KOGON

It would stand to reason that God's laws would supercede any and all laws made by man. It wouldn't even be an issue if godly men made the laws, but that isn't the case here in the good ole USA. More to the point, there are hundreds of different governments upon the earth, all with laws that differ from each other. Now if God said to obey the laws of man, you may (theoretically) have to change your religion every time you crossed a border, to suit the laws of that land. This could present a bit of a problem if you believe that all are saved/exalted upon the same principles. The way I see it, you then have two choices if you want to maintain any degree of consistency in your religion. 1) Compromise enough principles to be in compliance generally, or 2) maintain your religious convictions in whole at all cost.

It may interest you to know that the Edmunds Tucker Act, the one that made plural marriage a crime, was repealed back in the 1970's.

Maybe we should wait for the millenium to be baptized or pay tithing, etc. If one principle can be put on hold, why not all of them? Doesn't make sense to me. Nothing has been put on hold - Those that covenant with G-d do as he commands and sometimes his commands are specific to what is going on around us. It should not be a surprise when G-d gives specific commands. We should be aware of the difference between general commands and specific commands. We are not all commanded to sacrifice our son - the commandment to Abraham was specific and not general. Likewise we are not all commanded to kill drunks - the commandment to Nephi was specific and not general. Poligamy when it is commanded is a specific commandment to specific individuals and never a general commandment to all. The Traveler So the church, generally, has been told not to practice plural marriage, but God could then command specific individuals to observe it?

Joseph Smith knew full well what would happen if he restored the practice of celestial plural marriage. Why then did he do it? What did Joseph know that we don't? There must have been a very good reason to put his life on the line for the that principle. As far as it being unfair to women, that all depends on your prospective. Is it fair to a woman to not ever have the option of marriage due to the shortage of honorable men in the church? Or to be forced to choose from the possibly not so shiny"available" men. Etc. If you were a woman, would you rather have 10% of a godly man or 100% of an ungodly man? As you have noted in church history, many women, of there own volition, chose the godly man despite the sacrifice. That is not to say that there aren't honorable "available " men in the church, but from the statistics I have heard, the honorable women in the church out number the men, and the gap is ever widening. I am quite interested to see how that problem is solved.

whoops, wrong thread