Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

re polygamy


Recommended Posts

Posted
16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not really the same answer.

I am certain I could love more than one woman at the same time, and each one of them equally.  I do not love my wives in the same way that I love my children.  My wives are in and of me, while my children are "merely" of me.  I shall send them forth to make their own lives, but my wives will stay and be as essential to my life as I am.  One of them I will have to give back in the end, regretfully, but in the meantime I will love her devotedly and furiously.

I think you didn't get what I meant.

If someone were to ever ask me which of my children or wives (if I had more than 1) I loved the most I would say I loved each of them in different ways because each of them has their own strengths and weaknesses,  their own personalities, various things that make each of them different.

It would be kinda like someone asking me which color is my favorite color.

Each of them is my favorite but each for their own reasons because each of them have their own differences.

None of them are equal so my love for each of them is not equal either because of their own differences. I don't love any of them any less than another, but I don't love any of them any more either.

Posted
14 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

That's good advice. I'm just confused because modern prophets contradict old prophets and some scripture contradicts other scripture. So it's hard to figure out which to rely on as being correct.

If I were you I would not be calling anyone a prophet unless God assured me that person was speaking for him on a particular point.  And then I would be relying on what God told me.

The reasob you're ideas are all over the spectrum is probably because this is a complex issue with different answers depending on each question, so first get it straight in your own mind as to what questions you should be asking and then rely on whatever God tells you about it while you associate his answers with your questions. 

It's not a problem as long as you know how God is trying to help you to solve it.

Posted
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

You really are completely tone deaf on this issue.

No I really am not and you're doing a very poor job of trying to get me to believe that I am.

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

You think it's a poor comparison because you're not considering some of what I meant.

All the women I've ever had the opportunity to meet were on my menu, and that is still true today too, even the ones that would not be a good option for me.

Nice.  Keep digging.

Posted
28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No I really am not and you're doing a very poor job of trying to get me to believe that I am.

 

644837545424a8e40c7c8930a8807d8b16dfe527

Posted
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Nice.  Keep digging.

My thoughts are higher than your thoughts so I am not the one of us doing the digging.

Posted
13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My thoughts are higher than your thoughts so I am not the one of us doing the digging.

Tone deaf...and arrogant.

Posted

Ahab, it would appear you think the primary purpose of women is to have as many children as they can squeeze out given you are suggesting children are appearing every nine months for each mother in your ideal? scenario.

Posted
1 minute ago, Calm said:

Ahab, it would appear you think the primary purpose of women is to have as many children as they can squeeze out given you are suggesting children are appearing every nine months for each mother in your ideal? scenario.

Thank you.  Can someone please page Juliann to come help put Ahab in his place?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ahab, it would appear you think the primary purpose of women is to have as many children as they can squeeze out given you are suggesting children are appearing every nine months for each mother in your ideal? scenario.

No, just that it usually takes 9 months for any woman to have a baby after she becomes pregnant, as far as we know, and that the only way we know for any marriage to produce children more quickly than every 9 months is for a man to have more than one wife. 

Simple logic and simple math. Easy peasy.

Posted
9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Thank you.  Can someone please page Juliann to come help put Ahab in his place?

I'm supposing Juliann would tell me that I can't marry her???

Would probably be a bad choice for me to select her from my menu of all of the women I know then, I suppose.

I never said every woman I could choose would be a good choice for me to choose,  kinda like some options on a menu are not good choices for me to choose either. 

Posted

Who would want to marry or bear children for a man who thinks ..."I am higher"?

Quote

 

 

Posted
21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No.  Not "Easy peasy".  Good grief!  Women are not just to be used as baby factories throughout the eternities.

I didn't say anything about women just being used as baby factories. 

And I'm not the one here who is talking about Motherhood as if it is a bad thing.

It's supposedly going to be easier for the women who do give birth throughout eternity when they do give birth, though, based on what our Father said when he told Eve about some of the consequences she would suffer by becoming mortal.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

No, just that it usually takes 9 months for any woman to have a baby after she becomes pregnant, as far as we know, and that the only way we know for any marriage to produce children more quickly than every 9 months is for a man to have more than one wife. 

Simple logic and simple math. Easy peasy.

So why would you use 9 months in your calculations if it is not the ideal amount oftime for women to go between having babies?

Itwould appear that you see the purpose of wives eternally is to have as many children as  fast as they can.  Otherwise what does timing matter?

Posted

Which scripture trumps which? Jacob in the Book of Mormon or D&C 132? And does Gordon B Hinckley saying on Larry King live in 1998 that he condems polygamy because it is not doctrinal trump what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F Smith say? This is why I get confused because there's contradictions from modern and early prophets and scripture in Book of Mormon and D&C 132. One says Solomon and David's wives were abominable. The other says it was lawful. And you wonder why I'm confused when our own church isn't even clear on the issue.

