Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Martin

The Legalization Of Polygamy In The United States

Recommended Posts

That the revelation is a new and everlasting covenant.

Let me be more clear.

Which revelation is it clearly talking about? Sealing (eternal marriage) was also a revelation-what is your evidence that section 132 (namely verse 4 in your opinion) is speaking about the revelation of plural marriage only and not about the revelation of eternal marriage?

That's what i'm asking you.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Deleted. Speculation about the prophet's sexual conduct is not allowed. Do not state opinion as fact. = mods

Share this post


Link to post

With the demographic trend in the Church increasing the majority of female members with each passing year, I can foresee at least the possibility, were the laws to be changed, that the Church might again sanction plural marriage -- probably in a very regulated fashion.

Although it was historically not the case (as sometimes believed) that women outnumbered men in the church during the latter half of the 19th century, the realization of that scenario now and in the future might, and I repeat might, be viewed as a valid justification for restoring the practice of plural marriage.

One comment I have on Ben's observations regarding our modern expectations of intimacy:

I think you make a very cogent observation, and I think the evolution of social thought along those lines would definitely impact any potential practice of plural marriage in the Church. However, I think that the most likely impact would be that you wouldn't see very many, if any, instances of a husband taking on more than one or two additional wives. It would simply be impossible to meet the expectations of women who, rightly so, need love, attention, conversation, intimacy, etc. Maybe we would see a case of life imitating art and the example of "Big Love" would be a paradigm for 21st century plural marriage? (I've never seen the show myself, but I have an idea of how it is based on various news reports.)

Anyway, it's an interesting topic for discussion, but I don't expect to see a policy change while I'm still young enough for it to matter to me personally. :P

Share this post


Link to post

It is obvious that Smith believed himself to be above the laws of morality in the accepted sense of the word. He took other men's wives to bed, even those of missionaries whom he had sent on missions far away. In my book, and in the Bible, this would be considered immoral. But, he's your guy, so you will have to justify his acts.

Okay recess over.

Go back to CARM with the rest of the spirit-filled-saved-ones.

Leave us to our damnation for following "our guy".

Share this post


Link to post

Martin, here is the everlasting covenant referred to:

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto themâ??Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depthsâ??then shall it be written in the Lambâ??s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

Plural marriage is not mentioned until much later.

Share this post


Link to post

With civil rights advocates working hard to legalize and sanction same sex marriage, many Christians believe that the courts might revise marriage laws in this country. This could open all kinds of possibilities besides "gay" marriages. For instance, many civil rights advocates believe that the practice of polygamy or other forms of group marriages might become legally acceptable, thus trashing any state laws (including Utah's) which outlaw, for instance, polgyamy.

Should this happen, would Mormons again practice Doctrines and Covenants 132 - plural marriage? Would they again teach, as did Brigham Young, that the only men who become gods, even the sons of gods, would be those who took additional wives in the new and everlasting Covenant of plural marriage.

How would today's Mormon women feel about this?

If the anwer is no, they will never undertake this practice again, then shouldn't the LDS remove D&C 132 from the Standard Works, as the Church has no intention of following this revelation under any circumstances?

Your thoughts please.

If that occurred (of which I am doubtful) and if the current Prophet and President of the Church issued an Official Declaration--3 which reinstated the practice, and if called upon to practice it by my local priesthood authority then yes I would practice it without hesitation. However you do err greatly not knowing the scriptures or the power of God. It was never a requirement to practice plural marriage to gain exaltation, it has always been the requirement to do as God commands in what He requires of each individual. We would not remove section 132 just like we would never add to or take away from any of the words of God. Obviously you have never read section 132 or if you have you do not understand it. The Church has always and always will intent to do whatever God commands of us through His living Prophets and not what men of corrupt minds require. As for what Mormon women would think you must ask them yourself. You seem to equate "same-sex" or "homosexual marriage" to plural marriage such is not the case. Abraham, Jacob, Moses and many ancient prophets lived the law of plural marriage, and were accepted of God as being righteous and faithful. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual perversion and practices against nature. The Book of Mormon explains the law of plural marriage very nicely:
(Jacob 2:27-30) "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."
So you see if the Lord does not command it, if someone just starts living with plural wives without His express instruction to do so, then having plural wives is an abomination. So it would take more than merely the law of the land changing, it would call for further revelation on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it would seem to me that if I was lifting up any man as the "restorer" of Christianity, who had done more for the salvation of men than any other person (save Christ), his personal and moral life would be important areas for consideration.

