>
> If that were the sum and end-all of a religious position, I would be
> comfortable with anyone's personal belief.

>It is when a person's
> belief becomes a group's belief, and then it becomes a religion, and
> then it becomes a reason for mind control or hate or political gain.

> Then is when a belief becomes very dangerous to others.
>
> I can sit in my home and believe in faires; in fact, I just might
> believe in faires today.

>>

>>>>>>> btw. God never COMMANDED anyone in the OT to practice polygamy.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>He certainly approved it. Indeed, He was rather clear about His
>>>>>>approval to Solomon about that. Come to think of it, the custom of
>>>>>>taking one's brother's widow to wife if she is childless didn't say
>>>>>>"only if you are a bachelor"

>>>>>
>>>>> Was that because there were so many more women than men in the
>>>>> community?

>>>>
>>>>Who knows why? It only remains that it was considered OK.
>>>>

>>>>> Or was that because you were king and could take as damn
>>>>> many women as you could fit in your harem? Some writer decided to make
>>>>> the collecting of women a practice sanctioned by a god. Apparently it
>>>>> needed god's support to make it palatable.
>>>>> It is just so convenient.

>>>>
>>>>You are, of course, begging the question. However, you knew that.
>>>>
>>>>Now I have a question for you. If you are not a believer in
>>>>Judeo-Christian stuff, then what's your problem with polygamy, if all
>>>>parties involved are OK with it? You can't have this both ways, y'know.
>>>>If you can't say that God forbade (or commanded) it, then you have no
>>>>basis to condemn it. It is, quite frankly, none of your business.

>>>
>>> I have no problem with polygamy. I have a problem with it supposedly
>>> being sanctioned by a god.

>>
>>Why should you care? If you have no problem with it, how does having it
>>be sanctioned by a God you don't believe in change that?

>
> Good point. It is part of the larger issue for me. I remember a
> discussion in my mother's home where she cried when she told me that
> she was afraid that she would not be with her children in the CK
> because most of us were wayward of the Mormon church.

>>

>>>>>>> It was a Middle Eastern custom.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, and it was one that God not only did NOT condemn, it was one that
>>>>>>He, at least tacitly, approved of.

>>>>>
>>>>> Of course he did. The God of the old testament was male and who was he
>>>>> to stand in the way of another male getting laid every night by a
>>>>> subservient female.

>>>>
>>>>You do need to make up your mind here. Either He exists, in which case
>>>>you have to use one set of arguments, or He does not, and you have to
>>>>use another set. You don't get to use both. Sorry.

>>>
>>> I get to use whatever I want.

>>
>>Not if you don't want to be called on your lack of logical thinking,
>>you don't.

>
> One should explore all the rationale in the pursuit of logical
> thinking.

>>

>>> If you want to make arguments about the
>>> existence of God then let's go to it.

>>
>>Sorry. I can't prove to you that He exists. Haven't ever tried that,
>>not going to now. The only thing I insist on is that you stick to a
>>position and argue from that; A: He doesn't exist. B: He does and you
>>don't think anybody has the right idea about Him, C: He exists and it's
>>just that you are mad at Him. Pick one, but don't use 'em all, it makes
>>people dizzy.

>
> If you can't prove that a god exists, why are you assuming that a god
> is a he. I forgot, Joseph saw god and god was a he. I wonder if Joseph
> had been Josephina, would god still have been male?
>
> Why should I stick to a position? In my debate classes oh-so-long-ago
> we were assigned to argue both positions. I find that much more fun.
>
>

>>

>>> I think we should start with St.
>>> Anselm's Ontological Argument then we can move on to St. Thomas
>>> Aquinas's Five Arguments for the Existence of God. We can put it all
>>> together with readings from A. E. Taylor. We can balance that with
>>> Immanuel Kant's discussion of the Impossibility of a Theoretical Proof
>>> of a Supreme Being.

>>
>>Now THAT'S dizzy making! On the other hand, I was just reading
>>Kant...takes me five readings to decipher a sentence. Something about
>>German 18th century writers; they find it impossible to use one word
>>when they can use seven to convey the same thing more opaquely...

>
> And Kant is one of the easier philosophers to decipher, IMHO.

>>

>>> We could read J. J. C. Smart's discussion with his
>>> Contemporary Critique of Traditional Arguments for the Existence of
>>> God.

>>
>>We could. But then, I've never attempted to prove His existance,
>>because that's not something you can do empirically. I don't have a
>>problem with that, by the way.

