Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Not Adam And Eves?

Thinking

By Thinking
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Ginger Snaps Rising Star

Ginger Snaps

Posted
Posted (edited)

That is not what D&C 132 says at all.

There is a parallel of obedience drawn between polygamy and the Abrahamic sacrifice, but the parallel is clearly obedience not sacrifice.

The entire comparison makes that clear that God recognizes that being obedient to this commandment involves heavy sacrifice. If God just wanted to talk about polygamy being allowable when it was commanded, He could have just discussed Abraham and Hagar and left it at that. It's significant that He chose to discuss Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac in the context of discussing polygamy. Verse 50, especially, recognizes that it's a heavy sacrifice to be obedient to this commandment, and an escape is promised, as an escape was given to Abraham and Isaac. Edited by Ginger Snaps
Link to comment
ttribe Grand Master

ttribe

Posted
Posted (edited)

You explain

Well, this just indicates you aren't conducting yourself in good faith. That being said, I'll give you some thoughts just to keep things moving. You see, I think you've never been married. Therefore, you have some naive, romanticized idea of what marriage is about and you think "the more the merrier"...especially as a male who would have access to more than one woman in this fantasy world of yours. I also think you aren't a parent and don't know what it is to be terrified for the well-being of a child. As for my daughter, I hope she never ends up in a polygamous relationship. In doing so, she would be shortchanged in terms of what it means to be an equal partner in a marriage.

 

I said "consenting adults" Give me a break, nobody and no church is going to force women to share their husband.  Just live and let live.

 

 

What you said first was - "I want polygamy to return to the church." Institutional practice is a far different thing than "live and let live." Oh, and if you really think "no church is going to force women to share their husband" you might want to read up on the life of Emma Smith, just for starters. I believe you are terribly naive.

 

and adultery and divorce don't? Again, I said consenting adults. 

What about the women that do support polygamy?

Please, do tell, how polygamy solves the problems of adultery and divorce. I'd love to see some actual statistics. BTW, the inherent assumption in this part of your argument is that men are fundamentally unable to remain monogamous, so women should tolerate sharing their men in an arrangement; at least they'll know who it is their husband is sleeping with, right?

Nonsense.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted (edited)

What you said first was - "I want polygamy to return to the church." Institutional practice is a far different thing than "live and let live." Oh, and if you really think "no church is going to force women to share their husband" you might want to read up on the life of Emma Smith, just for starters. I believe you are terribly naive.

 

If the church goes back to polygamy it will not force women to share their marriage. 

 

D&C 132:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified.

 

No, I don't want women to have the life of Emma Smith, I agree Joseph Smith made a mistake for not always telling Emma. I support polygamy rights only for CONSENTING ADULTS. 

 

 

Please, do tell, how polygamy solves the problems of adultery and divorce. I'd love to see some actual statistics. BTW, the inherent assumption in this part of your argument is that men are fundamentally unable to remain monogamous, so women should tolerate sharing their men in an arrangement

 

I am not saying any of that. I am saying that problems exists in all types of marriages, not only in polygamy. 

 

Well, this just indicates you aren't conducting yourself in good faith. That being said, I'll give you some thoughts just to keep things moving. You see, I think you've never been married. Therefore, you have some naive, romanticized idea of what marriage is about

 

You think what ever you want about me, but just live and let live. 

 

What about LDS single women 35+ that want to have children, but can't find a worthy priesthood holder? 

 

PS Most marriages were not true love because they end up in divorce. 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Link to comment
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

Now ask yourself these two questions.  First, who or what is the subject of these sentences?  Second, who or what does the prepositional phrase "which are many" modify?

 

If you think that the phrase, "which are many", modifies the word "women" then you are committing a common parsing error.  A lot of people do this because of the proximity of the word "women" to the phrase in question.  (Note in the preceding sentence the word "which" follows the word "women".  In this case does modify the word "women". This is both logically and linguistically correct.  If there was a comma between the word "women" and the word "which" then this would change the meaning of the sentence.)  What some readers do is that they fail to recognize that there is a comma between the word "women" and the phrase" which are many" in the scripture I quoted.  The comma indicates that the phrase applies to the subject of the sentence and not to the word in front of the phrase.

 

A better question is how does it read in the original language or are you an inerrant King James type?

Link to comment
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

Hello. Lillith would be what some would call a starter wife. I remember catching an episode of cheers somewhere back when i was younger and bursting into laughter that frazier's jewish wife was called lillith. I think the name was meant as an inside joke among jews ...in ashkenazi folklore lillith plays many of roles that christians associate with satan...so i can't imagine a self respecting member of the faith naming a child as such! :-)

 

I know there used to be a Jewish feminist magazine called "Lilith".

Link to comment
Hillel2 Enthusiast

Hillel2

Posted
Posted

Yes! I recall that too!

I've also met some Jewish feminists who argued that lillith had previously been The divine consort demoted to demonic status by misogynistic rabbis...there is a canaanite goddess with a similar name so they might have some part of a truth there.

Even so, the name is highly provocative.. Lillith really does strike fear into the hearts of many in hasidic and haredi circles...i just dont think having named my daughter that would go over well when trying to arrange a marriage. :-)

Link to comment
TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted (edited)

If the church goes back to polygamy it will not force women to share their marriage. 

