Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Anti-Polygamy is Anti-Christ


erichard

Recommended Posts

Richard,

Whenever you quote the Second Book of Commandments, why doesn't it ever say who received the revelation? You say you are not a missionary and that you are not part of another religion. Then why are you trying to convince people that it is scripture and that we should not sustain our current prophets? Who wrote the Second Book of Commandments?

MorningStar

Link to comment
Richard,

Whenever you quote the Second Book of Commandments, why doesn't it ever say who received the revelation? You say you are not a missionary and that you are not part of another religion. Then why are you trying to convince people that it is scripture and that we should not sustain our current prophets? Who wrote the Second Book of Commandments?

MorningStar

I have to agree. Scripture as we have it in the Church ONLY comes through a certain process. The Second Book of Commandments has not gone through that process.

The process? First presented to the Counsels of the Church: First Presidency, Twelve, 70, High Priests, Elders, Aaronic Priesthood, general membership. Only then is something considered canon.

Next, Brigham Young and all the prophets have always stated that the writings of dead prophets are the standard, but are to be secondary to the words of the Living prophet.

And the words of the living prophets and apostles are the words of Christ. And those who reject those words will be rejected by Christ. (D&C 1).

A person can only utilize the priesthood and its keys under the direction of the prophet or his designated representative (bishop, etc) (DYC 84, 107, 121). Those who profess to using their priesthood for performing polygamous marriages in today's world are going contrary to the authority of the living prophet. So even IF an excommunicated person still held the priesthood, he could only exercise it under the prophet's direction. Since the prophet does not allow excommunicated people to use the priesthood or its keys, it is as if the person did not hold the priesthood, except in name only.

Link to comment

Hi erichard...

Well... I am not a believer in the typical sense at all; I don't believe in scripture as most do; I don't think there is a one and only truth; I don't think God is a man up in heaven... soooooo :P

I was thinking you were a believing member but since you are not, I guess it doesn't matter if the LDS church has a prophet or not for you.

I think all religion is man's (not humankind's) attempt to find answers... people seem drawn to various beliefs depending on many things including their culture, upbringing, biology, environment, etc. etc. etc.

It seems to me that people all over the world think they are right, have the "real" truth or the one and only way to God. I don't think the universe works this way.

So... here are my questions for you....

What specifically do you struggle with? What is it you want for men?

You seem to think women should be in "subjection" to men... what does this mean to you? I'm not sure if you are married or not but it seems to imply you have power, control, and authority over your wife. She must abide by your will and demands.

Could you give a few examples of women having power and control over men? Or women upsurping a man's authority?

To what does, "her law and her government" refer? I am not aware of any government or law that one would describe as "hers."

QUOTE 

This paragraph more accurately sums up my feelings about "being a man" on this thread.

So, (the scary question here...) what does it mean to you, to be a man? 

What is the "dignity, noblenes, and excellency of the masculine mind" that you have lost?

You seem to be implying that you want more power, control, and authority... over whom do you want this?

I understand you want polygamy... do you currently practice this?

You seem to think that having many wives gives you more power and will make you "a man?" You will have more possessions over which to have authority? Or more control?

If you want women to be in subjection to you, why isn't one enough?

How do you justify the fact that the original D&C sec 104 specifically stated polygamy was against the laws of God and this scripture was removed and replaced by sec 132?

I just don't understand your thought process.... you seem to relate having many wives with men gaining power and control and authority over women... I don't understand where you are going with this!

Do you believe ALL scripture is literal, factual, historical, exact, precise?

~dancer~

Link to comment

Hello all Here,

erichard wrote:

My conviction for today is that Polygamy should be de-criminalized

in America.

I believe that Polygamy has already been de-criminalized among consenting adults since that Supreme Court ruling of Lawrence vs. Texas about a couple of years ago.

Link to comment

I find the scripture used in this an interesting choice:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every MAN is CHRIST;

and the head of the WOMAN is the man; and the head of Christ is

GOD."-1 Cor. 11:3

You contend that this means that woman can only have one head and that man can have several women. During the time of Paul, polygamy was an accepted lifestyle and was practiced by Jews, Christians and Romans. So, let's say I can go along with that interpretation.