And, as far as Smith's "marriages" to other women who had not been divorced from their first husbands, there is ample evidence on the net and elsewhere that these relationship were sexual and not platonic. For instance, here is one example:

Sylvia P. Sessions, married to Windsor P. Lyon, gave birth to a daughter on 8 February 1844, less than five months before Joseph Smith's martyrdom. That daughter, Josephine, related in a 24 February 1915 statement that prior to her mother's death in 1882 "she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and all others but which she now desired to communicate to me." Josephine's mother told her she was "the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."

(Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

It is obvious that Smith believed himself to be above the laws of morality in the accepted sense of the word. He took other men's wives to bed, even those of missionaries whom he had sent on missions far away. In my book, and in the Bible, this would be considered immoral. But, he's your guy, so you will have to justify his acts.

Just last friday night i was watching 20/20 where a man claimed that his mother told him that he was the illegitamate son of pres. kennedy.

DNA has not collaborated it-but the man still believes (though even his mother is now denying she told him any such thing).

Those who fall into the 'if someone said it it MUST be true' camp must really have been shocked to here that perhaps-the man might be mistaken.

Why is it whenever someone says something that can be used against JS (even if there is no evidence to support what is said) that people absolutely take it as truth.

But when anyone says something that supports JS, these same people absolutely take it as being false?

So far, there have been some DNA tests done for alleged children of JS and none of them have turned out to actually BE his children-

:P

Share this post


Link to post

The New and Everlasting Covenant is the fulness of the Gospel which includes all ordinances and commandments the Lord gives us including the ordinance of eternal marriage...which if God commands it may include plural marriage.

see lds.org, I'm not going to put up all the links as this is at least the fourth time I've done so in as many days. Do a search on my name and "everlasting" if you feel a need to investigate my claims.

â??All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church. They enter the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom.â?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't spend much time speculating on the sexual history of long-passed people. I'm weird like that.

But live people...well that is a whole different story. :P;)

Share this post


Link to post

Martin:

And, as far as Smith's "marriages" to other women who had not been divorced from their first husbands, there is ample evidence on the net and elsewhere that these relationship were sexual and not platonic. For instance, here is one example:

Sylvia P. Sessions, married to Windsor P. Lyon, gave birth to a daughter on 8 February 1844, less than five months before Joseph Smith's martyrdom. That daughter, Josephine, related in a 24 February 1915 statement that prior to her mother's death in 1882 "she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and all others but which she now desired to communicate to me." Josephine's mother told her she was "the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."

(Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

It is obvious that Smith believed himself to be above the laws of morality in the accepted sense of the word. He took other men's wives to bed, even those of missionaries whom he had sent on missions far away. In my book, and in the Bible, this would be considered immoral. But, he's your guy, so you will have to justify his acts.

Well, at least your true motivations are revealed with this post.

As for Sylvia Sessions, her claim to her daughter Josephine cannot be supported by DNA testing. So, perhaps she had a good fantasy life, but her implied claim of intimacy with Joseph Smith cannot be established, and the DNA tests would seem to disprove it.

As for any of the other so-called "polyandrous" wives, I have never seen any evidence to support your assertions.

In any case, I adhere quite strongly to the maxim that what is wrong in one set of circumstances may be and often is right under a different set of circumstances. I will not judge Joseph Smith looking back through the clouded and cracked lens of uncertain history.

