Dale Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Who say's liking the ladies is a sin? I like the ladies myself. If polygamy is a true princible then God does not mind a prophet liking multiple ladies at the same time.
Mighty Curelom Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Who say's liking the ladies is a sin? I like the ladies myself. If polygamy is a true princible then God does not mind a prophet liking multiple ladies at the same time.Let me ask you directly. At the next LDS conference, the Prophet Gordon B. Hinkley reveals that he has had a revelation from God. According to his revelation, the era of "multiply and replenish the earth" has come to fruition, and creating vessels for disembodied spirits is no longer a priority. What IS a priority is fellowship between our fellow man, and the method God has revealed as the most sacred and holy practice to foster love between men are homosexual relationships. Only the most spiritual and faithful members will be asked to live this higher law, but those who deny this law will be denied exaltation.The question is this--now that homosexuality is not a sin, but rather a holy and sacred act to foster love and male companionship, Would you take a male lover if your bishop assigned you one? (By the way, I never said "liking ladies" is a sin. I'm simply pointing out that church doctrine/policy is the result of Joseph's desires and inclinations. Polygamy is no exception. The ironic thing is that it could just as easily have been homosexuality that JS fancied, rather than multiple female sex partners, in which case you'd be defending homosexuality rather than polyamory.)Moderator: Knock it off. Throwing in homosexuality is so off-topic it obviously has no purpose other than to provoke.
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 M.C. I don't know about others on the board, but I find this line of thought blasphemous. Just so you will understand. I am using the following definition from dictionary.com. "Blasphemous, adj 1: grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred."God's laws are sacred. You crossed a line, in my opinion.
Nephi Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 I am sorry, would someone point to me where it says that poligamy is no longer accepted by God? Would someone also explain to me that if this is the case, when did God start changing the rules around? If he is all knowing, then why change the rules from the start to the finish? If God did change the rules, then why are you in so opposition to LDS beliefs, since most of you believe it to be a change in the way Jesus preached? It makes no sense.God told him that poligamy would be okay for him and others, and they did as told. He told the Jews that it was okay, and in other times, told them it was not. If this is the best you can throw at a religion, then, my brothers and sisters, you need to look at your own belief system's history. All of Christianity had poligamy in it at some point.
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Nephi, it is my understanding that the laws didn't change. Plural marriage is accepted of God when He commands it. It isn't when He doesn't. It has been at least since the time of Abraham, maybe before that, but just not recorded? I don't think it has changed at all.
Paul Osborne Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Truth,I'm with you all the way on this one. Polygamy is a holy order of marriage when sanctioned by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The House Of Israel is built upon the foundation of polygamy and Jesus Christ is the grand result. I'm afraid that people who don't appreciate the value of polygamy are a long ways away from understanding the mysteries of godliness. Do I understand them. Heck yeah, buddy. Paul O question from the Pickle jar: what do you mean by "sanctioned"? DICTIONARY 1.Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid2. To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval.Paul O
Dill Pickles Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Truth,I'm with you all the way on this one. Polygamy is a holy order of marriage when sanctioned by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The House Of Israel is built upon the foundation of polygamy and Jesus Christ is the grand result. I'm afraid that people who don't appreciate the value of polygamy are a long ways away from understanding the mysteries of godliness. Do I understand them. Heck yeah, buddy.
Paul Osborne Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 The great irony of this whole thing is that if Joseph Smith fancied boys the way he fancied the ladies, there would have been a "revelation" about the sanctity of man-boy intimacy, complete with a threat to Emma that she'd better accept it or be destroyed.
Nephi Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Nephi, it is my understanding that the laws didn't change. Plural marriage is accepted of God when He commands it. It isn't when He doesn't. It has been at least since the time of Abraham, maybe before that, but just not recorded? I don't think it has changed at all. Yes, this is what I agree with as well. I am just curious why non-LDS people do as they do... We are all beating a dead horse in this thread (as most of them, here).
Paul Osborne Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Truth,I'm with you all the way on this one. Polygamy is a holy order of marriage when sanctioned by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The House Of Israel is built upon the foundation of polygamy and Jesus Christ is the grand result. I'm afraid that people who don't appreciate the value of polygamy are a long ways away from understanding the mysteries of godliness. Do I understand them. Heck yeah, buddy.
