The Ultimate Polygamy Thread - It started in the Past

[Mark]

While President Joseph F. Smith was interrogated, at one point he read Jacob 2:30. The Prophet confirmed that Jacob 2:30 allows God to command plural marriage if He chooses.

That is the fact.

In August 17, 1949 the first presidency had this to say: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

You see, the church was using Book of Mormon scriptures regarding the Lamanites ("a skin of blackness" is a direct reference there) and applying that as an explanation as to why people of African descent had dark skin and teaching that said dark skin was the result of a curse. Recently, the church had this to say:

This is from the Church's gospel topics essay titled "Race and the Priesthood": Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

This means that the Book of Mormon scriptures regarding a relationship between a curse and dark skin in no way applies to people with black skin today. There is a similar pattern here, scripture from the Book of Mormon being used to support a modern situation, then later disavowed. It is interesting to note that the priesthood ban and polygamy were announced at the same event in 1852.

So consider this fact: Church presidents and leaders have taught false things as truth before. Ezra Taft Benson once said: "there are also apostate doctrines that are sometimes taught in our classes and from our pulpits and that appear in our publications. And these apostate precepts of men cause our people to stumble. As the Book of Mormon, speaking of our day, states: “They have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men” (2 Nephi 28:14). (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Pg.89 90)

The truth is that sometimes people, church presidents or other leaders included, are wrong. Not because they are bad or uninspired, because they are mortal. Moses doubted, David sinned, Peter denied, Lehi murmured, Nephi struggled, Joseph disobeyed, just like we all do.

If you don't believe me, just read D&C 107, no one is exempt from making mistakes not even the entire quorum of the twelve collectively: "...in case that any decision of these quorums is made in unrighteousness..." (vs.32) and "And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness. (vs.82-84)

To disabuse anyone from misinterpreting my motives here, I would like to state unequivocally that I trust the leadership of the LDS Church more than any other body of individuals that I can think of, I just do not deify them into a state of infallibility. I listen and give heed to their counsel as directed by the Spirit and I seek in every way to uphold and sustain them in what must be a terribly difficult task. I do not think myself wiser or better qualified to a fraction of what they handle every day.

As an independent individual who has agency, a mind, and the freedom within our theology to study, ponder, and discover, I agree with Brigham Young when he stated:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwa[r]t the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

You can disagree with my interpretation of Jacob 2:30, that's fine, you have every right and I will not question your motives or intelligence. There is a case to be made for that verse being interpreted in the common way that it is now. I have proposed another interpretation backed up with resources and documentation. I'm not going to make my case any further on Jacob 2:30, if anyone would like to examine it, they can read my post or review this thread. Most are already familiar with the common interpretation and references and make up their own mind.

Stop and think about what you are advocating here Brother. You are saying that every faithful member of the church's highest Priesthood bodies who remained true and faithful from the time of Joseph Smith until the early 1900's some 60 or 70 years later received false and corrupted revelation and were guided by false spirits when they testified of the truthfulness of the doctrine of celestial or plural marriage as coming from the Lord. Every One of these men are being accused here of having revelations from adversarial sources. This applies to all the Sisters who claimed revelation on this principle as well. Do you understand the magnitude of this line of thinking?

[oneClimbs]

Stop and think about what you are advocating here Brother. You are saying that every faithful member of the church's highest Priesthood bodies who remained true and faithful from the time of Joseph Smith until the early 1900's some 60 or 70 years later received false and corrupted revelation and were guided by false spirits when they testified of the truthfulness of the doctrine of celestial or plural marriage as coming from the Lord. Every One of these men are being accused here of having revelations from adversarial sources. This applies to all the Sisters who claimed revelation on this principle as well. Do you understand the magnitude of this line of thinking?

I don't think you read my words very carefully, but perhaps I haven't been clear. Please re-read. Everything I said is in context of the interpretation of a single verse in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:30 not being accurate. I didn't make any statements about the actual practice of polygamy or anyone involved. Let me further clarify that while I personally do not like polygamy, I am neutral on the practice in the early church. I neither condemn nor praise it because I wasn't involved, so I don't judge them and I haven't accused any of the leadership of being inspired by adversarial sources.

If anything, the one thing I do believe is that regardless of the origins of the practice, I think the overwhelming majority involved did it for well-intentioned reasons. I don't believe their motivations were the same as the Nephites who did it for clearly wicked reasons. I'm only seeking to understand a verse in it's correct context and am providing perspective that sometimes scripture has been incorrectly interpreted in the past with controversial issues. There is a precedent for what I am suggesting and room for the possibility. I'm not saying that the evidence I have provided proves anything more than a precedent that has, does, and will exist. The argument that I am wrong because a verse is currently interpreted in a certain fashion is a worthy one, but not a bulletproof one.