The obvious step up the chain is that man can have only one head and that is Christ, whereas Christ can be head over many men. Hmmm, ok that sounds pretty reasonable too.

There is one more step however. Christ can have only one head, that is God, but God can be head over many Christs. Hmmm that's an interesting speculation. Is that a speculation you are putting forward?

I have an old Ready References from 1891. It has a large article on "Patriarchal Marriage" but it doesn't make the connection to government that you espouse.

In any case, if you accept that the President of the Church is the only one actively holding the full keys of the Church, and that without his approval no marriage can be sealed in heaven, then, the no-one can seal a polygamous marriage without his approval and the argument is moot.

One can easily argue that polygamy will be reinstated during the millenium, (using Isaiah's prophecies), but that is neither here nor now, and I'm willing to wait. I don't see any real benefit to me to have to care for many wives. That sounds like a headache to me. :P

Ed

Link to comment

enriched also wrote:

I again recommend any disbelievers in plural marriage to keep reading the book of Ruth until they experiences the spirit.

And I recommend that anybody who thinks and believes that Polygamy is so 'wonderful and Great,' that they go and read the Book of Jacob (especially Jacob Chapter 2) in the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
Richard,

Whenever you quote the Second Book of Commandments, why doesn't it ever say who received the revelation?  You say you are not a missionary and that you are not part of another religion.  Then why are you trying to convince people that it is scripture and that we should not sustain our current prophets?  Who wrote the Second Book of Commandments?

MorningStar

The prophet of these revelations is Robert Crossfield.

about this prophet

I have been a friend of this man since 1981, and I deeply love and appreciate him. Interestingly, he is not very interested in doctrinal matters. But he has a good grip on a lot of things, and tries hard to be fair. I honestly believe if he were your neighbor, you would eventually come to like him.

The 2BC forbids members of the School from doing missionary work. I certainly hope I am not crossing the line in this regard. My purpose is to simply present my uncommon point of view on a board set up to consider various points of view.

My conviction is that I have a right under certain circumstances, as does everyone, to express their own personal convictions in a respectful way. I hope the circumstances here justify my decision to express my convictions.

Am I really trying to convince anyone of anything? Am I not just expressing my own convictions about things? Help me stay in line, MorningStar.

Link to comment

Oh what the hell... For starters, I can honestly say that we are all dumber for having read that... it literally killed braincells. I award you no points.

I, for starters, wouldn't want a subservient woman. All of my relationships that lasted for any significant period of time were with women whom I treated as an equal, not as a someone whom I had 'dominion' or some kind of 'Authority' over.

You Say:

"Our laws in America do not give the righteous Husband the proper

rights and authority he needs to be empowered and motivated to bring

his full intelligence and skill towards being a Husband to the best

of his masculine ability."

What right and authority do I need to be a good husband to my future wife? Equal Rights is a hinderance? Education? I'm sorry but your comment there doesn't even resemble a coherant thought. You need to be more specific.

You say:

If a woman had more than one husband, there would be confusion as to

who the Father of her children are, and who would be responsible to

take care of the child. Biology thus again supports polygyny.

Ever hear of Paternal Testing? You see, it isn't such a problem anymore to determine the father of a child... read up on it... (or watch Jerry Springer... that seems to be more up your alley anyways). In essence it seems to be more chauvanism that motivates that last comment than biology (Sorry chief, I call them like I see them).

You say:

Polygamy really is only a natural and inevitable extension

of "Patriarchal Government", which is the more fundamental issue.

When marriage centers on a "Political Contract", and the Husband is

the Political Head of the Government of the "Royal Family Kingdom",

then there is no Political reason that he cannot have more than one

wife.

"ATTENTION: DO NOT TAKE THE BROWN ACID! I REPEAT... DO NOT TAKE THE BROWN ACID": Marriage is not a 'Political Contract'. The Geneva Convention is a Political Contract. Marriage is an emotional and spiritual commitment between two people to spend the rest of their lives (or eternity depending on your faith) together. Also there is a political Reason you cannot have more than one wife... IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!