Share this post


Link to post

This was a good and thoughtout response. However, we cannot equate the Old Covenant Law for the Jews with the New Covenant Law. D&C purports to be a "new and everlasting" covenant for the "saints." Therefore, it cannot simply be dismissed. Moses' law was fulfilled by Christ. However, D&C claims it will always be in force, and in fact, the Manifesto(s) did not abolish it but only suspended the practice.

There was an eternal Abrahamic covenant including the practice of circumcision. In the New Testament there were some arguments over its continued necessity.

Genesis 17:13

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it would seem to me that if I was lifting up any man as the "restorer" of Christianity, who had done more for the salvation of men than any other person (save Christ), his personal and moral life would be important areas for consideration.

And, as far as Smith's "marriages" to other women who had not been divorced from their first husbands, there is ample evidence on the net and elsewhere that these relationship were sexual and not platonic. For instance, here is one example:

Ah....the net.....the ultimate arbitor of fact and purveyor of hentai.

Actually, learned individuals have come to the conclusion that the net is not to be trusted since any idiot with a computer can post pretty much whatever he likes- as this thread so ably proves. I'd really expected a better standard of academic rigor than this- but I'm really neither suprised nor disappointed.

Sylvia P. Sessions, married to Windsor P. Lyon, gave birth to a daughter on 8 February 1844, less than five months before Joseph Smith's martyrdom. That daughter, Josephine, related in a 24 February 1915 statement that prior to her mother's death in 1882 "she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and all others but which she now desired to communicate to me." Josephine's mother told her she was "the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."

(Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

And yet the DNA testing has failed to corroborate those claims. Whatever Josephine believed, the facts don't bear out the story.

It is obvious that Smith believed himself to be above the laws of morality in the accepted sense of the word.

It is not obvious that this is the case. That johnny-come-lately's are trying to paint him that way is beyond dispute, but the facts are far more ambiguous.

He took other men's wives to bed, even those of missionaries whom he had sent on missions far away.
Actually, this is a supposition, unsupported by the available facts. You know nothing of the sort and have no proof of the allegations. You are merely throwing bombs.
In my book, and in the Bible, this would be considered immoral.
It would be immoral in our books as well, if only you had any proof.
But, he's your guy, so you will have to justify his acts.
Actually, we have nothing to justify. It is your suppositions and allegations which must be proven.

Share this post


Link to post

No, not yet. I think I would need to get a better paying job to support the wives I would want, if God allowed me to have many more. But then again, God has a way of providing for those who accept his will, so maybe everything would work out okay fine without that.

If not, she could probably get accustomed to the idea. Some things take some growing into.

Do you think you would be happy with the prospect of joining our Church if God allowed you to have more than one wife?

If you knew who I am, you would laugh at that!

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, and I find that hypocritical. For, the Manifesto suspended polygamy only where it violates the law of the land. If you believe that Smith was speaking for God, his mouthpiece, then shouldn't Mormons in lands where polygamy is legal be practicing it?

Mormons believe in continuing revelation. There was a revelation to begin and end the practice. Each time the new revelations met with resistance.

Furthermore, is it possible that Smith was confused, that he was only speaking from his own desires, and not for God?

Sure. It's also possible that there is no God, or that you and I don't really exist but form a part of a huge brain in a jar in a laboratory in an alternate universe. Possibilities make for fun games.

That is they way it appears when Mormons forsake this revelation so central to Mormonism.

The central revelation of Mormonism is that Jesus is the Christ.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah....the net.....the ultimate arbitor of fact and purveyor of hentai.

Actually, learned individuals have come to the conclusion that the net is not to be trusted since any idiot with a computer can post pretty much whatever he likes- as this thread so ably proves. I'd really expected a better standard of academic rigor than this- but I'm really neither suprised nor disappointed.

