Genocide, pederasty, rape and murder....

[MikeWaters]

I mean there are a lot of awful things in the world.

Which makes me wonder how limited Romney's imagination is if he can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy.

The irony of the church's relationship with the concept of polygamy in 2007 is mind-boggling. Some of our ancestors actually went to prison in defense of this practice, yet in 2007 church members beat the war drums to have polygamists arrested. The church is one of the leaders in the battle of defining marriage through constitutional amendment, which would effectively ban polygamy in the United States forever, and the Mormon presidential candidate says he can't imagine anything more awful.

Was it a righteous practice or not? Why would God command us to do something that would lead to ultimate sorrow? Do we respect the right of others to practice it as part of their religion?

In 1843, Romney would have been excommunicated for his statement. In 2007, he is lionized.

[myboynoah]

A little hyperbolic to say the least. He could have phrased it differently and still accomplished his task, that being separating himself from the practice (again).

Note that on the Tonight Show he rejoiced over the 1978 change, stating his strong feeling "that discrimination in wrong." Was he calling God wrong? I hope his SP is taking notes.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I mean there are a lot of awful things in the world.

Which makes me wonder how limited Romney's imagination is if he can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy.

The irony of the church's relationship with the concept of polygamy in 2007 is mind-boggling. Some of our ancestors actually went to prison in defense of this practice, yet in 2007 church members beat the war drums to have polygamists arrested. The church is one of the leaders in the battle of defining marriage through constitutional amendment, which would effectively ban polygamy in the United States forever, and the Mormon presidential candidate says he can't imagine anything more awful.

Was it a righteous practice or not? Why would God command us to do something that would lead to ultimate sorrow? Do we respect the right of others to practice it as part of their religion?

In 1843, Romney would have been excommunicated for his statement. In 2007, he is lionized.

For starters, polygamy isn't practiced the same way now as it was back in the 19th century.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Was it a righteous practice or not? Why would God command us to do something that would lead to ultimate sorrow? Do we respect the right of others to practice it as part of their religion?b

This is exactly why the Church has been running away from the polygamy issue for years. All but the most deluded members now realize that polygamy was not commanded by God. Most have come to grips with the realization that early Church leaders were misguided. Some are even bold enough to admit that polygamy only came about because the early Church needed a way to explain JS's philandering.

The modern mormon Church is never going to openly admit that polygamy was not a righteous practice. They will continue to spout the the line that polygamy is no longer practiced and it is an issue that no longer needs to be discussed. And those outside the Church will continue to press the polygamy issue because they don't buy the Church's explanation. Until the church upgrades its explanation, people will continue to press mormons for something more convincing.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

For starters, polygamy isn't practiced the same way now as it was back in the 19th century.

That's like defending O.J. by saying, "At least he's not as bad as Jeffrey Dahmer."

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

This is exactly why the Church has been running away from the polygamy issue for years. All but the most deluded members now realize that polygamy was not commanded by God. Most have come to grips with the realization that early Church leaders were misguided. Some are even bold enough to admit that polygamy only came about because the early Church needed a way to explain JS's philandering.

The modern mormon Church is never going to openly admit that polygamy was not a righteous practice. They will continue to spout the the line that polygamy is no longer practiced and it is an issue that no longer needs to be discussed. And those outside the Church will continue to press the polygamy issue because they don't buy the Church's explanation. Until the church upgrades its explanation, people will continue to press mormons for something more convincing.

I realize I'm asking an unbeliever, but I'll ask it anyway: D&C 132 was a complete fabrication?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

That's like defending O.J. by saying, "At least he's not as bad as Jeffrey Dahmer."

Oh yeah, that's an accurate analogy.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I realize I'm asking an unbeliever, but I'll ask it anyway: D&C 132 was a complete fabrication?

I'm not familiar with D&C 132, but since it's contained in the D&C I'm comfortable with guessing that it is, indeed, a fabrication.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Oh yeah, that's an accurate analogy.

How is it inaccurate? I assume the point of your original post was to point out that polygamy, as practiced by the early church, was free of many of the abuses found in modern day polygamy. My point is that polygamy is wrong, no matter how you spin it. The accumulation of multiple sex partners for the gratification of old men in power is, at its core, a sleazy practice. There is no way to dress it up and say that JS banging 30 young girls is somehow less sleazy than Warren Jeffs banging 30 young girls.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How is it inaccurate? I assume the point of your original post was to point out that polygamy, as practiced by the early church, was free of many of the abuses found in modern day polygamy. My point is that polygamy is wrong, no matter how you spin it. The accumulation of multiple sex partners for the gratification of old men in power is, at its core, a sleazy practice. There is no way to dress it up and say that JS banging 30 young girls is somehow less sleazy than Warren Jeffs banging 30 young girls.

It's really pointless to debate this with you if you think D&C 132 is a complete fabrication.