Anti-Polygamy is Anti-Christ

[erichard]

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!

True Revelation IS authority. It is the very wellspring of Priesthood and divine given rights. If a man receives the Oracles of God, he certainly has authority to do what the Oracles command him to do.

There is no evidence that the gift to receive and write the Word of the Lord has existed in the LDS church for over 100 years. If a gift is lost, are not the promises with that gift also lost?

Remember that the LORD also promised that in the last days the Gentiles would reject the fullness of the Gospel, and there would be a Latter-day SHIFT giving the fulness of the Gospel to true Israel. As usual, the secrets of the LORD in this time of shifting are being given to the LORD's servants, the Prophets.

You assume that because the Kingdom will not fall in the last days that that guarantees that men in the flesh with blood in their veins at the head of the church will never be allowed to make serioius mistakes. My faith is that you greatly err in this thinking. The Kingdom continues whether men at the head fail or not.

The Saints are being tried in all things. This was promised in D&C 136:31. Does not "all things" include being tried with the need to live by the revelations given for removing the President of the church? Why even give such a revelation if it is wicked to even consider living by it?

The right to NOT sustain the church President

Have you read the revelations that were given to Presidents Taylor and Woodruff? If you accept these men as true prophets, and you love the Word of the Lord, should you not rejoice in their revelations? It seems to me these revelations say things about plural marriage that contradict what the church is saying today:

The Book of the Prophet John Taylor

The Book of the Prophet Wilford Woodruff

[jleavesl]

Excuse me but will someone please answer me this question? If polygamy is the true marriage and the Male/Female Population is roughly even, then how, if we all lived according to god's plan of polyamy, would we end up achieving your celestial glory? It's like nature (which god supposedly created) sets us up to fail?

John

[SlackTime]

Excuse me but will someone please answer me this question? If polygamy is the true marriage and the Male/Female Population is roughly even, then how, if we all lived according to god's plan of polyamy, would we end up achieving your celestial glory? It's like nature (which god supposedly created) sets us up to fail?

John

Celestial marriage is the "true" marriage, the number of wives is immaterial and may be monogamous or polygamous depending on the commands of the Lord.

I have to wonder though if anyone has done a study on the incidence of births of each sex under monogomous vs. polygamous societies. And by this I mean large polygamous societies (if there remain any today) such as might be found in the middle east. Just wondering if a statistically significant variation might occur.

Ed

[erichard]

Excuse me but will someone please answer me this question?  If polygamy is the true marriage and the Male/Female Population is roughly even, then how, if we all lived according to god's plan of polyamy, would we end up achieving your celestial glory?  It's like nature (which god supposedly created) sets us up to fail? 

John

The true marriage? The true marriage is when a man and a woman truly love and trust each other in spirit and truth. Right? If real love is not present in a marriage, how can any ritual or words save the marriage?

The New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage, as explained in D&C 132 does not require plural marriage. If one man and one woman are married correctly under this covenant, and they keep their covenants, their marriage will endure for eternity. But keeping their covenants may require plural marriage. That is the problem.

D&C 132:44 gives a law that if a woman is married in this covenant, and she loses her husband to adultery (and I believe for any reason), then she must have the right to marry another faithful man "in the covenant"-- even if it means plural marriage. She cannot keep her covenants if she is not married to a faithful man in the covenant.

The NAECOM is not for all people. It does not matter if the world population is equal male/female. No one is suggesting that everyone live plural marriage.

Consider this though. In the world, and even in the church there are now a lot of gay males. So for every gay male there is a female who may want to be married. Should they be denied the opportunity?

Nature may set us up to fail and die, but God's laws provide a way for everyone to not fail to gain Celestial Eternal Life.

If a people say they will not allow plural marriage in any instance, they are indirectly saying they are not going to keep the covenants of D&C 132. Thus they do not want to live by the laws of Christ, but want some other laws.