 

D&C 132:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified.

 

No, I don't want women to have the life of Emma Smith, I agree Joseph Smith made a mistake for not always telling Emma. I support polygamy rights only for CONSENTING ADULTS. 

 

 

 

I am not saying any of that. I am saying that problems exists in all types of marriages, not only in polygamy. 

 

and what about the single LDS women 35+ that want to have children, but can't find a worthy priesthood holder?

 

Many LDS women want to have children, and many would be wiling to be in a plural marriage. Today, attractive women will not be in a plural marriage. The people that have strong feelings against plural marriage are usually selfish. 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Link to comment
ttribe Grand Master

ttribe

Posted
Posted

and what about the single LDS women 35+ that want to have children, but can't find a worthy priesthood holder?

 

Many LDS women want to have children, and many would be in a plural marriage for that? Today, a plural marriage won't have attractive women. Attractive women will never be in a plural marriage. The people that have strong feelings against plural marriage are usually selfish. 

 

Wow...ummm...wow.  I am speechless at all the ways you've insulted several entire groups of people.  I am hoping that at least one of our female board members will correct you on how you view and speak about women.  As an adult male, I don't feel it appropriate for me to speak for them on this.  But...wow.

Link to comment
TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wow...ummm...wow.  I am speechless at all the ways you've insulted several entire groups of people.  I am hoping that at least one of our female board members will correct you on how you view and speak about women.  As an adult male, I don't feel it appropriate for me to speak for them on this.  But...wow.

 

I didn't insult anyone. You are the one that needs to be corrected for making it personal. See your post 52.  

 

Nice dodge, you didn't answer my questions. 

 

Just live and let live. 

 

 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Link to comment
ttribe Grand Master

ttribe

Posted
Posted

I didn't insult anyone. You are the one that needs to be corrected for making it personal. See your post 52.  

 

Nice dodge, you didn't answer my questions. 

 

I am no longer interested in a debate with you, just live and let live. 

 

Says the guy who refused to answer my questions at the outset.  :rofl:

Link to comment
ttribe Grand Master

ttribe

Posted
Posted (edited)

because you are making it personal LOL Just live and let live. I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. 

 

You mean your questions about single women over 35 who want to have children and "unattractive" women?  I'm not going to answer those questions because they are inherently insulting to women; as I've already stated.

 

BTW, your TED talks links and continued "Live and Let Live" meme indicates you don't understand the difference between small groups of people choosing to live this lifestyle and an institutional mandate to live it.  That is one of the principal reasons you and I cannot communicate on this topic.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted (edited)

You mean your questions about single women over 35 who want to have children and "unattractive" women?  I'm not going to answer those questions because they are inherently insulting to women; as I've already stated.

 

wow that was fast. Don't you have anything better to do? I never said that women over 35 are unattractive, you misread what I said, but it is probably because you read a lot, perhaps all day. 

 

PS my girlfriend thinks she is not attractive, I disagree with her. Most dudes (including RMs) only want a very attractive women, some of them never consider a girl that is just a little overweight 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
Maedros Collaborator

Maedros

Posted
Posted

I once speculated that the reason for the different racial groups in the world was because Heavenly Father had different wives; since polygamy is an acceptable practice at various times it must be that Heavenly Father himself practiced it and this could very well explain why we're all so different especially since our physical bodies are in the image of our spirits so if we come from the same mother then how could we be so different?

Link to comment
MiserereNobis Grand Master

MiserereNobis

Posted
Posted

God is one.  As such he is not racially or ethnicly diverse.  Those are mere temporary conditions of our earthy probation.  Thus, God's wives, who are also like him, are not racially or ethnically diverce.

 

By all means, please explain this.  No interracial marriages in heaven?  What happens to interracial couples when they get to the celestial kingdom?

 

Is there race in heaven?  If not, how will we look?  Why?

 

I see lots of possible racism hiding underneath your commend and ask you to explain, please.

Link to comment
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

God is one. As such he is not racially or ethnicly diverse. Those are mere temporary conditions of our earthy probation. Thus, God's wives, who are also like him, are not racially or ethnically diverce.

Please define how you are using race.

Do you agree that race does not exist in heaven because it is a social construct?

"So Blumenbach is known as the father of scientific anthropology. He started all these new sciences trying to figure out the differences in the races – published his work in 1776 and guess what they found out. All in the human family are 99.99% alike. There are no races. So race, even though we run around calling each other black and white, it is a creation of man. It’s not a reality."

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/blacks-scriptures

Edited by Calm
2
Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted

I once speculated that the reason for the different racial groups in the world was because Heavenly Father had different wives; since polygamy is an acceptable practice at various times it must be that Heavenly Father himself practiced it and this could very well explain why we're all so different especially since our physical bodies are in the image of our spirits so if we come from the same mother then how could we be so different?

Wow...I have never thought of that,,

1
Link to comment
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

"77:1.  Q. What is the sea of glass spoken of by John, 4th chapter, and 6th verse of the Revelation?

 

A. It is the earth, in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state."

 

Again, heaven is beyond such wordly issues.  It is a sea of glass.

Meaning God is indescribable?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...