You say:

If a Bible believer reading this still questions the righteousness

of Polygamy when lived correctly, I recommend they read the Bible

book of Ruth over and over until they experience the Spirit while

reading it.

I recommend you seek therapy.

You Say:

Those who oppose "Polygamy in any form" are DIRECTLY opposing Christ

and His Law and Government. They are ANTI-CHRIST in the most

absolute way possible-- they are enemies of Christ. There is no

middle ground, one is either for Christ, or they are His enemy.

Many who profess Christ today are probably His worst enemies. Even

leaders in the Mormon church.

So, Warren Jeffs, the guy who is about to ruin one of my favorite places (west Texas) and marries 13 year old girls is doing right in god's eyes? He has like 52 wives... many taken when under the age of 18. Sorry chief, that is polygamy, and I oppose it.

Oh well, I guess I'll freestyle for a moment if you don't mind.

I have 2 cars and a motorcycle I am restoring (this is going to come out chauvanistic and I apologize ahead of time... I'm making an analogy, not saying women are like cars). In college I had one car. When I was in College, my car was in pristine condition, regularly maintained, washed, waxed, constantly getting tweaked. Then I bought my Lincoln, and I didn't have as much time work on any single car as I now had to maintain both of them, so it never reached the same level of performance that my older college car did. At the same time, my college car stopped being washed and waxed as often, because I now had two cars to wash and wax, and real life commitments to boot. Then I bought the motorcycle, and now I don't have alot of time for any of the three. None are in the condition that the college car was in when it was my only car. Now if you look at those cars not as hunks of steel, but instead as relationships, you can see my point. I would rather have one exceptional relationship with one amazing woman, than have many average relationships with many women.

Polygamy isn't about love it is about lust. If a guy sees someone he wants to be with, he can run and chase her. If a girl sees someone she wants... well to hell with her, she doesn't have a penis, thus she isn't entitled the same as I.

What you suggest is amazing to me. If a man had 9 wives, and and average of say 3 children with each (I'm probably low balling your desired # of offspring quite a bit too). This leaves you with 27 Children. 27!!! How are you going to be a man and father (by father I mean actually raise and help parent, not simply be in the same room at your child's conception) 27 children. Especially when there are 4 or 5 young children coming up at a time? How can you financially provide for these children to have the best chance at a good life? You know, things like college, clothes, and other things you probably deem to be trivial.

You say:

My conviction for today is that Polygamy should be de-criminalized

in America.

My conviction for today is that you are a walking advertisement for birth control, and the world (and Genepool) would be a much better place if your mother had been barren. I think I speak for the majority of the human race when I pray that you never procreate.

Pleasant afternoon,

John

Link to comment

jleavesl,

Although much of your post I can agree with, there is one thing you say that I cannot agree with:

Polygamy isn't about love it is about lust. If a guy sees someone he wants to be with, he can run and chase her...

I note that when Abraham received his second wife, it was not because he lusted after his first wife's handmaiden. It was because his wife Sarai asked him to take her so that he could obtain the blessing God had promised him. For doing so Sarai was blessed, had her name changed to Sarah, and was given a son of her own.

I see similar themes when I read about Jacob's wives.

Polygamy improperly practiced or abused may be about lust, but that is caused by the failure of the system not the success. I have read accounts of polygamists from the early days of the chuch and see nothing in their personal writings that makes lust a primary reason for polygamy. And much that suggests otherwise.

Please don't generalize what you don't understand.

Ed

Link to comment

Hey Scoates... :unsure:

Wow, truth dancer is quite an annoying feminist.

Anyone else notice?

Well, I stand for the rights of anyone who is being subjected, demeaned, and denigrated. For a guy to say he wants many wives so he can have more power, control and authority just doesn't sit well with me. I've interacted with quite a few folks on this board and I can honestly say I don't think there is even one person who would agree that this is how women are to be treated.... or that a man must have multiple women to "be a man."

