Polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom

[Mystery Meat]

On 5/22/2016 at 11:40 AM, juliann said:

Gotta love the circular reasoning going on here. "I just know that I'm gonna get me a whole lotta wimmenz so here's some scripture that doesn't say that but means it!"

I'll betcha every single one of those with this heart thumping desire for more wimmenz imagine a heaven with sex. It might be the ultimate cosmic joke, they get their wish and then find out their spirit babies aren't made that way. 

 

On 5/22/2016 at 0:10 PM, juliann said:

I don't know the Muslim belief on this or how much of an unfair caricature it is. But I do think it describes what is being hoped for here quite well. And I do think men who repeatedly  fantasize and post about women other than their wives should be called into their bishop's office.

 

You get away with some pretty nasty things on this board, that are neither fair nor accurate. I am not sure why that is. Others have been thread banned for less. I have yet to see anyone who even wonders about the possibility of Eternal Polygamy foaming at the mouth about the possibility of multiple sex partners on this board or thread. Those of us who no more than acknowledge the possibility may not be all that excited by it and have many mixed emotions. CFR right now that anyone on this thread, let alone this board, has ever fantasized about women other than their wives. You have essentially laid the charge of adultery (according to the Savior's definition) at the feet of at least a few posters on this board. You better damn well be ready to back it up. 

Your above statements are no more true than me saying something equally mean spirited about women and they are nothing more than untrue, unchristlike and mean-spirited generalizations. If you want to think that all men are is a bunch of walking sexaholics that is a you problem. But superimposing those beliefs onto men (priesthood holders, who likely have temple recommends no doubt; given by key holders who have the requisite authority which you lack, not because you are a woman, but for the same reason I, as a man lack the same authority) who you neither know or associate with, tells me much more about you, your own prejudices and suggests you are completely illiterate when it comes to knowing the first thing about men. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Speaking of cheap drive-by insults....

What does that say about what she has accused some of the men on this board of?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Speaking of cheap drive-by insults....

As opposed to Juliann's kind words to those of us who believe plural marriage to be an eternal principle?
Yeah, we're all "wimmen" crazy sex fiends who couldn't possibly have any spiritual reasoning or testimonies and witnesses from the Lord.

The question here is NOT "will polygamy be restored".
The question here is "will there be polygamy in the eternities"?  And if you believe that God commanded it in D&C 132 AND marriage is eternal, the answer is a resounding "Of course there will be".
For polygamy to be gone forever/gone for good, D&C 132 needs to be false, and that takes away eternal marriage too.

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As opposed to Juliann's kind words to those of us who believe plural marriage to be an eternal principle?
Yeah, we're all "wimmen" crazy sex fiends who couldn't possibly have any spiritual reasoning or testimonies and witnesses from the Lord.

The question here is NOT "will polygamy be restored".
The question here is "will there be polygamy in the eternities"?  And if you believe that God commanded it in D&C 132 AND marriage is eternal, the answer is a resounding "Of course there will be".
For polygamy to be gone forever/gone for good, D&C 132 needs to be false, and that takes away eternal marriage too.

And apparently if you believe as much OR even if you leave the possibility open in your mind, it is because you are an apparently low IQ male who just can't wait to have sex with a lot of wimmen. 

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

What does that say about what she has accused some of the men on this board of?

 

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As opposed to Juliann's kind words to those of us who believe plural marriage to be an eternal principle?
Yeah, we're all "wimmen" crazy sex fiends who couldn't possibly have any spiritual reasoning or testimonies and witnesses from the Lord.

Dunno.  Are you both advocating eye-for-an-eye?  Besides, I'm under no obligation to comment evenly.  I saw MM's post.  It was snarky and beneath him.  I said so (indirectly).  End of story.

Edited May 23, 2016 by ttribe

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

 

Dunno.  Are you both advocating eye-for-an-eye?

Nope, of course not. Just noting it was curious that you jumped on my response shortly after it was posted, when juliann's foul response was on the site for a day or so. Also, I don't think what I said was unfair, inaccurate, or unwarranted. I certainly wouldn't call it "drive-by."

