The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:
A marriage is about a man and a woman coming together and becoming one and receiving their exaltation. It's not just puppy love but a serious endeavor to not be made light of. A man cannot progress by simply reproducing with a woman. A woman doesn't progress and is not complete by merely delivering a child. We need eachother to grow and learn and figure out how to get along...it's vital for our progression for this life and the next. And monogamy is the setting most ideal for this necessary joining of man and woman to open the door to their exaltation.

It's not just love or not just good happy vibes, but serious work and sacrifice by both to become one. And all this needs to happen....and I never even mentioned children! That is secondary to marriage. First comes marriage then comes children ;)
And the only way a man and woman can partake in the process of creation with God is to take part in the creation of children.
That's fine but realize that a man and woman will not progress or become like God unless they have learned to become one in marriage. So any marriage that isint sealed with a stamp of approval will end and there goes the chance at eternal progression and eternal increase.

Marriage first. You honestly cannot debate this fact. Children are second to the marriage covenant.

Marriage is VITAL and NECESSARY for every man and woman to become "God".

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

That's fine but realize that a man and woman will not progress or become like God unless they have learned to become one in marriage.
So what about the women who will never find a worthy LDS man because the ratio of male to female who are active and single is so lopsided to women?

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by JohnnyL »

Fiannan wrote:Marriage is important, but like I said, the relationship between a man and woman is to reproduce, or else you start slipping into the idea that relationship is the most vital aspect and then gay people are suddenly going to raise their hand to make a point.
I don't think that's a worry, unless one worries about socialness of church teachings.

It's like saying the primary purpose of mortal life is to gain a body. Yes, that is one reason, and in a sense it could be said that way. That is one necessary reason, but it's subservient to, and in the context of, "to fulfill our mission in HF's plan", "to do the will of the Father".

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by JohnnyL »

Fiannan wrote:
That's fine but realize that a man and woman will not progress or become like God unless they have learned to become one in marriage.
So what about the women who will never find a worthy LDS man because the ratio of male to female who are active and single is so lopsided to women?
Never? Or in this life?

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

TrueIntent wrote: Do you claim that the ordinances teach plural marriage????? Specifically what part of the ordinance? I find it no where.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Doctrine and Covenants 132, like any sane person knows, is what teaches it. There is nothing in any ordinance particular to plural marriage. Who said there was? I didn't. Sealings, like I said, are independent of plural marriage entirely. So it certainly wasn't me conflating plural marriage with sealings. That happens to have been and continues to be you.
TrueIntent wrote:I find policy about men being sealed to more than one women....but no where in the wording of any ordinance OR in ordinances found in the scripture to I find the teaching of plural marriage.
By the way, are you sure you can identify who the Lord's anointed are??
Surely you don't, for one, since you have no regard for them, or you would know them.
TrueIntent wrote: If these are mortal problems....then lets blanket statement that claim to everything else . . . Ed Goble....you don't know your history.
You say I don't know my history. You obviously don't know who you are talking to, I guess.
TrueIntent wrote: You should study outside of your "polygamy is awesome" box.
What are you talking about? I never said it was "awesome". I never made any judgment about it one way or another. You are the one presuming to be able to judge your fellows who you make accusations and cast aspersions about. It is a separate marriage system that you don't have to be involved in, so leave it alone. It will be for them, not you. I am very libertarian on this point, just like many others. There are people out there like us who believe that there will be people who will want it, and it isn't our business to tell them what they should or should not want.

Its kind of like smoking weed. I think people should be able to do it. Its kind of like stupid people that play the lottery or gamble. I think Utah should have a lottery. It would save me some of my property taxes to be able to have Casinos in Utah to offset some of these high taxes. I think people should do what they want. That doesn't make me an advocate for them.