[Mark]

Stop and think about what you are advocating here Brother. You are saying that every faithful member of the church's highest Priesthood bodies who remained true and faithful from the time of Joseph Smith until the early 1900's some 60 or 70 years later received false and corrupted revelation and were guided by false spirits when they testified of the truthfulness of the doctrine of celestial or plural marriage as coming from the Lord. Every One of these men are being accused here of having revelations from adversarial sources. This applies to all the Sisters who claimed revelation on this principle as well. Do you understand the magnitude of this line of thinking?

I don't think you read my words very carefully, but perhaps I haven't been clear. Please re-read. Everything I said is in context of the interpretation of a single verse in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:30 not being accurate. I didn't make any statements about the actual practice of polygamy or anyone involved.

My apologies Bro. I thought you had discounted its place in the early church. So since this is a discussion forum what are your thoughts on this early church doctrine referred to by the leaders as celestial marriage? Care to share?

[rewcox]

Joseph F. Smith was serving as the Prophet at the time he was involved in the Smoot hearings. He actually practiced polygamy. He was the last Prophet to know Joseph Smith Jr., his uncle.

If he said Jacob 2:30 allows God to authorize polygamy, that is good for me.

Joseph F. Smith also received section 138 of the Doctrine & Covenants.

Section 138
A vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918. In his opening address at the 89th Semiannual General Conference of the Church, on October 4, 1918, President Smith declared that he had received several divine communications during the previous months. One of these, concerning the Savior’s visit to the spirits of the dead while His body was in the tomb, President Smith had received the previous day. It was written immediately following the close of the conference. On October 31, 1918, it was submitted to the counselors in the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch, and it was unanimously accepted by them.

D&C 138

[oneClimbs]

My apologies Bro. I thought you had discounted its place in the early church. So since this is a discussion forum what are your thoughts on this early church doctrine referred to by the leaders as celestial marriage? Care to share?

No problem. My honest opinion here is that I don't know. The best justification for polygamy that I have read is buried deep in an essay by Blake Ostler (which is posted on my blog oneClimbs.com). Other than that, nothing else concerning polygamy is on my blog other than the analysis of Jacob 2:30. In that post I share briefly some of my perspectives and challenges with polygamy.

I have studied the topic quite a bit and I've prayed desiring further light on the subject, but with no definitive answer thus far. In all that I have learned and compiled I cannot settle on a single line of thinking that I would be comfortable standing behind.

This much I can say: when I knew far less about the practice, I was more inclined to support it. The more that I have learned, I am less inclined to support it but not to the degree where I can say that I condemn it or those involved. I'm not sure I would ever do that since I don't know those people or their motives. All I can do is analyze the facts to the best of my ability while continuing to seek for further light.

I have tried to explain the church's position on the subject in a respectful manner.

I have multiple theories that I think are plausible concerning the practice in the early LDS faith but they are too detailed and unpolished to include here. Even if the situation turned out to be the worst possible scenario that the practice was introduced by Joseph Smith, well intentioned, but in error, and perpetuated among the Saints in error, I still wouldn't throw any of them under the bus.

I've studied enough about the subject and the individuals involved to know that while they were flawed men, these were not evil people. I accept and treasure all the good that came from and through them just as I do the Psalms of David and the wisdom of Solomon in proverbs. Though the men were said by Jacob to have committed whoredoms and abominations, the Psalms and Proverbs are referenced in the Book of Mormon and by Jesus himself. I do not have a problem accepting the good of people while rejecting their mistakes. We are all mortal and are all given to error.

Some think Brigham was vile and refuse to hear anything from him. Brigham has certainly said vile things, things that I feel are cruel, but he has also said wonderful things as well and I've published many of them on my blog. Sometimes a rusty tool still gets the job done. I feel that the Lord is less like Tim the Toolman Taylor with a fine array of perfectly polished tools, one perfectly suited for every situation, and more like MacGuyver, able to use whatever is at his disposal. He favors using the weak things to confound the wise.

That's about all I wish to say about it.

[oneClimbs]

Joseph F. Smith was serving as the Prophet at the time he was involved in the Smoot hearings. He actually practiced polygamy. He was the last Prophet to know Joseph Smith Jr., his uncle.

If he said Jacob 2:30 allows God to authorize polygamy, that is good for me.

