canard78 Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 ...Can I assume your ignorance... You usually do. Why should today be any different? 1
Mystery Meat Posted May 11, 2014 Author Posted May 11, 2014 You might ask the same question of why God didn't teach people to be more accepting of inter-racial marriage.Everything? Really?Could you show me polyandry in an earlier dispensation?How about the tea and coffee prohibition? Surely you'll be able to show me that one in the old testament somewhere?Sure.Read in Ruth. You will see polyandry.Daniel tells of a law of health.
canard78 Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Sure. Read in Ruth. You will see polyandry. Daniel tells of a law of health. Ruth... any more specific than that? So a general reference to health (based on entirely different principles and health practices) is the precedent for tea and coffee?
Mystery Meat Posted May 11, 2014 Author Posted May 11, 2014 Ruth... any more specific than that?So a general reference to health (based on entirely different principles and health practices) is the precedent for tea and coffee?Ruth had two husbands.Yes. Restoration of the Lords law of health.
canard78 Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Ruth had two husbands. I asked you to be a bit more specific with some actual references. How about this one. Ruth 1: 3 And Elimelech Naomi’s husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.5 And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband. Given Ruth's first husband had died, how was her marriage to Boaz in any way a precedent for Joseph Smith's polyandry? Please try again.
Tsuzuki Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Ummmmm..........no. Going into convulsions is not a spiritual test.Anything can be a test, though in this case it could also have been a seizure. 1
cdowis Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) Given Ruth's first husband had died, how was her marriage to Boaz in any way a precedent for Joseph Smith's polyandry? I missed something here. Please pardon my ignorance of church history, as you interpret it. Please give us a specific example of polyandry for JS where is sealed to a woman who is already sealed to another man. Is it possible that you are conflating "marriage" (temporal only) and "sealing" (eternal)? Today is it possible to seal a deceased woman to all of her husbands, but it is understood that she will choose from among them. Edited May 11, 2014 by cdowis
Tsuzuki Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 I have a challenge for you and wonder if you'll be willing to take me up on it? Pretend for a few moments you're in law school and that in a mock court setting the thesis being debated before a jury is this one: "It is proposed that Satan is actually the Holy Ghost in disguise." Now let's suppose -- as law professors are often wont to do -- that the law professor who's overseeing the debate asks you to join the side arguing against the validity of the proposed thesis even though you're actually in favor of it. Now using your knowledge of the mainstream LDS understanding and approach to doctrinal questions, give it your best shot to convince the jury that the proposed thesis is erroneous and incompatible with "orthodox" LDS theology and doctrine. I hope you'll take me up on this challenge.All the best,TeddyI would ask the jury to consult the Church Correlation Committee, and then accept whatever it says without giving it any more thought. 1
canard78 Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 I missed something here. Please give us a specific example of polyandry for JS where is sealed to a woman who is already sealed to another man. Is it possible that you are conflating "marriage" (temporal only) and "sealing" (eternal)? Today is it possible to seal a deceased woman to all of her husbands, but it is understood that she will choose from among them. I imagine lvjd66 will use this approach when he realises he needs to u-turn on his failed attempt to defend polyandry from the scriptures.
cdowis Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) I'm simply trying to understand this polyandry thing, and how you see it -- I am not defending anything. I am asking for information ==>> we can agree that polyandry is defined as a marriage relationship between a woman and multiple men, so it all comes down to what that means. While it is natural to see a sealing as identical to marriage (based on modern practice), I understand that this JS thing was in the early days where the temple sealing ordinance and polygamy was in its early stages. But it is possible even today, in special circumstances, to perform a sealing ordinance for a deceased man and woman when they were never married. Marriage (polyandry) assumes consummation of that relationship. So, making that assertion, do you have proof ? I would be interested in your references. Edited May 11, 2014 by cdowis
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Anything can be a test, though in this case it could also have been a seizure.That would be the logical explanation and if I was the only one convulsing at the time I would probably believe it.
teddyaware Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I would ask the jury to consult the Church Correlation Committee, and then accept whatever it says without giving it any more thought. I should have taken a look at your profile before attempting to engage you in discussion. It's obvious there is no common between us ground for dialogue.
canard78 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I'm simply trying to understand this polyandry thing, and how you see it -- I am not defending anything.I am asking for information ==>> we can agree that polyandry is defined as a marriage relationship between a woman and multiple men, so it all comes down to what that means.While it is natural to see a sealing as identical to marriage (based on modern practice), I understand that this JS thing was in the early days where the temple sealing ordinance and polygamy was in its early stages. But it is possible even today, in special circumstances, to perform a sealing ordinance for a deceased man and woman when they were never married. Marriage (polyandry) assumes consummation of that relationship. So, making that assertion, do you have proof ? I would be interested in your references.This thread is all over the place. The OP is about whether the inter-racial marriage prohibition (or LDS race history generally) has any comparison to the gay marriage prohibition. Setting that aside for a moment my personal view (and the one I recently gave to a traumatised missionary who had been told too much by a "lost sheep" on a visit) is that Joseph was learning the principles of sealing families and eternal relationships. I see him viewing the sealings as binding families together. I don't believe he was building a harem/stealing wives. As to whether he consummated any of the polyandrous wives. I don't know. Brian Hales suggest evidence for 3 (I think).Josephsmithpapers also talks about Joseph's "polyandrous marriages."