Similarly, those of us that think that people in eternity ought to be able to have polygamy if they choose doesn't make us fans of it, or advocates for it. There will be some women as well who will choose it, who are not you, who have different desires and feelings than you, about that marriage system, need that ability to choose in eternity, to have their agency preserved. And yes, sorry, you simply don't represent all women just because you are yet another anti-polygamy woman that conflates historic lack of equal rights and abuse with polygamy. Lack of equal rights was wrong, and abuse was wrong. But polygamy is separate from that, and has nothing to do with the wrong choices that 19th century men who were abusive made. Polygamy when practiced with consent and desire for it from all parties involved, without any coercion or abuse, and when sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise when authorized by the keys of the priesthood, is a separate thing entirely. And I have absolutely no issues calling you out on that, because I don't fear your kind, and I don't fear the backlash from your kind. That doesn't make me an advocate for polygamy. That makes me a libertarian and a rationalist that doesn't put up with stupidity. Your feelings toward a marriage system that you don't like and that you don't understand ought not to cause you to be judgmental toward men in the modern day who have nothing to do with its practice or feelings for or against it, who are numb to it one way or another, who have no desires for it, nor feelings against it, who are in entirely neutral territory with regard to it, particularly men who have nothing to do with 19th century stupidity that caused lack of equal rights and abuse. I am not against polygamy, nor am I an advocate for it. IF it ever comes back by a commandment from the Father to authorize it, believe me that measures to prevent abuse of it will be the first and foremost thing on the minds of those in authority. All rational people abhor abuse and lack of equal rights.
TrueIntent wrote:Im not saying it was always bad....but there was plenty of bad....But women were culturally considered property then. I understand why it happened. Its reflective of an entire culture of beliefs that many people felt about women. The thing is....we are no longer property...laws have changed...and yet the church still carries this as a religious idea. It is reflective of the men who uphold it. Supposedly we are equal with our husbands....but we still allow sealing to multiple women...Who is having cake and eating it too.
Nobody ever said you were property. I said nothing about that. Stop injecting your own stuff into this thing. Nobody said you weren't equal. This isn't about 19th century misunderstandings or interpretations. Read my words REAL carefully. *There will be people that choose it in eternity.* They need the ability to do so. Did I say you would choose it? No. Did I say it was *awesome*? No. Read my words REAL REAL carefully, and stop injecting things into what I say, and be reasonable.
Last edited by EdGoble on February 6th, 2017, 10:37 am, edited 7 times in total.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

JohnnyL wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
That's fine but realize that a man and woman will not progress or become like God unless they have learned to become one in marriage.
So what about the women who will never find a worthy LDS man because the ratio of male to female who are active and single is so lopsided to women?
Never? Or in this life?

Ironic that if a woman has to wait until the next life she will likely be in a polygamist union.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:
That's fine but realize that a man and woman will not progress or become like God unless they have learned to become one in marriage.
So what about the women who will never find a worthy LDS man because the ratio of male to female who are active and single is so lopsided to women?
We are taught that no blessing will be kept form the righteous. If a woman doesn't get married in this life even though she is capable and desirous of it, she will have an opportunity after this life. I don't understand or pretend to know how things work after this life.

I do know however that God doesn't need us scrambling to fix His "broken or unfair plan" - His plan is perfect and He knows what He is doing. I have to trust that all will be made right and we'll after this life.

There are many children who have passed before ever being married and those who died before their age of accountability will also be given the blessing of marriage to continue their eternal progression.

When our mortal journey is but the blink of an eye to God, why do we fret so much over things in this tiny portion of our existance? We only see mortality, but we need to open our minds to the rest of our existance and realize that we are flexing our muscles to control what God already has planned to correct or make right.

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

Melissa wrote: When our mortal journey is but the blink of an eye to God, why do we fret so much over things in this tiny portion of our existance? We only see mortality, but we need to open our minds to the rest of our existance and realize that we are flexing our muscles to control what God already has planned to correct or make right.
The fretting is because lack of trust and faith, and so seeking to fix these broken things sometimes is meddling in what is not truly broken.
Other things, like abuse of course, need to be addressed and stopped, because there is never any excuse for that. Things like that, when we have power to change them need to be changed.

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

Fiannan wrote:Ironic that if a woman has to wait until the next life she will likely be in a polygamist union.
I don't think there is any evidence that that is necessarily true.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:
JohnnyL wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
That's fine but realize that a man and woman will not progress or become like God unless they have learned to become one in marriage.
So what about the women who will never find a worthy LDS man because the ratio of male to female who are active and single is so lopsided to women?
Never? Or in this life?

Ironic that if a woman has to wait until the next life she will likely be in a polygamist union.
How would you ever begin to know such a thing? Your views on our existance are narrowed by your mortal knowledge. There are tons of beings in heaven who are perfect because they died before age of accountability, and many many others who died before they were married and many many more who didn't have their marriage sealed.

