Why debate polygamy?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by MMbelieve »

Fiannan wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:34 am
Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.
Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.
Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

MMbelieve wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:37 am
Fiannan wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:34 am
Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.
Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.
Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?
Biology is destiny. If a people do not want to wind up like the Shakers then they need to come to terms with it.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Sirocco »

MMbelieve wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:37 am
Fiannan wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:34 am
Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.
Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.
Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?

I thought the young men thing was true though.

I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

Sirocco wrote: August 17th, 2017, 1:48 pm I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.
I've been LDS pretty much all my life (adopted at 4 months old into an LDS family) and when I moved to Utah for the first time, there were a good number of sweet young ladies who decided I was not acceptable to date because I had moved to Utah from another state. I was not a "Zion" Mormon all my life, having come from outside the borders of Utah.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Sirocco »

skmo wrote: August 17th, 2017, 2:37 pm
Sirocco wrote: August 17th, 2017, 1:48 pm I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.
I've been LDS pretty much all my life (adopted at 4 months old into an LDS family) and when I moved to Utah for the first time, there were a good number of sweet young ladies who decided I was not acceptable to date because I had moved to Utah from another state. I was not a "Zion" Mormon all my life, having come from outside the borders of Utah.
Yeah I'm Canadian, who knows what its like here :))

I don't need to go to church to get rejected thank you lol

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by MMbelieve »

Sirocco wrote: August 17th, 2017, 1:48 pm
MMbelieve wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:37 am
Fiannan wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:34 am
Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.
Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.
Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?

I thought the young men thing was true though.

I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.
It very well may br true that wasn't the point though.

I think converts can be and often are better people overall. I love converts! Way easier for this non-sheltered, non-typical mormon girl to relate too and feel at ease around.

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by MMbelieve »

skmo wrote: August 17th, 2017, 2:37 pm
Sirocco wrote: August 17th, 2017, 1:48 pm I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.
I've been LDS pretty much all my life (adopted at 4 months old into an LDS family) and when I moved to Utah for the first time, there were a good number of sweet young ladies who decided I was not acceptable to date because I had moved to Utah from another state. I was not a "Zion" Mormon all my life, having come from outside the borders of Utah.
That Utah culture is something else. I don't believe Utah is reflective of the entire church though. You get out of there and the church is a nicer and better place.

Maybe what it was was you weren't utah culture mormon and the girls needed that same thing ingrained in their guy to feel all good about it and not have to change. Deep down they have to know that "utah culture" is wrong on too many levels.

Our church is all about missionary work, we should delight in converts and absorb them as if they had always been there.

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by MMbelieve »

Fiannan wrote: August 17th, 2017, 12:49 pm
MMbelieve wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:37 am
Fiannan wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:34 am
Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.
Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.
Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?
Biology is destiny. If a people do not want to wind up like the Shakers then they need to come to terms with it.
Live in the world, not of the world.

Our ways need to be higher Fiannan otherwise what's the point of all this. If we're just going to give into biology then what are we learning? We were given these bodies of a fallen nature full of instincts and desires and hormones and pains. Once we are done here, we won't have a fallen body anymore. Having a fallen body allows us to learn better because it allows us to experience various feelings and emotions by default. Once we are done here we won't be having these instinct biological frailties given to us to help us survive as a creature.

We have a fallen nature but we're supposed to be learning and growing and rising above those base instincts.

Fiannan, it's great that you care about society so much and want to see people live the measure of their creation. God desires this too and He knows what's going on. Trust that He has a plan for us and won't let the good people dwindle to nothing. The human race is currently suffering but it's due to our wickedness. Polygamy will never be a cure for a wicked people, it will be a curse.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

Live in the world, not of the world.

Our ways need to be higher Fiannan otherwise what's the point of all this. If we're just going to give into biology then what are we learning? We were given these bodies of a fallen nature full of instincts and desires and hormones and pains. Once we are done here, we won't have a fallen body anymore. Having a fallen body allows us to learn better because it allows us to experience various feelings and emotions by default. Once we are done here we won't be having these instinct biological frailties given to us to help us survive as a creature.

We have a fallen nature but we're supposed to be learning and growing and rising above those base instincts.

Fiannan, it's great that you care about society so much and want to see people live the measure of their creation. God desires this too and He knows what's going on. Trust that He has a plan for us and won't let the good people dwindle to nothing. The human race is currently suffering but it's due to our wickedness. Polygamy will never be a cure for a wicked people, it will be a curse.
Sounds more like Catholicism than Mormonism.

