Leaderboard

The whole point to modern prophets is that they offer us the voice of the Lord as attenuated to our own particular time and place. It is surely not an eternal principle that people must subordinate God’s instructions to civil authority in every instance. If it were then Daniel would never have gone into the lion’s den, Shadrach & Co would never have gone into the furnace, Judaism would have ended with Esther, Nephi would never have gotten the brass plates, Abinadi would never have stood before Noah, Alma would never have baptized in the wilderness, Alma the Younger would have never entered Ammonihah, Lamoni would have gone up to the land of Nephi with his father, Moroni would never have threatened the chief judge and then retaken Zarahemla from the victorious kingmen, Nephi son of Helaman would have never preached against the corrupt judges, and Samuel the Lamanite would have never stood upon the wall. And of course, Christ would have never gone to the cross; Peter would never have stood before the chief priests at Jerusalem or ultimately crucified on Vatican Hill, Paul would have never preached to Agrippa, and thousands of early Christians would have renounced their faith instead of going to their deaths in the arena and elsewhere. D&C 58 and 98 were an expedient given at particular points in time to particular groups in particular circumstances. The degree to which they apply today is best ascertained by looking at President Nelson’s and the Q15’s most current statements on the topic, which seem to indicate that for the time being—in general—God still expects us to submit ourselves to civil authority.

We're just one global or even national disaster away from some pretty interesting possibilities. I think about the dark ages, and Catholics cloistered in monasteries, preserving knowledge and culture. Fascinating AI summary: Monasteries during the Middle Ages were often designed with some level of defensibility in mind, especially in regions where they were vulnerable to attacks from raiders or during times of conflict. Here are some key features and considerations regarding the defensibility of monasteries: Defensive Features Location: Many monasteries were strategically located on elevated ground, near rivers, or in remote areas to provide natural defenses against potential attackers. Architecture: Some monasteries were built with fortified walls, towers, and gates. These structures could help protect the inhabitants from invasions and provide a place of refuge during attacks. Self-Sufficiency: Monasteries often had their own agricultural lands, which allowed them to be self-sufficient. This meant they could sustain themselves during sieges or prolonged conflicts without relying on outside resources. Community Defense: Monks and nuns were sometimes trained in basic self-defense and could organize to protect their community. In some cases, local laypeople would also come to their aid in times of danger. Isolation: The secluded nature of many monasteries made them less visible and less likely to be targeted compared to urban centers, which were more prominent and accessible. Then I think about how the church has just been quietly investing surplus tithing funds for decades in real estate and productive farmland. Then I think about the continual cultural decline of the United States, the ascendancy of China, and how every empire comes with an expiration date built in.

Exodus 3:14 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Back in the 1980s, I used to play a coin-op video game in the BYU lounge called Cliff Hanger. It wasn't really a video game, but a game where you made decisions for the main character at crucial points via a joystick and buttons. I was never very good at it, but some others were, and if you found someone who knew how to win the game, it was fun to watch the resulting cartoon animation.

Wasn't Philips also the one who came up with the "Came across someone threatening to jump off a bridge. I asked if he was Christian and he said yes. I said that I was, too. Catholic or Protestant? Me too! (drill down through denomination hierarchy) East side of town or west side of town confession? East side. Then die, heretic as he pushes him off the bridge." joke? (Obviously I forgot all of the details of the denominations, but I think you get the idea). A joke that, IMO, almost perfectly describes the divided state of Christianity today.

I have no idea, but here are some good questions to ask: 1. When the Lord said "laws of the land", did he mean US laws, the constitution, or all laws from all jurisdictions that one happens to be in? (The Lord has spoken in favor of the US Constitution explicitly, but I don't recall mention of any other laws... Just a thing to consider.) 2. Assuming those Illinois laws existed, did the saints know that? Were they within its jurisdiction? Were the laws worded such that a marriage performed elsewhere (and possibly only performed in the laws of the Church, not by the laws of any civil jurisdiction) was made illegal on arrival of the parties thereto, or was it only forbidding performance of such marriages? (The answers to these questions dictate whether they violated anti-bigamy laws or adultery laws, for example.) There are probably other good questions to ask, but I can't say I've ever thought about this before this moment.

My understanding is that there were already anti-bigamy laws in place in Illinois when they started the practice. This is the part that is causing me a little bit of trouble. So that takes me back to the questions in my initial post.

Plural marriage was introduced somewhere around 1831 to 1834. The Edmunds Act was passed in 1882. The Church went through the court system for many years contesting the act with various arguments. In 1890 The Manifesto was published. So, initially, it wasn't illegal. When it became illegal, we tried to fight it through the legal system and the political process. When we realized all our options were exhausted, we agreed to comply. Ironically the LGBTQ movement has brought about conditions that one would be hard-pressed to make an argument that this law would pass Constitutional muster if brought before the Supreme Court -- especially with the vehemence that federal agents persecuted the Saints in the 1880s. While bigamy laws are on the books in all 50 states, most of the time they get a slap on the wrist and dissolve one or both marriages legally. But, of course, it is perfectly legal to have "an open marriage." And they don't prosecute adulterous relationships anymore. Yeah, that makes sense. To be perfectly willing to pledge support and fealty to many wives with a legally binding contract: That's illegal. To only have a legally binding contract with one woman but have free non-binding relationships with as many others as I want. That's legal.

Wow! It's been a while since you posted. Thank you for your contribution to the forum. I do want to address one comment: Let's be fair and recognize that it is inherent in all religions. I'll repeat/clarify what I said in the OP. We don't believe the Creeds should guide our interpretation of the Scriptures. You don't believe that the living apostles and prophets should guide our interpretation. We don't believe the Creeds are the word of God. You don't believe our apostles and prophets have any authority from God. Once you abandon the Creeds as anything other than the invention of man, we'll stop believing that they are an abomination. And likewise, once we stop believing the BoM is the word of God and that we have living prophets and apostles, then you'll stop calling us a cult (not you specifically, but...). In the meantime, we will all claim the Bible as the word of God. And we'll continue to interpret its words completely differently based on our world views that we've received from the Creeds vs modern oracles of God respectively.

I've heard this same story but told a bit differently. He shirt catches on a branch stuck out of the side of the cliff. He yells back up at God, "I got it, thanks anyway."