Mormons "getting Their Own Planet" (Merged)

[ERayR]

Polygamy really didn't increase the numbers IMO, maybe if one believes in righteous seed, that maybe is a plausible reason for polygamy. I don't have a problem with marrying a second wife after being widowed in this life and having both spouses in heaven. That's not a problem, it's the taking of wives while they're alive that I have the problem, unless it's commanded like in the Bible with taking care of the widowed woman. But nowhere is it commanded in the Bible, for a woman or girl to wed someone already married who is perfectly fine to marry someone single. Not that I'm aware.

 

Are you softening your position?

[mikegriffith1]

As Jesus said, "the meek shall inherit the earth." Even the Bible as now have it lends pretty good support to the idea that the righteous will inherit and rule on the earth after Jesus returns.

[ERayR]

As Jesus said, "the meek shall inherit the earth." Even the Bible as now have it lends pretty good support to the idea that the righteous will inherit and rule on the earth after Jesus returns.

Huh?

[JLHPROF]

It is not a ad hom, it is a honest feeling. While you say you have a great respect for the prophets and their wives, I wonder how many of the wives names you can mention? We as a body have forgotten them, and maybe even never knew them. How a working man give quality time to multiple wives is beyond me.

 

Why don't you want polygamy soon? Do you really believe that your current wife will be okay with going to another room while you make love to another wife?

 

You really need to stop making assumptions about me and calling it an argument against my position.  It is the very definition of "ad hominem".

 

I can name most of Joseph's 30+ wives just off the top of my head and have read about most of them. 

I think you have a very limited view on marriage, and more importantly, on God's view of marriage.  I think you may have a hard time enjoying hanging out with all the polyamist families in the Celestial Kingdom.  "Sorry Abraham, my wife and I can't come to dinner at your house - we just don't approve of you living with Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah and it makes my wife uncomfortable".

(See, I can do Ad Hom too!)

 

As for not wanting polyamy soon - it's hard to live.  I'm not ignorant of that fact.  Not real eager to cross the plains in a snowstorm either.  But blessings of God are worth all trials (Lecture on Faith #6).

Edited November 29, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

I don't have a problem with marrying a second wife after being widowed in this life and having both spouses in heaven. That's not a problem, it's the taking of wives while they're alive that I have the problem

 

And you don't see a conflict in this?

We are supposed to be working here to become more like we will be there.

Families here are supposed to be models of families there.

Polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom will be all around, including most of those who preside there.  If it makes us uncomfortable the flaw is in us, not in the practice.

[Sanpitch]

Levirate marriage was also a command to marry where there was no exemption for already married individuals.  We have at least one individual who was killed because he refused to participate (Onan).

 

Yes and look what happened to him if he refused, poor guy:  Deut 25: 7-10

 

7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.

 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

 9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.

 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Randall57]

You really need to stop making assumptions about me and calling it an argument against my position.  It is the very definition of "ad hominem".

 

I can name most of Joseph's 30+ wives just off the top of my head and have read about most of them. 

I think you have a very limited view on marriage, and more importantly, on God's view of marriage.  I think you may have a hard time enjoying hanging out with all the polyamist families in the Celestial Kingdom.  "Sorry Abraham, my wife and I can't come to dinner at your house - we just don't approve of you living with Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah and it makes my wife uncomfortable".

 

As for not wanting polyamy soon - it's hard to live.  I'm not ignorant of that fact.  Not real eager to cross the plains in a snowstorm either.  But blessings of God are worth all trials (Lecture on Faith #6).

 

And you will have to suffer through having all these wives, but you will do it for the team? I believe Joseph and Brigham were wrong on it and sec 132 was written to get him out of a jamb and to keep Emma from entering into polyandry.

[JLHPROF]

And you will have to suffer through having all these wives, but you will do it for the team? I believe Joseph and Brigham were wrong on it and sec 132 was written to get him out of a jamb and to keep Emma from entering into polyandry.