Richard

[jleavesl]

Excuse me but will someone please answer me this question?  If polygamy is the true marriage and the Male/Female Population is roughly even, then how, if we all lived according to god's plan of polyamy, would we end up achieving your celestial glory?  It's like nature (which god supposedly created) sets us up to fail? 

John

Celestial marriage is the "true" marriage, the number of wives is immaterial and may be monogamous or polygamous depending on the commands of the Lord.

I have to wonder though if anyone has done a study on the incidence of births of each sex under monogomous vs. polygamous societies. And by this I mean large polygamous societies (if there remain any today) such as might be found in the middle east. Just wondering if a statistically significant variation might occur.

Ed

Warren Jeff's little cult runs off the younger males and snatches up the women young. I don't think that there would be any significant variation between inside the cult and outside, as it is a function of nature and they have not been seperate from normal (healthy) society long enough to adapt.

John

[jleavesl]

Excuse me but will someone please answer me this question?

[SlackTime]

I have to wonder though if anyone has done a study on the incidence of births of each sex under monogomous vs. polygamous societies.  And by this I mean large polygamous societies (if there remain any today) such as might be found in the middle east.  Just wondering if a statistically significant variation  might occur.

Warren Jeff's little cult runs off the younger males and snatches up the women young. I don't think that there would be any significant variation between inside the cult and outside, as it is a function of nature and they have not been seperate from normal (healthy) society long enough to adapt.

John

Precisely,

That is why I specified a "large" polygamous society.

Interestingly, my own research (in the Bible) suggests not, or at least not slanted towards female births. In the old testament we have some examples:

Jair is said to have had thirty sons (Judges 10:4)

Ibzan had thirty sons and thirty daughters, and Abdon had forty sons (Judges 12:9,14).

We know of course of Jacob who had 12 sons and 1 daughter.

So of course this is a poor sample set, but it certainly doesn't appear to be favoring daughters over sons.

Ed

[jleavesl]

I have to wonder though if anyone has done a study on the incidence of births of each sex under monogomous vs. polygamous societies.

[USU78]

The Brighamite Mormon's would be something interesting to look up... they would fit the criteria too... they were quite isolated from the rest of the gene pool for the most part and of significant size.

Let's think about this for a minute. I have:

My English great-great grandparents (a polygynous bunch); +

My Puritan-American great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch);,

My Welsh great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch); +

My Pennsylvania Dutch great-great grandparents (a non-LDS bunch);,

My Danish great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch); +

My Danish great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch);, and

My Puritan-American great-great grandparents (a polygynous bunch); +

My Welsh great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch).

Now . . . what was that you said about inbred, isolated from the rest of the gene pool Utah Mormons?

[Brackite]

Hello John,

Excuse me but will someone please answer me this question? If polygamy is the true marriage and the Male/Female Population is roughly even, then how, if we all lived according to god's plan of polyamy, would we end up achieving your celestial glory? It's like nature (which god supposedly created) sets us up to fail? John

That is an excellent Point, John. If Polygamy is truly a higher law of marriage and/or the true order of marriage, then why does the Lord God have the world population ration of about 50% men and about 50% women? The truth is that I strongly believe that Monogamy is the higher and true order of marriage.

[Bertram]

50% Men 50% Women!

Would that be just ONE of the reasons that Polygamy is not practiced today?

Just thinking out loud!

PS I would not be worthy enough to be able to partake anyway

[JLH]

50% Men 50% Women!

Would that be just ONE of the reasons that Polygamy is not practiced today?

Why would that reason apply today but not during the 1800s?

[erichard]

D&C 132:44 gives a law that if a woman is married in this covenant, and she loses her husband to adultery (and I believe for any reason), then she must have the right to marry another faithful man "in the covenant"-- even if it means plural marriage. She cannot keep her covenants if she is not married to a faithful man in the covenant.

I say:

That is severely messed up in my humble opinion. ...

A man cannot live the NAECOM without a woman any more than a woman can without a man.

But a woman is often, especially in pregnancy or with small children, very vulnerable economically and other ways if she loses her mate. And if she is trying to live the NAECOM it is even worse, as the society at large does not live it.