Dill Pickles Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Because I think so.Paul O from the Pickle jar: ah. I see. Does that work with your children? Because it doesn't work with my little Pickles, so I'm hoping it works for someone.
Paul Osborne Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Because I think so.Paul O from the Pickle jar: ah. I see. Does that work with your children? Because it doesn't work with my little Pickles, so I'm hoping it works for someone. My children are pretty much grown up so they don't listen to me.Paul O
Edgar Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 I remain bemused over the nonstop moral outrage over something that happened so long ago while our world as we know it is literally falling apart. You are very correct that there is much to be concerned about in our current world. My concern over what happened so long ago is that polygamy and polyandry affected real people including my ancestors. Real people heard polygamy preached over the pulpit and it impacted their lives. It was just as real a struggle as things with which you or I may struggle. In my opinion, those people had the same moral compass that Mateo spoke of earlier in this thread. I do not think the light of Christ was telling those people that polygamy was okay. Do you recall the reactions of Heber and Vilate Kimball to the polygamous request from Joseph? Why would they struggle with the request if it was just a celestial sealing to Joseph instead of a real-life marriage.I find it disgusting that one of the significant identities of my ancestors and the ancestors of many, many others is dismissed with a wave of a hand basically saying "don't worry. . .that is all behind us." Such a dismissal effectually invalidates the lives of those who practiced it. That is sad.Hypothetically, what part of the current gospel taught by the church will be dismissed with the wave of a hand 100 years from now? Would such a thing invalidate each of our struggles we have in life?
Edgar Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 It seems that every time a polygamy thread is made that so many react to it as digusting, awful, wrong, or whatever else you want to call it. If you don't think that Joseph was a prophet, I can see you not agreeing with it, but if he was, what is the problem.If it is of God, it is good. I asked my wife what she thought of polygamy. She surprised me by saying she thought it would be a good thing if it was the right person for our household.I then asked what she thought of polyandry and asked what she thought about being a second, third, fourth, etc. wife of Joseph, Brigham or Heber. She had a quick change of heart at that point.Do some feel the first is acceptable but the second is not? There have been comments on this thread that couples have talked it over and they are prepared to follow the commandments no matter what. Does that include any wife who is commanded to marry another man?You asked why some react with disgust. I quickly admit that I would not be willing to share my wife with another regardless even if I had a commandment from God. Somebody else can take my place in the Celestial Kingdom because I would be getting separated from the wheat right then and there. In LDS theory, someone else will take my wife as well in that Kingdom if she wanted to embrace that practice.
AKS Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 You asked why some react with disgust. I quickly admit that I would not be willing to share my wife with another regardless even if I had a commandment from God. Somebody else can take my place in the Celestial Kingdom because I would be getting separated from the wheat right then and there. In LDS theory, someone else will take my wife as well in that Kingdom if she wanted to embrace that practice. [sarcasm]What a lovely religion. I can't imagine why so many people would have a problem with this, even to the point of leaving the only religion one has ever known.[/sarcasm]
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Edgar, those who say it is all behind us, are uneducated in the matter. Plural marriage is an eternal commandment and continues to this day, in the fact that if a man's his first wife is no longer living, (or I suppose, if they are divorced, and they resolve all their issues with the proper ecclesiastic authority) may marry and be sealed to a second. Or more. Polyandry will not come up. The principle of plural marriage is a man may have plural wives. Women are not sealed to plural husbands.AKS, I totally agree with you on this. If you have a testimony of the Gospel, its doctrines and principles, I cannot see,either why anyone would say, "I will do everything else, but not this." Doesn't make sense to me, either.
Mighty Curelom Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 M.C. I don't know about others on the board, but I find this line of thought blasphemous. What line of thought? That God could command sexual deviancy? If that's what you're refering to, Mormonism itself is a form of blasphemy. Maybe you're refering to the notion that God could up and change his mind about something he once deemed an "abomination," and turn it into a commandment necessary for exaltation. Again, if you're offended by such a concept, you're definitely in the wrong religion. It seems perhaps your indignation is misplaced, Madam.