>
> Which is so much of what interests me. We cannot prove the existence
> of a god, yet we believe so fervently in His existence. I am
> interested in your perception that god is male. If you cannot prove,
> or have never attempted to prove, god's existence, why would you
> assume the gender.

>>>
>>> To put the cherry on the top, we can discuss David Hume's treatise
>>> "Can We Ever Have Rational Ground for Belief in Miracles"?

>>
>>You have anything from someone this side of the 1950's? Shoot, I'll
>>take someone from this side of the 18th century, if you can find
>>someone other than Smart. I haven't read him, by the way.

>
> Much of what I have read in of the modern in passing has been a
> re-hashing of the classical arguments, so I can't say I have retained
> any perception that a more modern writer had anything new to say.

>>>
>>> As you see, I can use both arguments.

>>
>>
>>You can use both. Just not at the same time!!

>
> Heh, heh. OK

>>
>>

>>>>>>How interesting, though, that you can so easily dismiss biblical stuff
>>>>>>you don't quite like as extra-biblical---"Middle Eastern Custom"
>>>>>>indeed. ;-)

>>>>>
>>>>> It is very easy to dismiss Biblical stuff. I dismiss Hans Anderson's
>>>>> stories, too. Fairy tales are just that.

>>>>
>>>>Then what's your problem with polygamy?
>>>>Remember, Mormon women, even when they were living in polygamous
>>>>households, had more civil rights than the women around them who did
>>>>not. They could, for instance, VOTE. Become physicians. Stuff that
>>>>other American women didn't get for many decades.

>>>
>>> That is bull in its anedotal pap. One women became a doctor. Show me,
>>> and everyone here, that there was, in fact, a greater percentage of
>>> mormon women who became what was then a doctor against the greater
>>> population of, say, the city of Boston.

>>
>>You mean, show you that more women per capita became physicians in the
>>LDS community than in any other religious one? Not a problem. You need
>>to ask the right questions there. There were a great many more people
>>in, say, Boston than there were Mormons at the time. Get fair, here.

>
> One can do a per capita comparison. You don't need same size
> populations to do this comparison.
>
> Ok, can you find a religious society of the same time period that kept
> the demographic of women who attained "professional" positions in
> their society? That is why I say that what we are dealing with is
> anecdotal information. Comparing Utah with the Boston area, or pick
> another geography is not out of bounds, but one could try to find a
> similar grouping of people with different mores to try to compare.

>>
>>You can also acknowledge that it WAS Brigham Young who sent them. You
>>show me any other male religious leader who did the same thing.

>
> One would need to have a more comprehensive understanding of other
> societies to know if a leader ever did such a thing.

>>
>>As for the vote...c'mon, that's history that, even though the NOW
>>people keep forgetting to put on their timelines, is historical fact
>>and even the most abject feminist has to acknowledge it. They HATE it,
>>but they have to acknowledge it, just as they have to admit that until
>>the middle sixties, the head of NOW was (gasp) a Mormon.

>
> Huh. What does NOW have to do with it

>>

>>> And for voting - well why not. You voted for Brigham - you didn't vote
>>> against him. I would want everyone voting, even the toddler could pull
>>> the lever with the help of mommy.

>>
>>Nobody knows who you vote for when you get the ballot. That's the whole
>>point of a secret ballot.

>
> Not in Utah during this period. You seem to forget the voting
> manipulation to get Utah as a state.

>>

>>>>>>> As we can read in Micah, God apphord that practice and the NT tells us
>>>>>>> that man are to have but ONE wife!!

>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, the NT does say that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife,
>>>>>>yes. But then, just as in biblical days, LDS have had periods where it
>>>>>>was OK to have more than one wife, and times when it's not ok to have
>>>>>>more than one wife--like now.

>>>>>
>>>>> Just doesn't fit with the corporate image any more does it? Anyway,
>>>>> you can't hide it as well as you could 100 years ago.

>>>>
>>>>(snort) Oh, yeah, we hid it REAL well...

>>>
>>> Well we all know that polygamy was happening right under everyone
>>> noses circa early 1800s. Sorry, by hide, I meant from federal
>>> prosecution

>>
>>Except that it wasn't being prosecuted until they decided to use it to
>>'get' us for other reasons.

>
>

>>

>>>>>>> It's no big news as to WHY JS invented this stuff!

>>>>>>
>>>>>>Always, of course, you beg the question as to whether he did, indeed,
>>>>>>invent it. Since I believe that there was no "invention" involved, you
>>>>>>can hardly expect me to agree with your polemic and rather nasty
>>>>>>opinion regarding the matter.