My guess is that there isn't one (except maybe you... <_< ) who thinks the ideas of erichard are, well, in line with God's will. Just a guess....

Wuddya say, if feminists are allowed into heaven, we all politely excuse ourselves, and start a nice community somewhere else.

So, you agree with erichard? You don't have to be a feminist to see some issues in this line of thinking! cool.gif Personally if you have listened to the leaders of your church lately, (assuming you are LDS) you may have noticed that abuse and the demeaning of women by their husbands is not exactly looked upon with glee and praise.

But in case you think the men in heaven are those who abuse and subjugate their wives, and get off on control, power and authority over women, you may be in for a surprise! :P

Just my opinion...

:ph34r:

~dancer~

Link to comment

:P I was just being mean for no reason. I thought it would be funny. That makes it okay... right?

Normally you should be friends with someone before you make fun of them, but I couldn't help wondering how you'd reply. But don't worry, I'm actually nice.

Link to comment
jleavesl,

Although much of your post I can agree with, there is one thing you say that I cannot agree with:

Polygamy isn't about love it is about lust. If a guy sees someone he wants to be with, he can run and chase her...

I note that when Abraham received his second wife, it was not because he lusted after his first wife's handmaiden. It was because his wife Sarai asked him to take her so that he could obtain the blessing God had promised him. For doing so Sarai was blessed, had her name changed to Sarah, and was given a son of her own.

I see similar themes when I read about Jacob's wives.

Polygamy improperly practiced or abused may be about lust, but that is caused by the failure of the system not the success. I have read accounts of polygamists from the early days of the chuch and see nothing in their personal writings that makes lust a primary reason for polygamy. And much that suggests otherwise.

Please don't generalize what you don't understand.

Ed

I don't mean to be disrespectful. But whose diary did you read from the husband's side or one of the wives? I've perused some of Joseph Smith's wives stories and I got a less than favorable view of polygamy.

Also, in regards to Abraham and Jacob, because something 3000 years ago doesn't mean that it works now. I mean, it's kinda like a Betamax vs. a DVD player. It was alright for the time, but times have changed. Also, every Polygamist sect I have heard of (in the last century) used polygamy inappropriately.

John

Link to comment

On the Larry King show about seven years ago, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated about the people in the U.S.A. who are practicing Polygamy today:

I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

While Polygamy is still not legally recognized, Today I believe that Polygamy has been de-criminalized since the Supreme Court Ruling on Lawrence vs. Texas a couple of years ago.

Was the Practice of Polygamy doctrinal before July of 1843?

TheRyeGuy stated on the McKay versus 'Mormon Doctrine' discussion thread;

Link to comment

I don't mean to be disrespectful.  But whose diary did you read from the husband's side or one of the wives?  I've perused some of Joseph Smith's wives stories and I got a less than favorable view of polygamy.

John

I come from a family rich in LDS heritage, we have journals and writings from both men and women. They practiced polygamy out of faith, and hope. Faith that their sacrifices would bring them the approbation of God, and hope that the Kingdom of God would roll forth. That goes for the men as well. There wasn't a one of them (in my family at least) that entered polygamy because he wanted to. In each case he was called to do so by his bishop, and he didn't pick his bride.

I'm not sure I would have the faith to do as well, thus I'm grateful that we aren't under commandment to live this law currently.

Ed

BTW: I agree that most modern versions of polygamy fail because of unrighteous dominion (much as our original poster seems to desire) and selfishness, yes, and lust.

Link to comment

Here are two Passages from the Doctrine and Covenants:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 26:

2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 28:

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

IMO, Joseph

Link to comment

Hello Ed,

I come from a family rich in LDS heritage, we have journals and writings from both men and women. They practiced polygamy out of faith, and hope. Faith that their sacrifices would bring them the approbation of God, and hope that the Kingdom of God would roll forth. That goes for the men as well. There wasn't a one of them (in my family at least) that entered polygamy because he wanted to. In each case he was called to do so by his bishop, and he didn't pick his bride.

I'm not sure I would have the faith to do as well, thus I'm grateful that we aren't under commandment to live this law currently.