Tchild2 Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Maybe you're refering to the notion that God could up and change his mind about something he once deemed an "abomination," and turn it into a commandment necessary for exaltation. MC - You forgot one step. After turning polygamy into a commandment necessary for exaltation, God then makes it an "abomination" anew that will get its practictioners excommunicated and forfeiters of the self-same exaltation. So many flip-flops can get confusing to keep track of I know! What really blows the mind is that Polygamy in "belief" is still potentially necessary for exaltation (can't deny it in the next life if you are called upon to live it), but the actual practice of it in mortality is excommunicable. -in my best Johhny Carson voice - Wild and whacky stuff.
pezp Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 exactly! to many flipflops....how will any investigator trying to find out if it MAY be a true church ever feel this church is true??
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 MC, Tchild2, and pezp,I hope for your sakes that you are as obtuse as you are postings would seem to indicate. Then you will not be held accountable for the way you trifle with sacred matters. But I will not engage in the kind of dialogue you want. I can't remember who said it, but this applies. "If you wrestle in the mud with pigs, you all get dirty. And the pigs enjoy it." Have at it, boys. I'm not getting in the sty with you.
Nephi Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 To all you non-LDS, non-Catholic people out there who think that polygamy is wrong, your reformation leader himself argued in favor of polygamy. Go here and search for the word "Polygamy". You will find a heading called "Luther said: Polygamy is Permissible". He gives references, as well.I am not one who wants to be a polygamist, HOWEVER, time and time again, it has been shown that the only thing that keeps people from being polygamist is social stigmas, and NOT scripture.
Edgar Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Polyandry will not come up. The principle of plural marriage is a man may have plural wives. Women are not sealed to plural husbands.Charity,Thanks for the reply and for the impetus to dig deeper into the feelings of my soul.I know of no revelation that permitted polyandry but I know it was practiced in Nauvoo. Specifically, I know it was done by Joseph and by Brigham and Heber who married many of Joseph's plural wives after Joseph died. There may be other cases. I don't know. You probably know all this but I'll summarize my understanding about one example: Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young. Her sealing to Joseph occurred in 1841 when she was 7 months pregant with a child fathered by her husband Henry Jacobs. She was sealed to Brigham in February 1846 just before the Saints left Nauvoo. This information is available from FamilySearch.org by searching on Zina Diantha HUNTINGTON.Perhaps some of the disgust and angst over polygamy is due to these rare cases of polyandry by the early church leaders. It seems like unrighteous dominion. It seems like they did not follow the principles of Section 132 which was written in 1843 but was apparently known to Joseph since the 1830s. It seems like we could paraphrase a part of Orwell's Animal Farm: All men are created equal but some are more equal than others.DC 132:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Posted August 21, 2005 Edgar, I do not deny that it is highly likely that Joseph's practice of plural marriage included marital relations with some of the plural wives. I do doubt that anything he did was against what the law of God required. That would lead me to believe that the wives who were sealed to him who had living husbands, were sealings only, and would not constitute polyandry. But as I continue to repeat: I think we do not know enough of the circumstances to question his motives, his actions, or his standing with God. I know he was a prophet. For me, that means that most of the discussion is moot. Thanks for your careful consideration of the subject.
Dale Posted August 22, 2005 Posted August 22, 2005 With plural marriage or regular marriage we would expect sex. The worst case scenarion for me is there was sexuality with some of the wives. The rest were sealings that involved things like unusual polyandry that did not involve earthly co-habitation. The claim's of sexuality have been under dispute for years.I don't feel Joseph Smith behaved like a beast towards women by any means. The negative reaction I see to polygamists is nothing but prejudice. I dissagree with plural marriage myself but don't assume that all polygamists were living a sick lifestyle. Many polygamists lived their marriages as decently as many male monogamists have.
Edgar Posted August 22, 2005 Posted August 22, 2005 But as I continue to repeat: I think we do not know enough of the circumstances to question his motives, his actions, or his standing with God. I know he was a prophet. For me, that means that most of the discussion is moot. Thanks for your careful consideration of the subject. Fair enough. I respect your point of view and your testimony of Joseph Smith.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.