>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, But answer this question. If it was absolutely essential to
>>>>> have the extra wives to get a good seat in the CK, and a prophet of
>>>>> god thundered that from the pulpit, just why doesn't Hinkley have his
>>>>> own stable? If God is unchanging (isn't that in the Bible somewhere?)
>>>>> then something is not right here.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again, you are attempting to have this both ways. If He doesn't exist,
>>>>you can have no problem with polygamy or how we deal with it. If He
>>>>does, and we are correct about Him, then He deals with His people in
>>>>different ways according to different times and needs. The folk of the
>>>>OT were not told to do the same things the folk of the NT were told to
>>>>do, or vice versa.

>>>
>>> I totally agree with you. If one prophet likes multiple wives, I can
>>> see how god would go along with that - especially if the feds weren't
>>> hot on his tail.
>>>
>>> Now, another prophet might rightfully conclude that polygamy maybe
>>> wasn't such a good thing especially when the feds were threatening to
>>> remove your tax exempt status. I am sure god could see the wisdom in
>>> that and concur fully. Different times; different needs.

>>
>>It wasn't our tax exempt status that was in danger at the time. In
>>fact, it never has been. I'm VERY tired of that old dodge, by the way.

>
> It wasn't? Enlighten me. What caused the first manisfesto and then the
> second?

>>>
>>> The old and new testaments were written to fullfill different needs.
>>> Obviously, writers would adapt.

>>
>>Again, you are begging the question.

>>>>
>>>>Seems to me, then, that if God has always spoken to mankind through
>>>>prophets (and if the bible is true, He certainly has done that) then
>>>>having Him continue to do so does NOT mark a change in Him. Indeed, the
>>>>change would be that He stopped doing so, forever.

>>>
>>> The question is this. If God is all knowing, why does He/She/It need
>>> to change the advice concerning the absolute keys to get to the CK.

>>
>>DOES He, then?
>>

>>> Are the requirements so fluid that if I wait a little while longer, we
>>> could get the word that we have to go on a crusade to get to the CK.
>>> Pick your infidel. Didn't god speak to a couple of popes to get the
>>> people riled up to recover Jerusalem. Surely you are not going to tell
>>> me that the pope is not a prophet.

>>
>>Well, yeah. I am. That WAS the whole point of needing a restoration.

>
> Of course. How else would you legitimize your new religion.

>>>
>>> And if the Bible is true??? I prefer the subjunctive "If the Bible
>>> were true? Yes. If the bible is true then God spoke to prophets and if
>>> God spoke to prophets, then the Bible is true. Seem a bit tautalogical
>>> to me.

>>
>>You do need to get an outside confirmation, yes. It's a problem many
>>Christians seem to have, this idea that the bible is true because God
>>wrote it, and we know that God wrote it because the bible says so.
>>Trying to get the hardcases to see the problem behind this is almost
>>impossible, though.
>>
>>"Warm fuzzies," here we come.

>>>
>>> Are you putting a constraint on He/She/It that He/She/It cannot cease
>>> communication with mankind.

>>
>>He has promised that He will not.

>
> If the Bible were true?

>>

>>> If He/She/It can adapt with the
>>> conditions, then surely if follows that God can decide to take a long
>>> vacation on one of the nicer stars.

>>
>>Two millenia is fairly good.
>>

>>> Maybe god will take just a few
>>> Kolob days away from the office, and a few thousand year pass and you
>>> think that God has stopped talking to you.

>>
>>That's about what happened, yes.

>
>

>>>>
>>>>We claim that He does NOT change. He spoke through prophets way back
>>>>when, He still does it. (shrug)

>>>
>>> Well I would shrug, too.

>>>>
>>>>Anything else would truly be a change.

>>>
>>> Uh huh.

>>
>>(shrug) All I have to prove to you is that I believe it. All I have to
>>do to prove that is say so.
>>
>>Since I believe it, it follows then that I will NOT be happy with your
>>premise that He does not exist, any more than you are with the premise
>>that He does. However, since I DO believe it, attempting to prove that
>>He does not attempting to force me to accept as a premise that He does
>>not is JUST as circular a logic as that classic "The bible is true
>>because God said so and we know He said so because the Bible tells us
>>this."

>
> Yes the sum of it all is why do I believe in something. The trouble is
> that, for some reason, religious people are charged with the
> admonition to spread their belief. Why does the mormon church need to
> send out missionaries to spread their belief system. Don't you think
> that an all-powerful, all-knowing god could simply do the job of
> making everyone believe the mormon faith?

>After all, remember, mormons
> are supposed to take these thing on faith, and mormons are admonished
> to not seek rational explanations.

>
> that is based on faith