The Plan of Salvation requires a biological dimension. Of course Pagan Catholicism created a false dicotomy between the spiritual and the temporal - thus rendering the populations they controlled guilt-ridden and always haing to seek out a Catholic higher-up to help them "atone" for the instincts and drives that God gave them. In Judaism there is a sense that control over one's instincts is important to learn to control the powers given by God. Jews are thus more logical in their applicaation of spiritual issues to humanity. Oh, and as for the Catholic leaders one can look to history to see how they used theri positions of power to manipulate and fulfill their base sexual deviations.

Mormonism promotes the morality of the scriptures but like the Jews it is supposed to be seen as healthy, if used properly in the creation of families. Polygamy is therefore not carnal but rather a greater means by which higher evolved individuals can bring about God's purposes.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

Fiannan wrote: August 18th, 2017, 8:44 amPolygamy is therefore not carnal but rather a greater means by which higher evolved individuals can bring about God's purposes.
I'm sure the perverted creatures living on the state line tell themselves this, too. It's moot. It no longer exists on earth, and it's not likely it will until the earth and its people are changed, if even then.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

skmo wrote: August 20th, 2017, 1:53 am
Fiannan wrote: August 18th, 2017, 8:44 amPolygamy is therefore not carnal but rather a greater means by which higher evolved individuals can bring about God's purposes.
I'm sure the perverted creatures living on the state line tell themselves this, too. It's moot. It no longer exists on earth, and it's not likely it will until the earth and its people are changed, if even then.
Could you please provide when God took polygamy from the Jews?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by freedomforall »

To the OP...1) because a lot of men do their thinking below their belt-line.
2) they think God condones polygamy, and ignore the fact that he says polygamy is an abomination........but, he will call for it when and if he wants an increase of children (seed) to be brought into the world more rapidly.
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.

djinwa
captain of 100
Posts: 809

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by djinwa »

freedomforall wrote: August 27th, 2017, 4:45 am To the OP...1) because a lot of men do their thinking below their belt-line.
2) they think God condones polygamy, and ignore the fact that he says polygamy is an abomination........but, he will call for it when and if he wants an increase of children (seed) to be brought into the world more rapidly.
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.
You are one more who is so sure of themselves, yet it is a useless opinion, until the prophet clears things up by speaking for God.

They can't take God's word literally because it is either unclear, or keeps changing.

The prophet doesn't clear things up, or we're told when things change, that the former prophet didn't say what he said, or he was speaking as a man, or whatever. So follow the prophet, even though he isn't leading.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by freedomforall »

djinwa wrote: August 27th, 2017, 11:13 pm
freedomforall wrote: August 27th, 2017, 4:45 am To the OP...1) because a lot of men do their thinking below their belt-line.
2) they think God condones polygamy, and ignore the fact that he says polygamy is an abomination........but, he will call for it when and if he wants an increase of children (seed) to be brought into the world more rapidly.
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.
You are one more who is so sure of themselves, yet it is a useless opinion, until the prophet clears things up by speaking for God. Absolutely. Scripture teaches us these very truths, ie, whoredoms are an abomination, chastity of woman the Lord delights in, polygamy is only justified when God commands it to be implemented and a marriage of one man and one woman is his long standing command. Many, many saints know these facts. BTW, is the word of God my opinion ? Besides, we are to feast upon the word of God until we come to know it, right ? Therefore, it cannot be our opinion.

They can't take God's word literally because it is either unclear, or keeps changing. Rather clear if studied out and pondered.

The prophet doesn't clear things up, or we're told when things change, that the former prophet didn't say what he said, or he was speaking as a man, or whatever. So follow the prophet, even though he isn't leading. Scriptures are very clear, and who wants to rebut that which God says ?
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.

God speaking:

Jacob 2:23-30
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things

So it is plain to see that polygamy was authorized by God because he wanted increased seed to be raised up. But, note that it was virgins, not just any woman that was required into polygamy as stated in D&C 132.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

Again, when did God take the authorization to have polygamy away from the Jews?

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

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by brianj »

Fiannan wrote: August 28th, 2017, 5:11 am Again, when did God take the authorization to have polygamy away from the Jews?
When did Adam defecate? When were women born for Adam and Eve's sons to marry?