 

So you reject a canonized piece of scripture,  and consider the first seven prophets, most of the Apostles, Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and many others to be adulterers (because if polygamy isn't from God that's exactly what they were, no other option) and I'm the one that believes questionable doctrines? 

Also, if the case, we should reject any revelation to Joseph or ordinances restored after Fanny Alger.  And D&C 121 tells us none of said prophets and apostles can hold the priesthood, so we might as well reject the Church today too.

 

Reject polygamy as from God, and the unarguably attached sins of Church leaders would remove all priesthood, authority, and most ordianance validity from the Church today.  So which is it?  Is the Church true WITH polygamy being from God, or is the Church false with polygamy being a grievous sin?

 

And I never said polygamy was "suffering", I said it was challenging, especially to our mortal feelings and false traditions.  Big difference.

Edited November 29, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Sanpitch]

So you reject a canonized piece of scripture,  and consider the first seven prophets, most of the Apostles, Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and many others to be adulterers (because if polygamy isn't from God that's exactly what they were, no other option) and I'm the one that believes questionable doctrines? 

Also, if the case, we should reject any revelation to Joseph or ordinances restored after Fanny Alger.  And D&C 121 tells us none of said prophets and apostles can hold the priesthood, so we might as well reject the Church today too.

 

Reject polygamy as from God, and the unarguably attached sins of Church leaders would remove all priesthood, authority, and most ordianance validity from the Church today.  So which is it?  Is the Church true WITH polygamy being from God, or is the Church false with polygamy being a grievous sin?

 

And I never said polygamy was "suffering", I said it was challenging, especially to our mortal feelings and false traditions.  Big difference.

Just dropping in without thinking this over carefully but does any of the Standard Works state that polygamy is required?  I know BY harped about it but he harped about a lot things that are not accepted or canonized.  Just curious.

[Bobbieaware]

Just dropping in without thinking this over carefully but does any of the Standard Works state that polygamy is required?  I know BY harped about it but he harped about a lot things that are not accepted or canonized.  Just curious.

He said that if not actually practiced it should at least be accepted in one's heart as a true principle.

[Tacenda]

He said that if not actually practiced it should at least be accepted in one's heart as a true principle.

Really? I guess I'm in trouble.

[Teancum]

So you reject a canonized piece of scripture, and consider the first seven prophets, most of the Apostles, Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and many others to be adulterers (because if polygamy isn't from God that's exactly what they were, no other option) and I'm the one that believes questionable doctrines?

Also, if the case, we should reject any revelation to Joseph or ordinances restored after Fanny Alger. And D&C 121 tells us none of said prophets and apostles can hold the priesthood, so we might as well reject the Church today too.

Reject polygamy as from God, and the unarguably attached sins of Church leaders would remove all priesthood, authority, and most ordianance validity from the Church today. So which is it? Is the Church true WITH polygamy being from God, or is the Church false with polygamy being a grievous sin?

And I never said polygamy was "suffering", I said it was challenging, especially to our mortal feelings and false traditions. Big difference.

You are catching on. ;-) Edited November 29, 2015 by Teancum

[Bobbieaware]

Really? I guess I'm in trouble.

Yes, really. And you're not in trouble because every one of us will get exactly the kind of salvation we are willing to enjoy. God will not force embracing and living the higher laws of the Gospel anyone. That's one of the reasons why there are different degrees of glory.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Sanpitch]

So you reject a canonized piece of scripture,  and consider the first seven prophets, most of the Apostles, Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and many others to be adulterers (because if polygamy isn't from God that's exactly what they were, no other option) and I'm the one that believes questionable doctrines? 

Also, if the case, we should reject any revelation to Joseph or ordinances restored after Fanny Alger.  And D&C 121 tells us none of said prophets and apostles can hold the priesthood, so we might as well reject the Church today too.

