United States for the God of all creation.

I would imagine those that left the LDS at that time would have thought the same way. God honors those that follow his word in the face of persecution, not those that turn away from his word because the local “king” declares they should not do what God commands. I’d also call the SCOTUS decision in the matter wrong — it clearly is religious persecution in the sense of going against that religion’s teaching when there is no way to justify the governments action. A “strict scrutiny” bar ought to be used, and should not be based on societal norms. The courts eliminated segregation on that basis (i.e., before segregation should be allowed, it should pass strict scrutiny) and even though there were huge implications to the structure of society, if that bar is not crossed by intrinsic rights of the state, the structure of society is not a barrier to overturning state and/or local code.

While I find the practice wrong — despite Jack’s arguments, I believe my logic not flawed — I also believe it is something based on religion, and that no religion should be given preference in this area over another.

I will agree with you that sexual activity should not happen until marraige. Although hormonres and society seem to think it is okay to try the goods (like buying a car) before you commit, I believe it ruins a special gift and bond that belongs to your soul mate and lifelong partner. This is the sanctity of marraige that GOD created.

As far as what age this should all happen; that has been up to the states as they declare when someone is of legal age for adulthood. We can show in different cultures were it is commonplace to have young betroval (as early as 5). Children are brought up with this understanding and it is accepted. They may not have the maturity to know why it is done like this but they accept it. Kids in our culture don’t have the responsibilities at an early age where they can gain a sense of maturity. Most kids leave the house for college or the working world so immature that they tend to fail quickly and start on stray paths (crime, drugs, homeless wandering-gypsy if you will and even suicide).

When the state/gov’t decided to get into the marraige business it got all screwed up. It IS a religious occasion and ceremony and should be regulated by your religion. That being said, when do we determine that children are adults? After all, the burden of responsibility in marraige is a tremendous task and never to be taken lightly. If you can be married at 10 are you an adult with all priviledges? We join the military and vote at 18. In many states it is also considered the legal age of adulthood and independence. Why can’t they buy and own a handgun? Why can’t they buy or drink liquore legally? Why do we have so many arbitrary rules on certain functions at certain ages? Because the gov’t has interfered. This garbage of seperation of church and state has caused a false fault. Uniformity can be achieved if it is understood that religion and gov’t go hand in hand. If kids can be mature enough to raise a family at 12 thru work and understanding, they can also drive cars, carry guns, vote and drink alcohol. Maturity gains and strengthens with time. The question is when does it start and take hold?