Joseph F. Smith also received section 138 of the Doctrine & Covenants.

Section 138
A vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918. In his opening address at the 89th Semiannual General Conference of the Church, on October 4, 1918, President Smith declared that he had received several divine communications during the previous months. One of these, concerning the Savior’s visit to the spirits of the dead while His body was in the tomb, President Smith had received the previous day. It was written immediately following the close of the conference. On October 31, 1918, it was submitted to the counselors in the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch, and it was unanimously accepted by them.

D&C 138

Great, I'm glad that you have a perspective you feel comfortable with. I accept D&C 138 as a revelation, it rings true and I have no reason to reject it. Joseph F. Smith was a great man and taught some wonderful things that have blessed the lives of millions.

[freedomforall]

I have studied the topic quite a bit and I've prayed desiring further light on the subject, but with no definitive answer thus far. In all that I have learned and compiled I cannot settle on a single line of thinking that I would be comfortable standing behind.

Sometimes answers to prayer comes through other people. You may have received your answer but do not recognize it as such. Open your mind and let the answer flow in, and don't dissect it until it becomes meaningless. There are times we receive answers we don't like.
Just sayin'.

[oneClimbs]

I have studied the topic quite a bit and I've prayed desiring further light on the subject, but with no definitive answer thus far. In all that I have learned and compiled I cannot settle on a single line of thinking that I would be comfortable standing behind.

Sometimes answers to prayer comes through other people. You may have received your answer but do not recognize it as such. Open your mind and let the answer flow in, and don't dissect it until it becomes meaningless.
Just sayin'.

Well it has been confusing to me for years. What you suggested is precisely what I've done. I didn't just wake up yesterday and come up with something out of thin air. Bit by bit, piece by piece I have studied each of these elements in depth. I've shared summaries on each point but I've taken many notes and have done a lot of research. Meaning came when I did dissect it. I looked at each word and phrase and compared them with how they were used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon and discovered consistent patterns, very solid and consistent patterns. I put the pieces back together and then the verse slid right into place with the rest of the sermon and I had an "ah ha" moment. Since that time, I don't just see the verse alone, I see it as part of a narrative in a sermon that is not only consistent internally, but consistent with Nephi's writings (Jacob's brother) and various Old Testament sources including Deuteronomy and Psalms. Jacob was a great scholar of the Law.

Additional insights on this point have been shared by an LDS scholar who has been working on a paper about this verse as well. He agrees that it is not interpreted the way we think. I had made contact with him after I had finished most of my research. He takes a little bit of a different angle with a focus more on the Old Testament sources Jacob is referencing and it is really interesting stuff. He shared portions of his work that is thus far incomplete, but there are elements there that I think will be interesting for people to study if he ever publishes his work in the future.

Again, some may not agree with my conclusions and that is fine. I have not taken any of this lightly and I did not set out to try and attack the practice of polygamy or anything like that. Several things concerning the verse just didn't make sense, even when I supported the traditional interpretation. It always seemed like a bit of a stretch but what else could it mean? What else did it mean?

It's been a couple of years now off and on that I've been collecting information, looking at patterns in the text and studying the meanings of particular words. I've been looking for consistency, where Jacob got his ideas from, the influence of his brother on his own writing and language, how the Lord uses particular words, the Abrahamic covenant, the Nephite covenants, the creation of a new branch upon this land (this concept bleeds into Jacob's inclusion of Zenos's allegory of the Olive tree just 3 chapters later, he was clearly fascinated with t his concept) and much more.

I do appreciate your concern and advice. It is important that we study things out in our minds.

I have not tried to rush to a conclusion, I've very patiently collected notes and confirmed premises. I didn't set out to publish an article or even share any of this, it's always been personal research. This information was included in my library of polygamy research which is just another part of a larger library of doctrine and principles. As I learned more and more about this verse and sermon, I separated this research out and began giving it a little more attention over the course of the past year. It didn't all flow together at once but when it did, it came with a profound clarity to my mind.

It can be hard to see the conclusions of others and accept them. This is because we have not walked in each other's shoes, we have not had the same life experiences or shared those moments of deep though, pondering, and discovery of certain ideas. We cannot fault each other for coming up with different interpretations or assume someone is ill-intentioned or blind in their reasoning.

I think Joseph Smith's words would be appropriate to consider here:

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.” History of the Church, 5:498–99)

[freedomforall]

I have studied the topic quite a bit and I've prayed desiring further light on the subject, but with no definitive answer thus far. In all that I have learned and compiled I cannot settle on a single line of thinking that I would be comfortable standing behind.