Posted

In Jacob it was because it was not commanded by God at that time (like now). Hinckley said what he said because right now we don't practice polygamy. Solomon and David were "abominable" for their concubines, not their wives.

At least that's how I understand it. :)

Posted
18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Which scripture trumps which? Jacob in the Book of Mormon or D&C 132? And does Gordon B Hinckley saying on Larry King live in 1998 that he condems polygamy because it is not doctrinal trump what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F Smith say? This is why I get confused because there's contradictions from modern and early prophets and scripture in Book of Mormon and D&C 132. One says Solomon and David's wives were abominable. The other says it was lawful. And you wonder why I'm confused when our own church isn't even clear on the issue.

Since we teach that the Book of Mormon is the most correct and true book on earth, I'd say Jacob trumps.

But what helped me the most was the realization and witness I received that polygamy was not and is not commanded of God.  Not back in Biblical days, not in Joseph's day, and not even during the century it was practiced by the Church.

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Which scripture trumps which? Jacob in the Book of Mormon or D&C 132?

There's no contradiction.  Jacob 2 is always read out of context by anti-polygamy people.
 

Quote

 And does Gordon B Hinckley saying on Larry King live in 1998 that he condems polygamy because it is not doctrinal trump what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F Smith say?

Again, no contradiction.  President Hinckley condemned unauthorized polygamy because it does go against doctrine.
 

In fact, I personally would say that ALL contradiction where polygamy is concerned comes from members who find it distasteful attempting to explain it away doctrinally, instead of accepting the revelations and prophets and the practice itself as from God.

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted

Yes, we shouldn't read Jacob 2 out of context...

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

 27 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;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

So why would you use 9 months in your calculations if it is not the ideal amount oftime for women to go between having babies?

Itwould appear that you see the purpose of wives eternally is to have as many children as  fast as they can.  Otherwise what does timing matter?

The question at the time was what if any advantage there would be to a man having more than 1 wife.

I was saying that not only would a man have the additional blessing of having more than 1 wife but he would also have the advantage of being able to have more children faster than a man with only 1 wife.

Hence the math and the logic.  

Like, duh. 

Thence followed some of this nonsense that you can probably see, I presume,  going on.

Savvy now?

I am still waving at moments like these as they pass by.  And waving with both hands and arms now, no less.

Posted
6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's no contradiction.  Jacob 2 is always read out of context by anti-polygamy people.
 

Again, no contradiction.  President Hinckley condemned unauthorized polygamy because it does go against doctrine.
 

In fact, I personally would say that ALL contradiction where polygamy is concerned comes from members who find it distasteful attempting to explain it away doctrinally, instead of accepting the revelations and prophets and the practice itself as from God.

Since Joseph didn't seem to follow his own revelation, I'm not inclined to put a lot of energy into finding ways to accept it.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

The question at the time was what if any advantage there would be to a man having more than 1 wife.

I was saying that not only would a man have the additional blessing of having more than 1 wife but he would also have the advantage of being able to have more children faster than a man with only 1 wife.

Hence the math and the logic.  

Like, duh. 

Thence followed some of this nonsense that you can probably see, I presume,  going on.

Savvy now?

I am still waving at moments like these as they pass by.  And waving with both hands and arms now, no less.

Did the early LDS practice of polygamy produce more children per woman than monogamous marriages did?

Posted
7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's no contradiction.  Jacob 2 is always read out of context by anti-polygamy people.
 

Again, no contradiction.  President Hinckley condemned unauthorized polygamy because it does go against doctrine.
 

In fact, I personally would say that ALL contradiction where polygamy is concerned comes from members who find it distasteful attempting to explain it away doctrinally, instead of accepting the revelations and prophets and the practice itself as from God.

I'm curious, the perception I have from your posts on this board is that you are something of a proponent of polygamy.  Am I correct?  If so, can you expand on your reasons for becoming a somewhat active advocate for the practice versus some of the more passive acceptance expressed by many members of the Church?

Posted
33 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Which scripture trumps which? Jacob in the Book of Mormon or D&C 132? And does Gordon B Hinckley saying on Larry King live in 1998 that he condems polygamy because it is not doctrinal trump what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F Smith say? This is why I get confused because there's contradictions from modern and early prophets and scripture in Book of Mormon and D&C 132. One says Solomon and David's wives were abominable. The other says it was lawful. And you wonder why I'm confused when our own church isn't even clear on the issue.

Stop relying on scripture, unless you know that it truly is scripture. 

And stop relying on what some prophet says, unless you know that man truly spoke as a prophet.

You talk as if you don't know who you should rely on to help you know what the truth is.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...