The Bible and Book of Mormon are not complete records and it's a mistake to expect everything we may want to be in there.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Rensai »

freedomforall wrote: August 28th, 2017, 1:51 am
djinwa wrote: August 27th, 2017, 11:13 pm
freedomforall wrote: August 27th, 2017, 4:45 am To the OP...1) because a lot of men do their thinking below their belt-line.
2) they think God condones polygamy, and ignore the fact that he says polygamy is an abomination........but, he will call for it when and if he wants an increase of children (seed) to be brought into the world more rapidly.
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.
You are one more who is so sure of themselves, yet it is a useless opinion, until the prophet clears things up by speaking for God. Absolutely. Scripture teaches us these very truths, ie, whoredoms are an abomination, chastity of woman the Lord delights in, polygamy is only justified when God commands it to be implemented and a marriage of one man and one woman is his long standing command. Many, many saints know these facts. BTW, is the word of God my opinion ? Besides, we are to feast upon the word of God until we come to know it, right ? Therefore, it cannot be our opinion.

They can't take God's word literally because it is either unclear, or keeps changing. Rather clear if studied out and pondered.

The prophet doesn't clear things up, or we're told when things change, that the former prophet didn't say what he said, or he was speaking as a man, or whatever. So follow the prophet, even though he isn't leading. Scriptures are very clear, and who wants to rebut that which God says ?
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.

God speaking:

Jacob 2:23-30
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things

So it is plain to see that polygamy was authorized by God because he wanted increased seed to be raised up. But, note that it was virgins, not just any woman that was required into polygamy as stated in D&C 132.
Jacob 2 is clearly not saying God will authorize polygamy to raise up seed. You have to twist the plain reading of the scriptures to get that idea. Its saying its an abomination period. I've highlighted a few things to help show that. First, he says if you believe the scriptures allow polygamy you don't understand them. Second, look at the word thing(s), in the first two cases it clearly means polygamy/concubines. The standard LDS interpretation requires completely reversing the meaning of "things" in verse 30, which is wrong. If we read it using the same, clear understanding as previous verses it reads as:

30 For I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these whoredoms/polygamy/concubines (things).

That is the plain reading of the verse. There is no justification for polygamy there. Nor would it even make sense within the context of the rest of the speech. The previous verses make it clear that the way the lord is trying to "raise up seed" is by bringing the nephites to america, breaking that branch off from the house of israel, he explains that in verse 25. Verse 24 says Jerusalem was practicing this abomination of polygamy that they got from David and Solomon and verse 25 says they were brought out of that to stop it and raise a righteous branch, that is where the righteous seed comes from, not from polygamy. So with proper context and reading its clearly saying that God is commanding his people not to practice polygamy so he can raise up some righteous seed because if he didn't command them through Jacob, then the abomination of polygamy would grow and they would hearken to that false doctrine and he is going to command them stop because he is tired of seeing the women abused!
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by freedomforall »

Rensai wrote: August 29th, 2017, 3:48 pm Jacob 2 is clearly not saying God will authorize polygamy to raise up seed. You have to twist the plain reading of the scriptures to get that idea. Its saying its an abomination period. I've highlighted a few things to help show that. First, he says if you believe the scriptures allow polygamy you don't understand them. Second, look at the word thing(s), in the first two cases it clearly means polygamy/concubines. The standard LDS interpretation requires completely reversing the meaning of "things" in verse 30, which is wrong. If we read it using the same, clear understanding as previous verses it reads as:

30 For I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these whoredoms/polygamy/concubines (things).

That is the plain reading of the verse. There is no justification for polygamy there. Nor would it even make sense within the context of the rest of the speech. The previous verses make it clear that the way the lord is trying to "raise up seed" is by bringing the nephites to america, breaking that branch off from the house of israel, he explains that in verse 25. Verse 24 says Jerusalem was practicing this abomination of polygamy that they got from David and Solomon and verse 25 says they were brought out of that to stop it and raise a righteous branch, that is where the righteous seed comes from, not from polygamy. So with proper context and reading its clearly saying that God is commanding his people not to practice polygamy so he can raise up some righteous seed because if he didn't command them through Jacob, then the abomination of polygamy would grow and they would hearken to that false doctrine and he is going to command them stop because he is tired of seeing the women abused!
I stand by what I said, no matter how much you argue. I say it says what it says and mean it. You come back being emphatic about your interpretation, so we're at an impasse. Again, my studies show that what I have presented is true. Let's agree to disagree, okay ?