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 This thread is all over the place. The OP is about whether the inter-racial marriage prohibition (or LDS race history generally) has any comparison to the gay marriage prohibition. Setting that aside for a moment my personal view (and the one I recently gave to a traumatised missionary who had been told too much by a "lost sheep" on a visit) is that Joseph was learning the principles of sealing families and eternal relationships. I see him viewing the sealings as binding families together. I don't believe he was building a harem/stealing wives. As to whether he consummated any of the polyandrous wives. I don't know. Brian Hales suggest evidence for 3 (I think).Josephsmithpapers also talks about Joseph's "polyandrous marriages."Just assume heaven is a free love colony and it all makes sense.
cdowis Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) As to whether he consummated any of the polyandrous wives. I don't know. Brian Hales suggest evidence for 3 (I think).Josephsmithpapers also talks about Joseph's "polyandrous marriages." When it comes to assertions about JS, there is alot of garbage out there, so this is a formal CFR. Please present your the specific evidence so that we can decide for ourselves. This is a very serious accusation. You can peddle such nonsense elsewhere but you gotta come up with the proof in this forum. Either give a formal retraction of your accusation that JS had intimate relations with another man's wife, or give us credible documentation and evidence. DNA would be nice. Edited May 12, 2014 by cdowis
Tacenda Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 There is no blame. Do you blame others when you meet them? Your reply doesn't make sense.Sorry, for being snarky. I've never had an experience that I know of. My problem is that of starting to not believe in a demon that can control my life. But maybe I'm delusional. I do remember my mom telling me of an experience one night. I guess something was pressing down on her chest. Maybe the devil leaves people like me alone because he thinks I'm just where he wants me. Who knows, I just know that some just have a hard time with a being like that looming over them in every facet of life, it's probably better to not discuss a being like that for some that have issues with it.
Tsuzuki Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I should have taken a look at your profile before attempting to engage you in discussion. It's obvious there is no common between us ground for dialogue.We both speak Mormon. That's some common ground. 1
Tsuzuki Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 That would be the logical explanation and if I was the only one convulsing at the time I would probably believe it.Maybe the Holy Ghost was testing you in the use of Occam's Razor. 1
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Maybe the Holy Ghost was testing you in the use of Occam's Razor.So either it was a demonic attack or 3 unrelated people coincidentally went into convulsions at the same time in an open well ventilated area and all reported voices of hatred and feelings of darkness? This occurred when avowed enemies of the church were drunkenly banging on the door threatening death to all within. What does Occam say? 1
Tsuzuki Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) So either it was a demonic attack or 3 unrelated people coincidentally went into convulsions at the same time in an open well ventilated area and all reported voices of hatred and feelings of darkness? This occurred when avowed enemies of the church were drunkenly banging on the door threatening death to all within. What does Occam say?Sorry that happened to you, but Occam might say that panic attacks induced by threats of violence are more likely than demon attacks. Edited May 12, 2014 by Tsuzuki
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Sorry that happened to you, but Occam might say that panic attacks induced by threats of violence are more likely than demon attacks.Except no one was actually afraid of 2 small drunk women. I know I was not. I found it funny. Until it felt like I was being invaded.
Tsuzuki Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Except no one was actually afraid of 2 small drunk women. I know I was not. I found it funny. Until it felt like I was being invaded.Then maybe it was the Holy Ghost testing all of you.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Then maybe it was the Holy Ghost testing all of you.Testing us for what precisely? Seeing if we would add frothing at the mouth?
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) If I think about what I would do if I were trying to destroy God's plan I think I would do exactly what we see happening in the world today. As a society we are all disgusted with the prejudices in the past. And rightfully so. The things that happened and the things that we did as a country and as a society are truly deplorable. But I find it fascinating that part of the reason at least in my opinion, that a lot of people who support same sex marriage do so precisely because they don't want to be labeled as a bigot. I think Satan, and I do believe he is behind it, has done a masterful job of equating racial bias with a firm belief that same sex marriage is a violation of heavenly law.I am sure many will disagree, but let me ask you this. If marriage between man and woman is the only form of marriage God approves of, how better to win advocate to your cause then by making those who support Gods law bigots for doing so.It's not like we haven't been forewarned: 20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20; 2 Nephi 15:20 Edited to add: After eight pages, I should have guessed somebody would already have posted this reference. Edited May 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Tsuzuki Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Testing us for what precisely? Seeing if we would add frothing at the mouth?Your resolve, maybe. Any experience can be viewed as a test of some sort.
Recommended Posts