I also come from a family rich in LDS heritage. I have at least one ancestor who practiced Polygamy. I do believe that most of the people who practiced polygamy were good and honorable people, and they did it mainly out of living their religion to the best they can. However, I do Not believe that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy mainly because he wanted to practice his religion. I do Not believe that Joseph Smith was commanded of God to practice Polygamy. Please see my two Posts above on why I mainly strongly believe in this.

Link to comment
The prophet of these revelations is Robert Crossfield.

about this prophet

I have been a friend of this man since 1981, and I deeply love and appreciate him. Interestingly, he is not very interested in doctrinal matters. But he has a good grip on a lot of things, and tries hard to be fair. I honestly believe if he were your neighbor, you would eventually come to like him.

The 2BC forbids members of the School from doing missionary work. I certainly hope I am not crossing the line in this regard. My purpose is to simply present my uncommon point of view on a board set up to consider various points of view.

My conviction is that I have a right under certain circumstances, as does everyone, to express their own personal convictions in a respectful way. I hope the circumstances here justify my decision to express my convictions.

Am I really trying to convince anyone of anything? Am I not just expressing my own convictions about things? Help me stay in line, MorningStar.

Is it your goal for all of us to follow Robert Crossfield instead of Gordon B. Hinckley? You want us to follow a man who wants us to break the law and practice polygamy (Which would go against the 12th Aricle of Faith)? You want us to follow a man who has been excommunicated?

:P

NOOOOOOOOOOOO THANK YOU!!!!!!!

I'm especially not interested in being treated like I am a man's posession. I have my own mind and spirit. I don't need a man to tell me what to do. I have individual worth!!!!!!!!

MorningStar

(Anti-Christ my bum ...)

Link to comment

erichard - where does your prophet get any authority??? Why does your prophet reject both Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and others who were clear in their teaching that the church of Jesus Christ will not fall into apostacy before the second coming? You seem to ignore what Jacob states on the subject that polygamy can be taken away - or given - according to the will of the Lord. Are you following the will of God or the will of an apostate member?

Plural marriage is not something to be triffled with nor should it be implemented without divine revelation and authority. How you believe that Brigham Young was prophet and yet follow someone who was exed from the same church that Brigham once lead boggles me. Just because one believes that polygamy can be of God does not mean that your current brand is of God!

Link to comment

Hello Morningstar,

Is it your goal for all of us to follow Robert Crossfield instead of Gordon B. Hinckley? You want us to follow a man who wants us to break the law and practice polygamy (Which would go against the 12th Aricle of Faith)? You want us to follow a man who has been excommunicated?

Actually, Bigamy was illegal in state of Illinois by the time Joseph Smith and the early latter-day Saints arrived there. A few LDS Apologists will point out that Joseph Smith never married any of plural wives in a legal setting within the state of Illinois, therefore Joseph Smith was never really guilty of Polygamy. While this is true, I still believe that there was a law against adultery in the state of Illinois at that time. Polygamy became illegal within the territory of Utah in the summer of 1862 by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President of the United States. The Supreme Court upheld the anti-Polygamy law in January of 1879, yet the LDS Church did Not dis-continue the practice of Polygamy until at least 11 years later about in the year of 1890. While Polygamous marriages are still not legally recognized Today, I believe that Polygamy has been de-criminated from the Supreme Court case ruling in Laurence vs. Texas a couple of years ago.

Link to comment

JULIANN post:

QUOTE (Dear Mee @ May 23 2005, 06:36 AM)

RICHARD, you certainly lay some intersting cards on the table. You know, they are not to be played at the moment!  That you bring them out is quite disturbing to most of us. As apologists of LDSism, how do we deal with one who threatens our attempts to main-stream ourselves?  With great difficulty and possibly more denial.

Your statements become more bizarre and cynical by the day. The guy says "Me and several friends were cast out of the LDS church, but we have faith the LORD has not taken His spirit and authority from us." Perhaps he meant "MEE and several friends....."

At any rate, I'm missing the "denial" part...excommunication sounds to meeeee like outright public and quite emphatic rejection. Is Mee trying to be clever again?