Let's put this into perspective and proper context:

Jacob 2
22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

One man, one woman in marriage, is God's command. Some of these men took themselves more wives, clearly against God's command, which was an abomination as was David and Solomon;s actions.
God tells the people that if he wants more children born than normal, he will command the men to take additional wives. But until that ever happens, they are to do as he commands, and that is to have one man and one woman.

How can this be ?

D&C 56:4.
I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good,

Now the question of "seed". What is the meaning ?

D&C 132:63
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, ....

This should clear things up. I didn't twist a thing, rather, gave an account of God's own words about polygamy and when it is just, having been commanded to raise up seed.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Rensai »

freedomforall wrote: August 29th, 2017, 5:19 pm
Rensai wrote: August 29th, 2017, 3:48 pm Jacob 2 is clearly not saying God will authorize polygamy to raise up seed. You have to twist the plain reading of the scriptures to get that idea. Its saying its an abomination period. I've highlighted a few things to help show that. First, he says if you believe the scriptures allow polygamy you don't understand them. Second, look at the word thing(s), in the first two cases it clearly means polygamy/concubines. The standard LDS interpretation requires completely reversing the meaning of "things" in verse 30, which is wrong. If we read it using the same, clear understanding as previous verses it reads as:

30 For I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these whoredoms/polygamy/concubines (things).

That is the plain reading of the verse. There is no justification for polygamy there. Nor would it even make sense within the context of the rest of the speech. The previous verses make it clear that the way the lord is trying to "raise up seed" is by bringing the nephites to america, breaking that branch off from the house of israel, he explains that in verse 25. Verse 24 says Jerusalem was practicing this abomination of polygamy that they got from David and Solomon and verse 25 says they were brought out of that to stop it and raise a righteous branch, that is where the righteous seed comes from, not from polygamy. So with proper context and reading its clearly saying that God is commanding his people not to practice polygamy so he can raise up some righteous seed because if he didn't command them through Jacob, then the abomination of polygamy would grow and they would hearken to that false doctrine and he is going to command them stop because he is tired of seeing the women abused!
I stand by what I said, no matter how much you argue. I say it says what it says and mean it. You come back being emphatic about your interpretation, so we're at an impasse. Again, my studies show that what I have presented is true. Let's agree to disagree, okay ?

Let's put this into perspective and proper context:

Jacob 2
22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

One man, one woman in marriage, is God's command. Some of these men took themselves more wives, clearly against God's command, which was an abomination as was David and Solomon;s actions.
God tells the people that if he wants more children born than normal, he will command the men to take additional wives. But until that ever happens, they are to do as he commands, and that is to have one man and one woman.

How can this be ?

D&C 56:4.
I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good,

Now the question of "seed". What is the meaning ?

D&C 132:63
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, ....

This should clear things up. I didn't twist a thing, rather, gave an account of God's own words about polygamy and when it is just, having been commanded to raise up seed.
That's fine, we can agree to disagree and let it go, but English isn't rocket science, it can be analyzed and I am showing you how to plainly and correctly read Jacob 2. I showed that the word "things" in jacob 2 clearly refers to polygamy/concubines, it can't be read any other way without twisting it. Most likely the real word used there doesn't really translate properly into english so "things" was used, but its clear from context it means polygamy/concubines of some sort. Secondly, your use of D&C 56 is way out of context, read that section more. It says very clearly in the next 2 verses what is being revoked and commanded is simply instructions to his servants on where to work. It is NOT changing and revoking eternal laws. God doesn't do that. Here are the verses below. Where does god ever change or revoke his laws in scripture? Sometimes he builds on them with higher laws, but they do not ever contradict or replace lower laws. For example:

Lesser Law: Do not commit adultery.
Higher Law: Do not look on a woman (or man) with lust or you're already committing adultery in your heart. This builds on the lesser and moves you even farther from sin, but it is stricter, harder to live.
Highest law: Should build on that, it cannot be that the highest law throws the lesser ones out at says, ignore all that, go shopping for more wives now and lust after women as long as they aren't married. That completely fails all logic and goes against everything taught in the scriptures about how Gods laws work. Oh and if you happen to have "higher priesthood authority" like Brigham young claims he had, then its even ok to lust after and steal away another mans wife, which he did on several occasions.