So she must be given the opportunity to remarry in the covenant. But only according to her free agency.

All those who are living in the covenant must be like family to others in the covenant-- really caring for the welfare of others in the covenant, and being under condemnation if they neglect their new covenant "kin".

Remember this verse?

1 Timothy 5:8  "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

[MorningStar]

D&C 132:44 gives a law that if a woman is married in this covenant, and she loses her husband to adultery (and I believe for any reason), then she must have the right to marry another faithful man "in the covenant"-- even if it means plural marriage. She cannot keep her covenants if she is not married to a faithful man in the covenant.

I say:

That is severely messed up in my humble opinion. ...

A man cannot live the NAECOM without a woman any more than a woman can without a man.

But a woman is often, especially in pregnancy or with small children, very vulnerable economically and other ways if she loses her mate. And if she is trying to live the NAECOM it is even worse, as the society at large does not live it.

So she must be given the opportunity to remarry in the covenant. But only according to her free agency.

All those who are living in the covenant must be like family to others in the covenant-- really caring for the welfare of others in the covenant, and being under condemnation if they neglect their new covenant "kin".

Remember this verse?

1 Timothy 5:8

[Orange Zodiac]

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.

The Bible says when God created Eve he took a rib out of Adam side. This was to symbolize that she was to stand by his side as an equal partner not to grovel at his feet as a servant. Like the rib she becomes a trusted vessel which holds and protects his heart which he gives unto her. I pity your wife(ves?) if you think marriage is a "political contract" where they are somehow subserviant to you.

No faithful woman, no matter her problems, who loves Christ

will be without the option of a honorable marriage with husband and

children.

What about all the faithful men? If polygamist men start taking all the available women what are all the righteous men who want an honorable marriage to do? All the men cannot practice polygamy. Oh but I am sure you probably figure a good portion of men are not worthy of a wife in the first place right?

Polygyny in humans, as in other successful higher species makes

sense biologically. It establishes a strong, uncontested head for

the family to follow, which is critical especially in times of

conflict.

Oh yeah, I remember how well it worked out for Abraham, Israel, David, and Solomon's kids! Polygamy was the critical factor that lead to the "times of conflict."

Also polygamy does not make sense biologically otherwise 80% of the births should be girls.

The establishment of the Government of Christ on Earth is IDENTICAL

with the establishment of Patriarchal Government, and with Polygyny--

an inevitable part of Patriarchal Government.

Well when Christ gets here he can straighten things out but until then I think it is best that we respect other people's religious and cultural beliefs.

There is no middle ground, one is either for Christ, or they are His enemy.

Only a Sith thinks in absolutes!!!! Sorry I couldn't help it. That line was was begging for it!

We live in an age of rampant immorality, perversion, homosexuality,

pedophileness, pornography, divorce, and more. If one does not

realize this, they are out of touch with reality.

And a small group of men hoarding women to themselves will solve these problems how? 'Whe' all the white wimen at!?' -ala Blazing Saddles

[Dear Mee]

ERICHARD, what does "NAECOM" mean? Is Bountiful AB your home-town? And, LDS8N'T, who/what is "Sith"?

There was an interesting Dr. Phil show yesterday on this topic, with 3 women from Bountiful Alberta who defended their polygimous life style--very well i might add.

I think there would be little public out-cry if there were no child-brides to much older men. Consenting adults are free to choose. However, intimidation of children to submit themselves to a life of submission and oppression is not acceptable.

My concern is one of full access to all levels of education and, no abuses of women and children by today's code on family violence.

There are any number of reasons, good and otherwise, that could base the purpose of the polygamous life style. The poorest of which, IMO, is to base it on OT teaching and/or Mormon doctrine. Neither of which, in and of themselves, guarantees compassion in relationships. Which IMCO must be the core of all familial experience. Polygamous, Heterosexual and Homosexual relationships all have that very human need in common. Without "love" they are all as "tinkling-brass" while pretending to be golden.

