Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

[creator]

Yep, allowances for plural marriage in the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

Have you read the chapter humbly seeking God's perspective?

I suppose, but I don't know exactly what you are talking about. What chapter do you mean?

It was addressed to rewcox, sorry... I think I am in agreance with what you have shared and thank you for such.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

Yep, allowances for plural marriage in the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants.

You mean allowances for incest, rape, spilling ones posterity on the floor, sending one to their death to cover having committed adultery with his wife and still be beloved of the Lord, concubines, prostitutes, annihilating entire civilizations, striking one dead for steadying the ark, ripping some youth to pieces via a bear for calling a prophet bald, talking donkeys, beheading a priesthood leader in Jeruselem, killing anyone who did not fight for freedom, eating people alive for bravery, etc..? indeed, agency is in play and continues to be what God has always let it be - in force - hence why it is so important to take this to the Lord and do that which the spirit tells you to do as agency still was in play with Brigham and his polygamy and others - because he has commanded against polygamy specifically in the scriptures and D&C before 132 was even ever introduced let alone by Joseph himself.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

Oh - and if we care anything about the vote of the members of this forum - it looks like majority is against your new policy so you will maybe loose more than half your traffic... and this vote was mostly before I even existed on this forum so it's weight could be assumed to be mostly active members of the church?

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=36550&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[creator]

Oh - and if we care anything about the vote of the members of this forum - it looks like majority is against your new policy so you will maybe loose more than half your traffic...

I don't make decisions based on how much traffic it will or won't bring to the forum.

[AI2.0]

It has been proven without question, that those who become the covenant people, are Israel.

Jacob had at least 4 wives, and 12 sons. Jacob was given the name Israel. His sons were the twelve tribes of Israel.

Being Israel has been answered, and also polygamy.

BrianM is correct. So stop following after the person who will remain nameless.

Believe!

For your information Rewcox, the one who shall remain nameless believes Sec 132 is legit and that Joseph practiced polygamy.

Maybe get your facts right before you condemn.

Ummmm...you need to get your facts straight. If we are talking about 'You know who', he does not accept sec. 132 completely--he gave his opinion in his Polygamy talk in March that 132 might have been 'altered' by Brigham Young. And, saying that he believes 'Joseph practiced polygamy' is also misleading. He believes Joseph was involved in some kind of sealings, but not the form of plural marriage the LDS church, early church leaders and a number of his plural wives attribute to him and big difference: He does not believe they included sexual relations.

[rewcox]

It has been proven without question, that those who become the covenant people, are Israel.

Jacob had at least 4 wives, and 12 sons. Jacob was given the name Israel. His sons were the twelve tribes of Israel.

Being Israel has been answered, and also polygamy.

BrianM is correct. So stop following after the person who will remain nameless.

Believe!

For your information Rewcox, the one who shall remain nameless believes Sec 132 is legit and that Joseph practiced polygamy.

Maybe get your facts right before you condemn.

Ummmm...you need to get your facts straight. If we are talking about 'You know who', he does not accept sec. 132 completely--he gave his opinion in his Polygamy talk in March that 132 might have been 'altered' by Brigham Young. And, saying that he believes 'Joseph practiced polygamy' is also misleading. He believes Joseph was involved in some kind of sealings, but not the form of plural marriage the LDS church, early church leaders and a number of his plural wives attribute to him and big difference: He does not believe they included sexual relations.

Thanks AI2.0 . I know what you said. I didn't want to break the news to Thomas.

[freedomforall]

Not sure. Scriptures don't say

At least one.

[freedomforall]

...

Now, on to the next concept. Scripturally, plural marriage is only acceptable if commanded by the Lord. If you are commanded to do it, you will then have a choice to obey that commandment or not. Remember that a commandment can change but a law cannot and shall not...

And this is where you have no basis - where does Christ state such ever in the Book of Mormon?

I think he's talking about the actual verses, not the editorial at the top of the chapter.

Have you read the chapter humbly seeking God's perspective?

The verses in the BoM are so plain that a caveman could understand them. *-:)

[freedomforall]

Yep, allowances for plural marriage in the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants.