Now here are the verses from D&C 56.
5 Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Thomas B. Marsh and Ezra Thayre, and give a new commandment unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him.

6 For behold, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Selah J. Griffin and Newel Knight, in consequence of the stiffneckedness of my people which are in Thompson, and their rebellions.
Very clear what is actually being commanded and revoked and its not Gods laws.

As for section 132, that is right out. I won't get into it much, there is a ton of evidence to support that it was either a complete fabrication of Brigham young or that it was at least heavily modified, which is what William Marks claimed while also stating that the original didn't support polygamy at all. I know you won't agree with that, but set aside section 132. Find any other scripture where god commands polygamy or even another example where he completely reverses one of his laws with something that is basically the exact opposite. If section 132 was true, it should be supported by other scripture. If polygamy is such an important eternal concept, it should be taught in many places to make it clear like all of the most important parts of the gospel are. So where are the other scriptures to support polygamy? I've already shown you that Jacob, speaking for God says the scriptures do not support polygamy, so please, show me where God is wrong. Also, using the scripture test that is taught in our manuals, section 132's polygamy must be rejected because it goes against the rest of the scriptures. It is an aberration. Anyway, you can find tons of info on google about the problems with 132 so I won't go into that more here.

Section 132 fails the test.
“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).
“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine” (Doctrines of Salvation,3:203).

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by freedomforall »

Rensai wrote: August 29th, 2017, 6:39 pmThat's fine, we can agree to disagree and let it go, but...but, but, but what? English isn't rocket science, apparently it is because of your sure and profound claim that I am twisting God's words around. Could you be incorrect here ? to it can be analyzed and I am showing you how to plainly and correctly read Jacob 2. I showed that the word "things" in jacob 2 clearly refers to polygamy/concubines, it can't be read any other way without twisting it. And this is why the word "otherwise" was entered into the sentence, right? "Otherwise" means to do something different, to obey a different command, not to follow the example of having more wives and concubines. Yes, it is true, the English language is not rocket science, but it helps to understand the meaning of some key words within context.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Now remove the word otherwise and see how it completely changes the whole meaning.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people and they shall hearken unto these things.

Can we let it go now? ...and no more "buts"?

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Rensai »

freedomforall wrote: August 29th, 2017, 9:41 pm
Rensai wrote: August 29th, 2017, 6:39 pmThat's fine, we can agree to disagree and let it go, but...but, but, but what? English isn't rocket science, apparently it is because of your sure and profound claim that I am twisting God's words around. Could you be incorrect here ? to it can be analyzed and I am showing you how to plainly and correctly read Jacob 2. I showed that the word "things" in jacob 2 clearly refers to polygamy/concubines, it can't be read any other way without twisting it. And this is why the word "otherwise" was entered into the sentence, right? "Otherwise" means to do something different, to obey a different command, not to follow the example of having more wives and concubines. Yes, it is true, the English language is not rocket science, but it helps to understand the meaning of some key words within context.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Now remove the word otherwise and see how it completely changes the whole meaning.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people and they shall hearken unto these things.

Can we let it go now? ...and no more "buts"?
You're not letting it go either. :)

I accounted for the otherwise perfectly. I don't think you paid much attention to my post, but I'll go over it again.

first part of verse 30: If I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people. What is he commanding them? He is commanding them NOT to do polygamy so he can raise a righteous branch. Its very clear in verse 25 that the Nephites are to be the righteous seed or branch he is talking about and he is definitely commanding them not to do polygamy in verse 27. THAT IS THE COMMAND! OTHERWISE he knows they will harken unto these THINGS, which are polygamy/concubines, and go down the same path as the Israelites he took them away from. See how that works? I didn't overlook the otherwise at all. Hearkening unto polygamy is bad, that is why they must be commanded NOT to do it so God can raise up righteous seed. He isn't giving them some kind of loop hole to his laws on adultery and marriage.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

He isn't giving them some kind of loop hole to his laws on adultery and marriage.
We know that adulterers are condemned in the next life.

We know that ancient and modern prophets practiced polygamy.