[truth dancer]

Hi Mee...

There was an interesting Dr. Phil show yesterday on this topic, with 3 women from Bountiful Alberta who defended their polygimous life style--very well i might add.

You actually bring up a good point...

While I personally find the idea of polygamy to go against the higher forms of consciousness, the ultimate laws of the universe, and the further evolving nature of humankind; and also find it, since its inception, very demeaning and degrading to women, hurtful to some men, and unhealthy for children, I also believe that if women and men want to participate in any form of alternative relationships it is their business so long as children are not harmed in any way, and the relationships/partnering is done without coercion, manipulation or deceptive mean.

I do find it fascinating that (SOME) men find the idea of having multiple partners great but would not consider allowing women to have multiple partners. I mean what about the golden rule here? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...

~dancer~

[Dan]

Considering how many women are going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and how few men, polygamy seems like the only way to go!

[jleavesl]

The Brighamite Mormon's would be something interesting to look up... they would fit the criteria too... they were quite isolated from the rest of the gene pool for the most part and of significant size.

Let's think about this for a minute. I have:

My English great-great grandparents (a polygynous bunch); +

My Puritan-American great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch);,

My Welsh great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch); +

My Pennsylvania Dutch great-great grandparents (a non-LDS bunch);,

My Danish great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch); +

My Danish great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch);, and

My Puritan-American great-great grandparents (a polygynous bunch); +

My Welsh great-great grandparents (a non-polygynous bunch).

Now . . . what was that you said about inbred, isolated from the rest of the gene pool Utah Mormons?

I'm saying at the time (I'm weak on Mormon History) when they were practicing Polygamy they were kind of a closed in group. I never said they were inbred. I am under the impression that it was rare at the time for a mormon to marry a non-mormon.

If you are looking to pick a fight, go ahead and do it with actual statements of mine. Don't go putting words in my mouth and then get your panties in a twist because you don't like the what you put there.

John

[Nisfor]

I don't have anything against polygamy itself - the problem I have is with a lot of the other "patriarchal" rules that tend to go along with cultures that implement it. When it's described as "the only way to exaltation" and leaders use it to manipulate women to sleep with them. When it's used by dominant males in the culture to amass wives and "steal" the ability to procreate from subordinate males in the culture.

Plus, why not be perfectly fair and allow women to have multiple husbands too?

[jleavesl]

Considering how many women are going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and how few men, polygamy seems like the only way to go!

In which kingdom can I get a case of Shiner Bock Beer (which never goes empty), a lazyboy, and the remote control? Oh yeah, I want cable too. If I had those things, shoot, I could amuse myself for an eternity or two.

John

[truth dancer]

Hi Dan....

Considering how many women are going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and how few men, polygamy seems like the only way to go!

AHhhhhhhhhhh

I have to say, when people say this I want to talk about the men in my life... Maybe I am just really fortunate to know the best men in the entire world but the men I know are for the most part amazing, incredible, loving, caring, compassionate, honest, great, wonderful human beings!!! I just so don't get this idea that women are somehow better or something!!

Just my opinion, observation and experience...

(but I happen to be right on this one!!!)

~dancer~

[Dan]

jleaves-

In which kingdom can I get a case of Shiner Bock Beer (which never goes empty), a lazyboy, and the remote control? Oh yeah, I want cable too. If I had those things, shoot, I could amuse myself for an eternity or two.

*laugh*

Dancer-

I have to say, when people say this I want to talk about the men in my life... Maybe I am just really fortunate to know the best men in the entire world but the men I know are for the most part amazing, incredible, loving, caring, compassionate, honest, great, wonderful human beings!!! I just so don't get this idea that women are somehow better or something!!

Just my opinion, observation and experience...

(but I happen to be right on this one!!!)

*laugh* I've met some good ones too.

[Orange Zodiac]

Considering how many women are going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and how few men, polygamy seems like the only way to go! 

Do you have a breakdown of the numbers from God about how many men vs women will attain the CK? I don't recall this number ever being published.