You mean allowances for incest, rape, spilling ones posterity on the floor, sending one to their death to cover having committed adultery with his wife and still be beloved of the Lord, concubines, prostitutes, annihilating entire civilizations, striking one dead for steadying the ark, ripping some youth to pieces via a bear for calling a prophet bald, talking donkeys, beheading a priesthood leader in Jeruselem, killing anyone who did not fight for freedom, eating people alive for bravery, etc..? indeed, agency is in play and continues to be what God has always let it be - in force - hence why it is so important to take this to the Lord and do that which the spirit tells you to do as agency still was in play with Brigham and his polygamy and others - because he has commanded against polygamy specifically in the scriptures and D&C before 132 was even ever introduced let alone by Joseph himself.

Allowances for incest? Absolutely. How do you think all the populace from Adam and Eve to the flood came about? Test tube frozen sperm? How about genetic engineering? How about DNA clinics able to replicate humans?
Man was doing as commanded...to multiply and replenish the earth. The operative word is multiply. Two people, through multiplying, brought about hundreds of thousands of people. Back then it wasn't incest. Today it is. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that brothers and sisters married each other following the flood. After all, there were only four men and four women to begin the earth's population growth.

[Rachael]

Free discussion of this issue is effectively "snuffed" out (pun intended since I've been accused of being one when I was only curious about it) when discussion forces accepting the paradigm that sec132 is divine. Doesn't matter that of was inserted 30+ years after JS died or it contradicts prior revelations in the D&C.

Therefore any evidence that JS preached against polygamy publically (though may or may not practiced it secretly) cannot be presented. The point that Moroni used Malachi when he appeared to JS when it clearly says do not deal treacherously with the wife of thy youth in another chapter ( you don't think if an angel of the Lord appeared and quoted some verses out of one chapter that you wouldnt study all of the book?) can not be exaimed under the light (or black light) of sec 132.

It doesn't matter that Adam only had Eve. Or Noah had one wife or Lehi. The pro polygamists want to emulate David and Solomon. Both fell from grace. The saints in Nauvoo were driven out after given a promise of never being moved from their place(if they were righteous). The temple was destroyed, JS murdered. I guess the introduction of spiritual wifery had nothing to do with. No they didn't do the consecration thing either but Deut. says don't
Multiply wives or riches that your heart not turn away. Leverite marriage is the only example in the bible where God commands polygamy

They refuse to empathise with Rachel, Leah, Sarah, Hagar, Hannah, the daughters of Judah and the Nephites who were dealt treacherously with and hearts pierced. Nor Emma or the countless accounts we can access from the journals of the plural, per manifesto wives of the early saints.

If it is the sacred cow around here... well cows are sacred in India and polygamy is here

[lgr3065]

We inhibit the opportunity for further light and knowledge without open dialogue. It is vital to know both sides, as there is opposition in all things and eventually one must choose. If you don't have the light and knowledge, hard to have understanding. Holy ghost is not feeling but enables light and knowledge. If one is unable to study it out and then seek God, you are damning yourself

[rewcox]

Free discussion of this issue is effectively "snuffed" out (pun intended since I've been accused of being one when I was only curious about it) when discussion forces accepting the paradigm that sec132 is divine. Doesn't matter that of was inserted 30+ years after JS died or it contradicts prior revelations in the D&C.

Therefore any evidence that JS preached against polygamy publically (though may or may not practiced it secretly) cannot be presented. The point that Moroni used Malachi when he appeared to JS when it clearly says do not deal treacherously with the wife of thy youth in another chapter ( you don't think if an angel of the Lord appeared and quoted some verses out of one chapter that you wouldnt study all of the book?) can not be exaimed under the light (or black light) of sec 132.

It doesn't matter that Adam only had Eve. Or Noah had one wife or Lehi. The pro polygamists want to emulate David and Solomon. Both fell from grace.

They refuse to empathise with Rachel, Leah, Sarah, Hagar, Hannah, the daughters of Judah and the Nephites who were dealt treacherously with and hearts pierced. Nor Emma or the countless accounts we can access from the journals of the plural, per manifesto wives of the early saints.

If it the sacred cow around here... well cows are sacred in India and polygamy is here

Hi Rachel. While the church had not been invoked with polygamy for over 100 years, polygamy certainly was part of the early church, even with Joseph Smith.

AGS posted these links on Brian Hales essays that give some background. Good information if you like good research.