 

Reject polygamy as from God, and the unarguably attached sins of Church leaders would remove all priesthood, authority, and most ordianance validity from the Church today.  So which is it?  Is the Church true WITH polygamy being from God, or is the Church false with polygamy being a grievous sin?

 

And I never said polygamy was "suffering", I said it was challenging, especially to our mortal feelings and false traditions.  Big difference.

"(because if polygamy isn't from God that's exactly what they were, no other option)" 

 

Now wait a minute there's a difference between allowing and it being the custom and it being from God.  Do you have scripture references to statements of God initiating polygamy in general, not in insulated cases.  You've probably covered this before but I've missed it. 

[Sanpitch]

Really? I guess I'm in trouble.

See you in the lowest kingdom, Tacenda, if I make it.

[Teancum]

Yes, really. And you're not in trouble because every one of us will get exactly the kind of salvation we are willing to enjoy. God will not force embracing and living the higher laws of the Gospel anyone. That's one of the reasons why there are different degrees of glory.

Tacenda is in a much better place than so much of the the perlious piety you demonstrate.

[Teancum]

Really? I guess I'm in trouble.

Don't sweat it. Really I think many who condemn you will be surprised someday.

[rodheadlee]

See you in the lowest kingdom, Tacenda, if I make it.

 

John 14:

1 Let not your heart be ^atroubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

  2 In my Father’s ^ahouse are many ^bmansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Edited November 30, 2015 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

Tacenda is in a much better place than so much of the the perlious piety you demonstrate.

Care to clarify that?

[rodheadlee]

Don't sweat it. Really I think many who condemn you will be surprised someday.

Who is condemning her? Not everyone is cut out for the highest section of the highest kingdom. There is no condemnation in that. Condemnation comes from being a hypocrite in my opinion. If you don't believe Section 132 is the Word of God and you get sealed in the temple to hedge your bet then that is hypocritical. If you are doing the best you can with what you have, there is no condemnation in that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edited to clarify  my thoughts.

Edited November 30, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Teancum]

Care to clarify that?

Nope.

[Teancum]

Who is condemning her? Not everyone is cut out for the highest section of the highest kingdom. There is no condemnation in that. Condemnation comes from being a hypocrite in my opinion. If you don't believe Section 132 is the Word of God and you get sealed in the temple to hedge your bet then that is hypocritical. If you are doing the best you can with what you have, there is no condemnation in that.

edited to clarify my thoughts.

So you must beleive in polygamy to be in the celestial kingdom? And to say someone is not "cut out" for the highest reward God allegedly offers...is...well...condemning someone. Edited November 30, 2015 by Teancum

[JLHPROF]

"(because if polygamy isn't from God that's exactly what they were, no other option)" 

 

Now wait a minute there's a difference between allowing and it being the custom and it being from God.  Do you have scripture references to statements of God initiating polygamy in general, not in insulated cases.  You've probably covered this before but I've missed it. 

 

Why do I need to show God initiating polygamy in general for the purpose of this discussion?

The practice of polygamy when unsanctioned by God is adultery.   Simple.  Cultural custom doesn't change that. 

 

Either polygamy & D&C 132 came from God or all the early prophets and apostles were adulterers resulting in a loss of priesthood and rendering the Church today completely absent of authority, many of the D&C revelations suspect, and a lot of the ordinances questionable.

 

In which case, if you can't accept polygamy as from God I see little reason (outside of social) to choose Mormonism.

 

You are catching on. ;-)

 

If you mean that there are only two choices, I've always known that.

If you mean that the practice of polygamy validates loss of faith, that is between the individual and God.  (But it is not a reasonable validation to me).

But stating the Church is God's Church but polygamy wasn't from God is not an option.

[JLHPROF]

So you must beleive in polygamy to be in the celestial kingdom? And to say someone is not "cut out" for the highest reward God allegedly offers...is...well...condemning someone.

 

Overly simple, but yes.

[Teancum]

Overly simple, but yes.

Not according to current LDS leaders as well as apologists.