Juliann, are you an elected, or self appointed, nemesis of Mee? :angry: I expected you to at least be chronological? :ph34r: The knowledge of erick's excom came after the fact of my post. :P Gee, J, that you didn't pick-up my distain for erick's position re male-female relationship and family structure... is that blinding-rage you are afflicted with?:unsure: I'm not surprised you, "missed the denial part". I sometimes tend to be terse.

I will expand the thought for your benefit: A supposition on my part--many/most/some LDS do not want to acknowledge that polygamy is in a state of dormancy. And that it will again, at some time and in some place, be practiced. If i correctly understand church teaching on the subject. Just fer YOU from MEE :blink:

ERICHARD, while i disagree with your thinking, i commend you for being a "gentleman" on the board. In this you are an excellent example. :wub:

TD, like yer right-on to Mee. "...in Christ there is neither male nor female..." One of Paul's best statements. Wonder when.... <_<

Link to comment

You Say:

Thus in true Israel the woman is to choose the man. Men are to "chase" the LORD, trying to please him. Any man who "chases" women to get wives is wrong in my faith. The 2BC does not advocate a lot of plural marriage-- mainly just in the case when a woman loses her husband to adultery, apostasy or death. 99%+ of the 2BC is not about plural marriage.

I say:

What is with you? A woman shouldn't chase a man, and a man shouldn't chase a woman? This isn't 1952, and we aren't in Leave it to Beaver. Women who most secure guys go after are more than complete without a man. If they need a man to be complete then there is something wrong with them psychologically (IMHO). Normal guys are attracted to self reliant self sufficient women.

You say:

I am not a perfect person, but I am sincere in trying to live by the principles the Lord has revealed. I do not chase women. Men today often have a difficult time understanding women and how to relate to them. I sympathize with their frustrations.

I say:

There isn't any secret in how to treat a lady... open doors for them, pick up the check, and talk to them like an adult. They have the same urges and interests as most men. Be yourself and you will meet a suitable mate. If you look you won't find them, just be sociable and eventually you will meet one who catches your fancy. And dump this polygamy nonsense... most women will see it as something as a turnoff.

You Say:

One reason for bringing this matter up on this forum is that the 2BC makes it clear that as long as the Gentile church completely refuses to claim the right to live plural marriage when absolutely necessary to fulfill the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage, they will not receive more revelation.

I say:

Explain something to me: If Nature creates men and women in roughly the same number, how does your polygamy factor in? If the key to attaining celestial glory is plural marriage, why did god set nature up for most men to fail? I don't buy it.

You say:

Consider this example of today's male frustration dealing with females:

I say:

Speak for yourself chief.

John

Link to comment
Hello Ed,
I come from a family rich in LDS heritage, we have journals and writings from both men and women. They practiced polygamy out of faith, and hope. Faith that their sacrifices would bring them the approbation of God, and hope that the Kingdom of God would roll forth. That goes for the men as well. There wasn't a one of them (in my family at least) that entered polygamy because he wanted to. In each case he was called to do so by his bishop, and he didn't pick his bride.

I'm not sure I would have the faith to do as well, thus I'm grateful that we aren't under commandment to live this law currently.

I also come from a family rich in LDS heritage. I have at least one ancestor who practiced Polygamy. I do believe that most of the people who practiced polygamy were good and honorable people, and they did it mainly out of living their religion to the best they can. However, I do Not believe that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy mainly because he wanted to practice his religion. I do Not believe that Joseph Smith was commanded of God to practice Polygamy. Please see my two Posts above on why I mainly strongly believe in this.

Well then, that is where we differ.

I have a testimony of Joseph and his work. And when he says he was commanded of God, I believe him. I may not understand all of the whys and wherefores, but it really doesn't matter. God owes me no explanations of why Joseph had to restore polygamy. God does owe me a testimony of Joseph's divine calling, that I have. God also owes me a testimony of Gordon B. Hinckley. That I also have. Other information will be good when available, but for now I have what I need.

Ed

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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