BofM should read them too.

For those interested:

Part 1: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-resp ... -evidence/

Part 2: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-resp ... r-reality/

[Rachael]

And I do have a personal stake in all this. My mother is the second wife of a man that was widowed. I'm sealed to my step dad. If polygamy is false I'm fatherless except my Heavenly Father. I love my stepfather immensley.

But if its wrong so be it. I don't get along with a particular step sibling. I have no right to vex his 1st wife with our baggage

[Rachael]

Rewcox the research is great. God works with us when we fall...like Adam. If Lots daughters mistakenly believed they must repopulate the world by seducing their father, God makes lemonade with Ammonites and Moabites (Ruth was the latter) but we still have to suck the lemon as consequences. We are fighting the descendants of Ishmael as I write this. Its collapsing our economy among other things. Slavery is evil too but God saved many by allowing Joseph to be sold into Egypt. Can we justify the principle of slavery from this exception? Or polygamy when a few exceptions produce good fruit from tons of rotten fruit.

And the steadying of the ark comment... it was in a cart. It was not supposed to be carried in a cart. It was supposed to he carried by levites. It was desecrated because they esteemed Gods former commandments lightly. Same as polygamy

[freedomforall]

I'm not an advocate of polygamy practice, but let's do a bottom line search. Let's see how many different answers come up.
Why do men, today, want polygamy?

A) More intimacy
B) Status
C) Fear of not getting into the Celestial kingdom if not practiced
D) More woman to keep the house clean and tidy
E) Kids can have several mothers so they can walk a straight line and fly right
F) Plenty of money coming in so the old man can be a couch potato 24/7
G) The man has an ankle, or whatever, fetish
H) The man can satisfy his cross-dressing secret
I) Just for the fun of it
J) Desired Intense perfume aroma around the house
K) Uncontrollable impulse
L) The man is immensely codependent

Any others?

[brlenox]

"Not doctrinal" - Gordon B.

Gordon B. trumps Smith/Young or whoever your favorite polygamist is.

Brian, AI2.0 keeps bringing "Snuffer" into conversations . Please warn her. Thanks.

Who's Snuffer?

[Rachael]

He is a former devout member and lawyer that wrote some books the Brethren found controversial. He is an advocate of making your calling and election sure by seeing Christ in person and wrote a book called "Passing the Heavenly Gift" (which I haven't read) which questions of the Brethren still hold priesthood keys. He was ex'd and has a following tho he says he doesn't want a following. O learned this from the now read only forum

[freedomforall]

I sense a high level of facetiousness, so I retracted my prior response.

[Rachael]

I wasn't being facetious. I do appreciate sarcasm but I haven't tried to set that tone on this particular thread

[Chip]

Free discussion of this issue is effectively "snuffed" out (pun intended since I've been accused of being one when I was only curious about it) when discussion forces accepting the paradigm that sec132 is divine. Doesn't matter that of was inserted 30+ years after JS died or it contradicts prior revelations in the D&C.

Therefore any evidence that JS preached against polygamy publically (though may or may not practiced it secretly) cannot be presented. The point that Moroni used Malachi when he appeared to JS when it clearly says do not deal treacherously with the wife of thy youth in another chapter ( you don't think if an angel of the Lord appeared and quoted some verses out of one chapter that you wouldnt study all of the book?) can not be exaimed under the light (or black light) of sec 132.

It doesn't matter that Adam only had Eve. Or Noah had one wife or Lehi. The pro polygamists want to emulate David and Solomon. Both fell from grace. The saints in Nauvoo were driven out after given a promise of never being moved from their place(if they were righteous). The temple was destroyed, JS murdered. I guess the introduction of spiritual wifery had nothing to do with. No they didn't do the consecration thing either but Deut. says don't
Multiply wives or riches that your heart not turn away. Leverite marriage is the only example in the bible where God commands polygamy

They refuse to empathise with Rachel, Leah, Sarah, Hagar, Hannah, the daughters of Judah and the Nephites who were dealt treacherously with and hearts pierced. Nor Emma or the countless accounts we can access from the journals of the plural, per manifesto wives of the early saints.

If it is the sacred cow around here... well cows are sacred in India and polygamy is here

Amen, Rachel! This has been a growing source of consternation for me.