And yet the DNA testing has failed to corroborate those claims. Whatever Sister Sessions believed, the facts don't bear out the story.

It is not obvious that this is the case. That johnny-come-lately's are trying to paint him that way is beyond dispute, but the facts are far more ambiguous.

Actually, this is a supposition, unsupported by the available facts. You know nothing of the sort and have no proof of the allegations. You are merely throwing bombs.

It would be immoral in our books as well, if only you had any proof.

Actually, we have nothing to justify. It is your suppositions and allegations which must be proven.

Whether Sessions daughter was Joseph's or not, it appears that the relationship was sexual; as were the many other relationships he indulged in with married women. Take off the blinders. He married them in reality - not for pretense.

Mormons believe in continuing revelation. There was a revelation to begin and end the practice. Each time the new revelations met with resistance.

Sure. It's also possible that there is no God, or that you and I don't really exist but form a part of a huge brain in a jar in a laboratory in an alternate universe. Possibilities make for fun games.

The central revelation of Mormonism is that Jesus is the Christ.

Yes, the central doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus, God Incarnate, has come to earth and atoned for the sins of all those called by God to salvation - see John 6.

6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Share this post


Link to post

Martin writes:

Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law for Christians. The Law still stands for those outside of Christ - therefore, the Old Testament Covenant is everlasting. Certainly we see it in force as far as the land of Israel is concerned, for God covenanted with Abraham for the Promised Land.
I think I would disagree with you here. But that's a matter of personal interpretation I suspect. Essentially though, you are claiming that for some there is a well defined works based salvation right?
Actually, D& 132:4 states quite clearly that plural marriage IS the new and everlasting covenant:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

I am sorry, but I don't see "plural marriage" mentioned anywhere in that verse. Apparently you have to interpret it to make it so ...
Well, am I misreading Brigham Young, another one of your prophets who said:

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

Seems to me that all Mormons must be damned if they fail to enter into plurality of wives when it is legal to do so. Unless, of course, you deny both Smith's and Young's words!

I would look here:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/h...e/necessary.htm

Ben

Share this post


Link to post

If you knew who I am, you would laugh at that!

Which part?

I was thinking you are a man, but if you're not, substitute the word "spouse" in the appropriate place.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Whether Sessions daughter was Joseph's or not, it appears that the relationship was sexual; as were the many other relationships he indulged in with married women. Take off the blinders. He married them in reality - not for pretense.

How is it that we have to take off our blinders when you have shown us nothing. There is no evidence from the statement giving by Sessions daughter that there was a sexual relationship. She was told JS was her father, but it was on the mother's death bed and no other details were given. I do believe during that time period they would have wanted their children to be children of the prophets. I do believe they called themselves so even when they were not. It was almost as if it was an adoption type process.

Share this post


Link to post

Martin writes:

Whether Sessions daughter was Joseph's or not, it appears that the relationship was sexual; as were the many other relationships he indulged in with married women. Take off the blinders. He married them in reality - not for pretense.
Yet there is nothing in that account which implies sex - unless you want to read it in that way. And when you speak of blinders, the pot calls the kettle black. Exactly what is your interest here other than to forward a specific view regardless of whether it is accurate or not ....

Share this post


Link to post

Well, am I misreading Brigham Young, another one of your prophets who said:

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

miner2.gif

Alright! Man, we've been having the most awesome finds lately! This place has been a veritable gold rush with all the quote-mining going on! (That, or I am impressed that you read all the way through to volume 3 of the Journal of Discourses.)

Seems to me that all Mormons must be damned if they fail to enter into plurality of wives when it is legal to do so. Unless, of course, you deny both Smith's and Young's words!

Did Brigham Young ever teach that a person who didn't participate in plural marriage could escape damnation?

[Hint: Yes. But the anti-Mormon sites from which you mine your quotes ikely won't have those particular references.]

So, you are quite prepared, are you not, to add additional wives to your household? How about your current wife, Paul? Would she be happy with the prospect?