[VideoGameJunkie]

19 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

 

You get away with some pretty nasty things on this board, that are neither fair nor accurate. I am not sure why that is. Other have been thread banned for less. I have yet to see anyone who even wonders about the possibility of Eternal Polygamy foaming at the mouth about the possibility of multiple sex partners on this board or thread. Those of us who no more than acknowledge the possibility may not be all that excited by it and have many mixed emotions. CFR right now that anyone on this thread, let alone this board, has ever fantasized about women other than their wives. You have essentially laid the charge of adultery (according to the Savior's definition) at the feet of at least a few posters on this board. You better damn well be ready to back it up. 

Your above statements is no more true than me saying something equally mean spirited about women, that is nothing more than untrue generalization. If you want to think that all men are is bunch of walking sexaholics that is your own fault. But superimposing those desires unto other men (priesthood holders, who likely have temple recommends no doubt; given by key holders who have the requisite authority which you lack) tells me much more about you and suggests you are completely illiterate when it comes to knowing the first thing about men. 

Well said. 

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Nope, of course not. Just noting it was curious that you jumped on my response shortly after it was posted, when juliann's foul response was on the site for a day or so. Also, I don't think what I said was unfair, inaccurate, or unwarranted. I certainly wouldn't call it "drive-by."

[shrug] Whatever works for you.

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, ttribe said:

[shrug] Whatever works for you.

Shrug all you want, it says a lot about you that you won't condemn what juliann said.

[VideoGameJunkie]

It does seem that other posters get away with being vile and sexist and vicious, while people like me have one moderator ( I won't say which one I know it is to avoid further punishment) that puts me on limited because I questioned the random closing of threads.

Edited May 23, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[ttribe]

25 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Shrug all you want, it says a lot about you that you won't condemn what juliann said.

Actually, it says nothing about me.  Perhaps you didn't see the rest of my edited post, but I'll repeat it here for the sake of ease of use -

"...I'm under no obligation to comment evenly.  I saw MM's post.  It was snarky and beneath him.  I said so (indirectly).  End of story."

[VideoGameJunkie]

On 5/22/2016 at 11:40 AM, juliann said:

Gotta love the circular reasoning going on here. "I just know that I'm gonna get me a whole lotta wimmenz so here's some scripture that doesn't say that but means it!"

I'll betcha every single one of those with this heart thumping desire for more wimmenz imagine a heaven with sex. It might be the ultimate cosmic joke, they get their wish and then find out their spirit babies aren't made that way. 

Don't you think that's a sexIst post you made about the priesthood holders on the board?

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Actually, it says nothing about me.  Perhaps you didn't see the rest of my edited post, but I'll repeat it here for the sake of ease of use -

"...I'm under no obligation to comment evenly.  I saw MM's post.  It was snarky and beneath him.  I said so (indirectly).  End of story."

That's pretty hypocritical, no?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

That's pretty hypocritical, no?

I'm not sure "hypocritical" is the word you are searching for, but you are free to criticize my criticism; such is the nature of message boards.

[Mystery Meat]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not sure "hypocritical" is the word you are searching for, but you are free to criticize my criticism; such is the nature of message boards.

I don't think it is hypocritical. I do think it is evidence that you thought what she said was okay and what I said wasn't. That is within your rights. I think it shows a lack of fairness and even critical thinking capability on your part, or at least situational blindness, but that's just me.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't think it is hypocritical. I do think it is evidence that you thought what she said was okay and what I said wasn't. That is within your rights. I think it shows a lack of fairness and even critical thinking capability on your part, or at least situational blindness, but that's just me.

Has it occurred to you that I hadn't even SEEN what you were talking about until after the fact?

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Has it occurred to you that I hadn't even SEEN what you were talking about until after the fact?

Well if that's the case then I would say you were unfairly critical of me and were all to eager to do so before you had all of the facts. I am not sure that's any better.

[VideoGameJunkie]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not sure "hypocritical" is the word you are searching for, but you are free to criticize my criticism; such is the nature of message boards.

Fine, not hypocritical, but biased.

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Well if that's the case then I would say you were unfairly critical of me and were all to eager to do so before you had all of the facts. I am not sure that's any better.