Since in your view a woman who has to wait for the next life likely will be an addition to an already established marriage, I ask you what of all the males who won't be married during their life? There are tons of males who never married for one reason or another, either death, retadation, deformities etc. Will they also ironically be in an already established union?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Your views on our existance are narrowed by your mortal knowledge.
Have you perhaps entertained the notion that your views are narrowed by societal programming and that programming may be wrong?

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:
Your views on our existance are narrowed by your mortal knowledge.
Have you perhaps entertained the notion that your views are narrowed by societal programming and that programming may be wrong?

The fact that I can mention to you that your views may be narrowed by your mortal views kinda trumps your question to me about A portion of one's "mortal views".

What I know is that we all are affected by our mortal views, there is no way around that. I try to frame what I do know for my "time" and expand my mind to how different it is from other times humans have lived, and also acknowledge that it has changed so much through human existance and also realize that none of us KNOW the whole picture past our own framed existance on this earth.

We need to open our minds to acknowledge that God's ways are ALWAYS higher than our ways. So...whatever you or I can come up with, will always fall short from the whole truth of God. That I do know.

Your a smart guy so I know you get what my point is here.

We live in the world and thus see things "worldly". When you talk about this or that about sexuality and reproduction, I see it as "worldly" because it deals solely with our present existance. Dont get me wrong, i do see the need for this but there is more to our existance as we are also spiritual beings who believe in life before and life after. There is more out there than just survival of species and eugenics and whatever else you advocate for.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

The fact that I can mention to you that your views may be narrowed by your mortal views kinda trumps your question to me about A portion of one's "mortal views".
Hardly. It merely leaves us at wondering what God's intentions are. I will admit that maybe my views, to some, may sound more akin to ancient Judaism or modern Islam, but what does that tell us? Many of the people who attacked Joseph Smith and Brigham Young accused them of diverting from traditional Christian ideology what with their views on eternal marriage (and thus eternal sexual unions), reproduction and polygamy on earth as well. Then again one must study the worldly influences that polluted Christianity and warped it into something far divorced from its roots. And, sadly, what evolved in the Vatican still influences the Christian world today.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by brianj »

Fiannan wrote:
Why do men assume that a young woman these days will want a 50 year old + husband? If he married a younger woman and then another younger woman then when he dies of old age or can no longer support his family, who does? The women? Or does another man step in and inherit the 2 middle aged wife's and the old woman?
And yet plenty of 20-somethings admit to dating, at some point, guys who were in their late 40s or 50s. And polygamy would favor the men who display superior health and intelligence. So it would have eugenic value. Think women in their 20s or 30s want a short, chubby guy? Not unless he is rich, and then what you bring up is not a factor. If he is healthy he will likely look it and live an active life until at least his 80s.
Let's not forget money. I don't think there were many saints in poverty who were called to practice plural marriage. Even not considering polygamy, in today's world there are many women in their 20s and 30s who date guys in their 50s because he can provide a much more comfortable living than some guy closer to her age. And a woman in her 40s who tries having a child will have a high risk pregnancy while a guy in his 70s can become a father without medical issues.
When you only think of having children, your views are absolutely correct and make sense. But there are factors you must consider beyond reproduction. Reproduction is only one aspect of what makes a family unit and a sucessful society.
Actually reproduction is the reason we marry. This provides a safe and enriching life for the offspring. Otherwise we could just live together with all the benefits like a lot of senior couples do.
Reproduction is one of the reasons why people marry. In modern western culture these days that's not even an issue as more and more people have children outside marriage. And marriages that are all about children have nothing to hold the couple together when the last of the kids leaves the house. In the past marriage was all about stability and a way for the wife to be provided for, but these days with so many women working they are no longer dependent on husbands. And marriage today is often something done out of convenience: as soon as the woman decides that she's no longer interested in being married she takes the kids, the house, and much of her ex-husband's money. There's a growing movement of men going their own way who will not get married because they either don't trust marriage or they've been burned too many times.