My wife hates the idea. I'm not particularly fond of it myself. One is plenty.

I also hate the idea of slaughtering sheep and am glad I didn't live in the time period when such was required by God.

Share this post


Link to post

Whether Sessions daughter was Joseph's or not, it appears that the relationship was sexual;

The key word here is "appears"- you have no proof, and there is considerable evidence to contradict your assumption.

as were the many other relationships he indulged in with married women.
This is an unsubstantiated allegation. You have no proof- you are merely projecting your own prejudices rather than providing evidence.
Take off the blinders.
I might suggest the same to you, but don't really see the point.
He married them in reality - not for pretense.
Not quite- he was, in reality, sealed to them for eternity- the most sacred covenants he could make outside of his covenant with Christ. But that doesn't mean they were considered married in the conventional sense, nor that he engaged in sexual activities with them. Again, you are projecting your own presumptions rather than addressing the facts.
Yes, the central doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus, God Incarnate, has come to earth and atoned for the sins of all those called by God to salvation - see John 6.

Well, since Mormon faith IS Christian faith, we agree.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it would seem to me that if I was lifting up any man as the "restorer" of Christianity, who had done more for the salvation of men than any other person, is personal and moral life would be important areas for consideration.

Evidently we are different. Probably the first difference is that I donâ??t â??lift upâ? Joseph Smith.

And, as far as Smith's "marriages" to other women who had not been divorced from their first husbands, there is ample evidence on the net and elsewhere that these relationship were sexual and not platonic. For instance, here is one example:

â??Ample evidenceâ?? Really? And here I thought that there wasnâ??t really any responsible evidence beyond Sylvia Sessions (interesting that out of the â??ample evidenceâ? that just happens to be the one that you chose).

But, regardless, as I said, I donâ??t dwell upon the sexual status of individuals who are long-passed. Some may find enjoyment from such things, but for some odd reason I donâ??t. Also, the term "virgin" as used in D&C is still accurate given what it describes, so I still don't understand why you felt the need to use the term and surround it with quotes.

BTW, next time you plagiarize from â??Rethinking Mormonism,â? you may want to cite them. Some think plagiarism is immoral.

It is obvious that Smith believed himself to be above the laws of morality in the accepted sense of the word.

â??Accepted sense of the wordâ? as in 20th Century America? Or as in 300 BCE philosophy? What about 21st Century Middle East? I assume that this â??accepted sense of the wordâ? has been accepted by all?

He took other men's wives to bed, even those of missionaries whom he had sent on missions far away.

Ok.

In my book, and in the Bible, this would be considered immoral.

Indeed. It would especially be immoral if G-d gave someone the wives of another man. It would be even more deplorable if there was someone who had three hundred concubines and it wasnâ??t denounced. Thank goodness there isnâ??t an instance of that in the Bibleâ?¦ oops.

But, he's your guy, so you will have to justify his acts.

Actually, he's G-d's guy, so I luckily donâ??t have to justify anything.

Share this post


Link to post

hentai.

And you get my Word of the Day award. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that obvious? Smith married several women under this new program who were already married (to Mormon men). I don't think they were virgins. Therefore, I must assume that the word is used in a metaphorical way.

You also must assume that all marriages must invariably include sexual intercourse.

That's fine with me. I'm not a Mormon.

Nor do you understand Mormons or Mormonism.

Actually, it was certainly central to the LDS system in the 19th century. Even your prophet was in hiding from the law at that time. Why do you think Young led you guys to Utah - because it grew good beets? He wanted an out of the way area to practice this new and everlasting covenant.

I think it kept the Church going at a crucial time and set them apart from other religions. I'm glad we don't practice today, though I can think of some great benefits of the practice. (Including giving more women opportunities to work outside of them home while still having parents stay with children, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post

And you get my Word of the Day award. :P

Just don't google it- whatever you do! :crazy::fool:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...