Oh.My.Gosh.  If you don't place any value on my criticism, IGNORE IT.  If you do, then internalize it.  Either way, the allegation that Juliann 'started it' (as if we were all 9 year-olds on the playground) doesn't change the fact that your post had no useful value in promoting dialogue.  Not that I'm under any obligation to explain myself (although it would seem to me that you think I am), but I saw your post first.  I know, from a long history here, that Juliann has strong opinions on this subject and that they often run counter to what many of the more orthodox defenders on this board would be willing to tolerate.  IOW, I could anticipate why you might feel justified to make the snarky post you did, but still thought it crap that you went through with it.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you've now convinced me that 'eye-for-an-eye' is the method you were going for.  Speaking generally, if you are really interested in dialogue on the subject at hand, responding to your opponent's snarkiness in-kind only compounds the communications problem; it doesn't relieve it.

BTW, channeling Bro. Lloyd, your sentence should read - "...you were unfairly critical of me and were all too eager to do so..." (emphasis mine)

Edited May 24, 2016 by ttribe

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh.My.Gosh.  If you don't place any value on my criticism, IGNORE IT.  If you do, then internalize it.  Either way, the allegation that Juliann 'started it' (as if we were all 9 year-olds on the playground) doesn't change the fact that your post had no useful value in promoting dialogue.  Not that I'm under any obligation to explain myself (although it would seem to me that you think I am), but I saw your post first.  I know, from a long history here, that Juliann has strong opinions on this subject and that they often run counter to what many of the more orthodox defenders on this board would be willing to tolerate.  IOW, I could see anticipate why you might feel justified to make the snarky post you did, but still thought it crap that you went through with it.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you've now convinced me that 'eye-for-an-eye' is the method you were going for.  Speaking generally, if you are really interested in dialogue on the subject at hand, responding to your opponent's snarkiness in-kind only compounds the communications problem; it doesn't relieve it.

BTW, channeling Bro. Lloyd, your sentence should read - "...you were unfairly critical of me and were all too eager to do so..." (emphasis mine)

seems like you are the one who doesn't value my criticism. You can criticize me and I can criticize the bias in your criticism.

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Fine, not hypocritical, but biased.

We all have our biases, VGJ.  It's naive to think otherwise.  That being said, my decision to criticize one post and not another has more to do with the logistics of how I saw the one (MM's) before the other (Juliann's).  I don't believe I was intentionally allowing bias to guide my decision, but I could be wrong.  Perhaps I will ponderize that.

ETA: Since when is my opinion around here so valued that people actually care whether I am "fair" in my criticisms?  If that's the case, that would be a BIG NEWS ITEM TO ME.

Edited May 23, 2016 by ttribe

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

seems like you are the one who doesn't value my criticism. You can criticize me and I can criticize the bias in your criticism.

Yep.  I have no problem with that.

And, really, I have bigger IRL issues in my life right now such that someone's (anyone) opinion of my "fairness" on an Internet message board is really low on my list of concerns.  Hate to say, but there it is.

Edited May 24, 2016 by ttribe

[VideoGameJunkie]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

We all have our biases, VGJ.  It's naive to think otherwise.  That being said, my decision to criticize one post and not another has more to do with the logistics of how I saw the one (MM's) before the other (Juliann's).  I don't believe I was intentionally allowing bias to guide my decision, but I could be wrong.  Perhaps I will ponderize that.

ETA: Since when is my opinion around here so valued that people actually care whether I am "fair" in my criticisms?  If that's the case, that would be a BIG NEWS ITEM TO ME.

If you're biased other posters on the board won't respect you or your comments. And if they don't then what's the point of posting here?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If you're biased other posters on the board won't respect you or your comments. And if they don't then what's the point of posting here?

Everyone here is biased, whether anyone pretends otherwise. The trick is to be honest and fair despite your biases. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If you're biased other posters on the board won't respect you or your comments. And if they don't then what's the point of posting here?

Okay, really?  First, if you think you have no bias, at all, you are fooling yourself.  Second, I operate under no illusion that anyone has any "respect" for me or my comments.

At to why I post here, that's not something I'm interested in turning into a discussion.  Suffice it to say, we all have our reasons and there is likely significant variation among all the posters on this board as to their/our reasons. Your opinion of my reasons are no more valid than my opinions of your reasons.  We're here, and until one or the both of us are kicked off this board, I suspect we'll be here for the foreseeable future.  If you find no value in anything I say, you are free to ignore me.  Such is the freedom of the Internet; no one can force you to care what I have to say.