The reasons we get married in this church are very different from why people in the world get married.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by brianj »

Matchmaker wrote:I read where the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had 30 wives. I realize he may be the exception because of his wealth. Are Muslims who come here expected to obey the laws of the land which currently outlaw polygamy? If so, what happens to their other wives and children? It seems more likely that the USA will pass laws in the future that will allow polygamy so the Muslim immigrants will feel more comfortable and welcomed in their new home.
It's an interesting question of how multiple wives would be classified on arrival in the US, but I recall meeting Muslim women on my mission in Indiana (home of the Islamic Center of North America) and just feeling that they are plural wives. Since Muslims believe that their religious laws supersede secular laws, it's no big deal for them to not bother with a marriage license while members of our church know that a marriage must be both legal and lawful to keep our covenants.

Under a Republican controlled federal government I don't see polygamy being legalized, but when Democrats have control again I wouldn't be surprised to see polygamy legalized to accommodate Muslims. That being said, I wouldn't expect Muslims to get legally married. Under Islamic law a man gets a divorce by communicating "I divorce you" to his wife three times, and if a Muslim is legally married he has to deal with the legal hassle of divorce.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Polyamory is the future and so eventually...

Matchmaker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2266

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Matchmaker »

In my opinion, the day is coming where "anything goes" in the progressive world of marriages and relationships in America. All restrictions and prohibitions will be removed so that nobody feels any shame or censure from their preferences. Religious interpretations of what's moral and acceptable and what is not will no longer play much of a role in society, outside of religious circles.

Men will marry men and women will marry women, in addition to their current spouse who is of the opposite sex. No divorce needed first. People will marry their pets or their robots. We'll see young people married to older men or older women, like they do in foreign countries. We'll see polygamy and polyandry. Test tube babies will be raised by nannies.

What else is there? It will be like a bad science fiction movie. They probably will throw out the term "marriage" altogether in favor of civil union or something else, so there won't be any spiritual implication to the act of mating.

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

brianj wrote:. . . while members of our church know that a marriage must be both legal and lawful to keep our covenants.
Yes, that is true as far as current policy goes. But in the Abraham H. Cannon journal, the brethren at one point were actually discussing "concubinage" where they were considering allowing for plural sealings as legitimate in the eyes of the Church without a marriage license. There is historical precedent for the possibility, where Church policy on that could change where it would not be considered a breaking of a covenant to live in that way. Yet, that would require a revelation or a buy-in by all apostles using their keys, and there is nothing indicating that would ever happen in our day. I only make the statement that there is historical precedent where such a thing was being considered.

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

Fiannan wrote:Polyamory is the future and so eventually...
Polyamory is the future for the world, where marriage licenses will be entirely ignored by the wicked, but the Church itself on this matter will not change without a revelation or the use of all the keys toward something. And nobody at this time has any rational desire to do that. I can't see how there would be a change in the Church of this magnitude without some sort of exceptionally difficult circumstance, as was talked about earlier in this thread.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

EdGoble wrote:
Fiannan wrote:Polyamory is the future and so eventually...
Polyamory is the future for the world, where marriage licenses will be entirely ignored by the wicked, but the Church itself on this matter will not change without a revelation or the use of all the keys toward something. And nobody at this time has any rational desire to do that. I can't see how there would be a change in the Church of this magnitude without some sort of exceptionally difficult circumstance, as was talked about earlier in this thread.
No, the Church will not endorse polyandry, but polygamy is a different matter.

As the demographic crisis chips away at potential births in the Church I would anticipate some real consideration of polygamy has already crossed the minds of leaders.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:
EdGoble wrote:
Fiannan wrote:Polyamory is the future and so eventually...
Polyamory is the future for the world, where marriage licenses will be entirely ignored by the wicked, but the Church itself on this matter will not change without a revelation or the use of all the keys toward something. And nobody at this time has any rational desire to do that. I can't see how there would be a change in the Church of this magnitude without some sort of exceptionally difficult circumstance, as was talked about earlier in this thread.
No, the Church will not endorse polyandry, but polygamy is a different matter.

As the demographic crisis chips away at potential births in the Church I would anticipate some real consideration of polygamy has already crossed the minds of leaders.
There are plenty of women who marry outside the church. I see tons of bachelors walking around...men are not scarce! If a woman really wants kids then she should find herself a decent working man and settle down. I don't see a bunch of single girls in the church anticipating polygamy so they can start having kids. But i do see them self absorbed and entrapped in worldly thinking and pride.

Its not solely marriage or lack of that's keeping birthrates low, it's the people themselves. Marriage doesnt produce large families by itself...most people cannot afford lots of kids these days. How is adding another wife and kids going to work?