Through my own reading of scriptures, journals, and history, it's become very apparent to me that polygamy was a disastrous misadventure with lingering detriment to truth, and even the value of truth. As someone said here, though, God always makes lemonade from bad situations, so the church lives on to help bring blessings into people's lives.

My consternation comes not from the fact that polygamy happened - I can accept that and it does not diminish my faith in God or the Book of Mormon, which Joseph was instrumental in bringing forth, by one iota. What gets me down is that it makes the church seem a little less than perfect, since it teaches a sanitized history that ignores huge issues that will continue to fester until man or God corrects them.

The culture that has been fostered in the church is one where people accept whatever they are told and do not have any interest in discovering truth for themselves. All the heavy thinking has already been done for us. We, as individual Latter Day Saints, are supposed to be champions of truth, but it's been pretty much trained out of us, and I believe that this circumstance exists today because of the departure from truth that polygamy was. Polygamy brought secrecy and temptation to cover up all kinds of things spanning to murder. It's like lingering mold that diminishes our health. I want to be able to recommend the church to people wholeheartedly, because I know that there's nowhere else they are going to be fed so well, but there are these caveats that exist that keep me, in full good conscience, from recommending the church to them. They need the gospel, but not the discovery down the road that they've been misled about certain things.

[freedomforall]

I wasn't being facetious. I do appreciate sarcasm but I haven't tried to set that tone on this particular thread

Sorry. I wasn't referring to you in the least, Rachael. I was referring to brlenox, a person who has been on the forum for a long time. At first I didn't pay heed to this, but then I realized the date of forum membership. Then I concluded a sense of facetiousness. I think their question is a leading question, in actually knowing the answer yet feinting ignorance.

[Kingdom of ZION]

If the Higher Laws are the Melchizedek portions of the Temple Endowment, being Chastity (PCM) and Consecration, and LDSFF hall monitors, or the church membership who post here want a nice sterilized clean SCMC (Strengthening Church Members Committee) approved posts. Maybe Brian needs to make a private forum for such persons. A nice padded playpen where they will not hurt or offend each other delicate ears and they can pretend they are Protestants Latter Day Saints.

The real Pro-Test-ents Mormons are those who object to the blatant apostasy that is running through those (the church) who received the restoration gospel, to then turn around and do exactly what the ancients did, that necessitates the restoration in the first place. Lets just accept the facts, their are those (very very few) who will except the gospel as revealed and are willing to embrace it, knowing the personal costs, and that the majority (wide is the way) who will close their eyes to the gospel and pretend that G_d has changed His mind, that those Prophets who ACTUALLY SAW Him had it wrong, and that their new and improved Prophets will lead them to heaven!

Good luck with that one...

[rewcox]

If the Higher Laws are the Melchizedek portions of the Temple Endowment, being Chastity (PCM) and Consecration, and LDSFF hall monitors, or the church membership who post here want a nice sterilized clean SCMC (Strengthening Church Members Committee) approved posts. Maybe Brian needs to make a private forum for such persons. A nice padded playpen where they will not hurt or offend each other delicate ears and they can pretend they are Protestants Latter Day Saints.

The real Pro-Test-ents Mormons are those who object to the blatant apostasy that is running through those (the church) who received the restoration gospel, to then turn around and do exactly what the ancients did, that necessitates the restoration in the first place. Lets just accept the facts, their are those (very very few) who will except the gospel as revealed and are willing to embrace it, knowing the personal costs, and that the majority (wide is the way) who will close their eyes to the gospel and pretend that G_d has changed His mind, that those Prophets who ACTUALLY SAW Him had it wrong, and that their new and improved Prophets will lead them to heaven!

Good luck with that one...

I sense anger...has someone created a place for you all to talk privately? Surely one of you has some technical know how.

I think you enjoyed having a private place where you could jump out and spread your version of stuff.

BofM can surely create a site for you.

[Rachael]

FFA I just realized my gaffe. I lumped you in in pro polygamy crowd and proposed marriage on another polygamy thread

I retract and apologize. Thank you for not calling me out on my glaring error. It was just in jest

With that said, i hope my back and forth is not taken personal by the pro polygamy crowd. I hope that feeling is mutual for those that's views were/are in opposition of mine