If you are saying that polygamy is adultery then are you saying that the very prophets we are supposed to revere are condemned and will not even reach heaven, much less the celestial kingdom?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

brianj wrote: August 28th, 2017, 8:41 pm
Fiannan wrote: August 28th, 2017, 5:11 am Again, when did God take the authorization to have polygamy away from the Jews?
When did Adam defecate? When were women born for Adam and Eve's sons to marry?

The Bible and Book of Mormon are not complete records and it's a mistake to expect everything we may want to be in there.
Then that pretty much negates everything as we might be following a commandment that was originally explained one way, but as it is not there we are following in a different way.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by freedomforall »

Rensai wrote: August 29th, 2017, 11:57 pm
freedomforall wrote: August 29th, 2017, 9:41 pm
Rensai wrote: August 29th, 2017, 6:39 pmThat's fine, we can agree to disagree and let it go, but...but, but, but what? English isn't rocket science, apparently it is because of your sure and profound claim that I am twisting God's words around. Could you be incorrect here ? to it can be analyzed and I am showing you how to plainly and correctly read Jacob 2. I showed that the word "things" in jacob 2 clearly refers to polygamy/concubines, it can't be read any other way without twisting it. And this is why the word "otherwise" was entered into the sentence, right? "Otherwise" means to do something different, to obey a different command, not to follow the example of having more wives and concubines. Yes, it is true, the English language is not rocket science, but it helps to understand the meaning of some key words within context.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Now remove the word otherwise and see how it completely changes the whole meaning.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people and they shall hearken unto these things.

Can we let it go now? ...and no more "buts"?
You're not letting it go either. :)

I accounted for the otherwise perfectly. I don't think you paid much attention to my post, but I'll go over it again.

first part of verse 30: If I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people. What is he commanding them? He is commanding them NOT to do polygamy so he can raise a righteous branch. Its very clear in verse 25 that the Nephites are to be the righteous seed or branch he is talking about and he is definitely commanding them not to do polygamy in verse 27. THAT IS THE COMMAND! OTHERWISE he knows they will harken unto these THINGS, which are polygamy/concubines, and go down the same path as the Israelites he took them away from. See how that works? I didn't overlook the otherwise at all. Hearkening unto polygamy is bad, that is why they must be commanded NOT to do it so God can raise up righteous seed. He isn't giving them some kind of loop hole to his laws on adultery and marriage.
I can't say I agree with this view.

Why would God again command people to raise up seed, when he already commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth?
Would he at any time revoke that command?
In what way could man increase from the normal production rate to an exponential rate of seed being born?
How many times did God command this practice?
What would rather be done in pleasing God?

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by MMbelieve »

Fiannan wrote: August 25th, 2017, 2:14 pm
skmo wrote: August 20th, 2017, 1:53 am
Fiannan wrote: August 18th, 2017, 8:44 amPolygamy is therefore not carnal but rather a greater means by which higher evolved individuals can bring about God's purposes.
I'm sure the perverted creatures living on the state line tell themselves this, too. It's moot. It no longer exists on earth, and it's not likely it will until the earth and its people are changed, if even then.
Could you please provide when God took polygamy from the Jews?
The Jews still live in old times, they don't believe the Messiah has come yet. They do not live the higher law they live the law where they still will sacrifice animals when allowed. So a man marrying his sister in law doesn't seem out of place when they still believe that killing an innocent animal will provide forgiveness for their sins.

So when has God taken polygamy from the Jews is as good a question as when did God take animal sacrifices from the jews? The Jews haven't listened for nearly 2k years. God could tell them something and even send Jesus Christ specifically to them with the message and they won't get it.

I will also add that polygamy was accepted and tolerated as a form of marriage to the Jews BUT it was NEVER the prefered form of marriage nor was it so widespread or common. Even to this day when I'm sure they still allow it, it's nearly never entered into.

People have become enlightened over the years Fiannan and many cultures and people's have ditched that form of marriage. Even the Muslims. There are Muslim men who enter polygamy (theirs is carnal and possessive - not child oriented) and they can't handle it and send the wife and any children away and then discourage other young men from doing it.

Polygamy isint likely to happen, you may want to just put it out of your mind and try to have a real marriage worlthy of eternity with your one wife. Poor woman being married to an eager sperm bank. I bet you have your wife convinced (brainwashed) into accepting your ideas too.

Post Reply