Get real Fiannan. Polygamy won't work, it doesn't work...except maybe a rich man can pull it off respectfully by not having his wives do his job. It's disturbing to me to see wives having to work just so hubby can have more women. Discraceful!!

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

Fiannan wrote:
EdGoble wrote:
Fiannan wrote:Polyamory is the future and so eventually...
Polyamory is the future for the world, where marriage licenses will be entirely ignored by the wicked, but the Church itself on this matter will not change without a revelation or the use of all the keys toward something. And nobody at this time has any rational desire to do that. I can't see how there would be a change in the Church of this magnitude without some sort of exceptionally difficult circumstance, as was talked about earlier in this thread.
No, the Church will not endorse polyandry, but polygamy is a different matter.

As the demographic crisis chips away at potential births in the Church I would anticipate some real consideration of polygamy has already crossed the minds of leaders.

I didn't say the Church would ever endorse polyamory, which is a different thing altogether from polygamy. I said that the wicked are going toward polyamory more and more. Polyamory is not a marriage of any kind. It is fornication or adultery.

Polygamy constitutes real marriages, and for it to be done with or without marriage licenses, would require the use of the keys of the priesthood. I don't see it going that way, and it is doubtful to me that the leaders have given any consideration to things like polygamy or the united order, and the only thing that would bring either back is intervention from heaven.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

There are plenty of women who marry outside the church. I see tons of bachelors walking around...men are not scarce! If a woman really wants kids then she should find herself a decent working man and settle down. I don't see a bunch of single girls in the church anticipating polygamy so they can start having kids. But i do see them self absorbed and entrapped in worldly thinking and pride.
Ah, so how does it affect their membership, the identity their kids will have, and their progression if they marry outside the Church?

And no, a lot of women will wait, and wait, and wait, thinking God will provide them a husband. Then menopause sets in, and...
Its not solely marriage or lack of that's keeping birthrates low, it's the people themselves. Marriage doesnt produce large families by itself...most people cannot afford lots of kids these days. How is adding another wife and kids going to work?
True, the Church leaders are pretty scared, or prevented by their 501-3C limitations, from being forceful in promoting higher birthrates like they used to.

A communal setting seems to work pretty well for the Sister Wives group. On just birthrates in general, Mormons too are caught up in consumerism. Not a surprise since we are so vigilant against neked womin but allow the destructive forces of daytime talk shows, children's networks, and prime time TV into our lives.
Get real Fiannan. Polygamy won't work, it doesn't work...except maybe a rich man can pull it off respectfully by not having his wives do his job. It's disturbing to me to see wives having to work just so hubby can have more women. Discraceful!!
Works for quite a few middle class Mormon polygamists in Utah, and no, I am not speaking of the FLDS. Maybe you might catch the presentation by evolutionary psychologist Christopher Ryan called, "If you Want Fidelity Get a Dog" that played in Sydney. His contention is that humans are designed for communal living patterns.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Mark »

"A communal setting seems to work pretty well for the Sister Wives group. On just birthrates in general, Mormons too are caught up in consumerism. Not a surprise since we are so vigilant against neked womin but allow the destructive forces of daytime talk shows, children's networks, and prime time TV into our lives."

Now that's funny. You complain about the destructive forces of prime time TV shows in one breath and then praise the polygamy soap opera reality garbage parading across the boob tube in another. Your first name wouldn't happen to be Kody by chance would it? I just love this forum. It's more entertaining than any reality show ever made!

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Now that's funny. You complain about the destructive forces of prime time TV shows in one breath and then praise the polygamy soap opera reality garbage parading across the boob tube in another. Your first name wouldn't happen to be Kody by chance would it? I just love this forum. It's more entertaining than any reality show ever made!
He and his wives are better parents than you will find in many regular LDS wards. I actually do not watch the show, my wife does. And from what I have seen they instruct their kids in righteousness, independent thought and standing up for what they believe in.

So please, if people want their kids to really learn about what matters in life then let them watch children's networks. Watch the daytime shows aiming mostly at women that teach how backward traditional values are while coated in glam and fluff. And as for what you can watch in prime time, it's all good. Don't watch any of them shows on cable that have nekid womin though. While they may be intellectually light years ahead of regular program it will scar your child for life to see a bare breast.

Post Reply