Sometimes answers to prayer comes through other people. You may have received your answer but do not recognize it as such. Open your mind and let the answer flow in, and don't dissect it until it becomes meaningless.
Just sayin'.

Well it has been confusing to me for years. What you suggested is precisely what I've done. I didn't just wake up yesterday and come up with something out of thin air. Bit by bit, piece by piece I have studied each of these elements in depth. I've shared summaries on each point but I've taken many notes and have done a lot of research. Meaning came when I did dissect it. I looked at each word and phrase and compared them with how they were used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon and discovered consistent patterns, very solid and consistent patterns. I put the pieces back together and then the verse slid right into place with the rest of the sermon and I had an "ah ha" moment. Since that time, I don't just see the verse alone, I see it as part of a narrative in a sermon that is not only consistent internally, but consistent with Nephi's writings (Jacob's brother) and various Old Testament sources including Deuteronomy and Psalms. Jacob was a great scholar of the Law.

Additional insights on this point have been shared by an LDS scholar who has been working on a paper about this verse as well. He agrees that it is not interpreted the way we think. I had made contact with him after I had finished most of my research. He takes a little bit of a different angle with a focus more on the Old Testament sources Jacob is referencing and it is really interesting stuff. He shared portions of his work that is thus far incomplete, but there are elements there that I think will be interesting for people to study if he ever publishes his work in the future.

Again, some may not agree with my conclusions and that is fine. I have not taken any of this lightly and I did not set out to try and attack the practice of polygamy or anything like that. Several things concerning the verse just didn't make sense, even when I supported the traditional interpretation. It always seemed like a bit of a stretch but what else could it mean? What else did it mean?

It's been a couple of years now off and on that I've been collecting information, looking at patterns in the text and studying the meanings of particular words. I've been looking for consistency, where Jacob got his ideas from, the influence of his brother on his own writing and language, how the Lord uses particular words, the Abrahamic covenant, the Nephite covenants, the creation of a new branch upon this land (this concept bleeds into Jacob's inclusion of Zenos's allegory of the Olive tree just 3 chapters later, he was clearly fascinated with t his concept) and much more.

I do appreciate your concern and advice. It is important that we study things out in our minds.

I have not tried to rush to a conclusion, I've very patiently collected notes and confirmed premises. I didn't set out to publish an article or even share any of this, it's always been personal research. This information was included in my library of polygamy research which is just another part of a larger library of doctrine and principles. As I learned more and more about this verse and sermon, I separated this research out and began giving it a little more attention over the course of the past year. It didn't all flow together at once but when it did, it came with a profound clarity to my mind.

It can be hard to see the conclusions of others and accept them. This is because we have not walked in each other's shoes, we have not had the same life experiences or shared those moments of deep though, pondering, and discovery of certain ideas. We cannot fault each other for coming up with different interpretations or assume someone is ill-intentioned or blind in their reasoning.

I think Joseph Smith's words would be appropriate to consider here:

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.” History of the Church, 5:498–99)

You have my apologies for being less than understanding of your view.

[rewcox]

President Snow
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Snow,_Lorenzo

Elder Snow taught in and around Birmingham for three months, during which time he baptized people in Greet's Green and organized a branch in Wolverhampton. In February 1841 the twenty-six-year-old missionary was called to preside over the ten established branches in London. He returned to Nauvoo in 1843 as leader of a shipload of 250 converts. En route, Elder Snow's quiet confidence, his healing of a dying steward, and the faith of his company of Saints led to the baptism of the ship's first mate and several of the crew. The party arrived in Nauvoo on April 12, 1843.

In accordance with the revelation on plural marriage, Snow married Charlotte Squires, Mary Adaline Goddard, Sarah Ann Prichard, and Harriet Amelia Squires before leaving Nauvoo in the 1846 exodus. On the way west, the family had to stop at Mt. Pisgah, Iowa, because of his illness. Two of his three children born there survived. Called to preside over the temporary settlement, Snow actively raised money to assist the Saints in the move west. The family moved on to Salt Lake City in 1848.

After all these missions abroad, still more were to come. Eight years later, Elder Snow accompanied George A. Smith, a member of the First Presidency, and others to Palestine, where, on the Mount of Olives, they blessed the land to be fruitful and dedicated the country for the return of the jews. In 1885 he served a short-term mission among the Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest.

Shortly after his return to Utah, Snow was tried and imprisoned for violation of the 1882 Edmunds Act, which prohibited the practice of polygamy. The territorial governor, Caleb W. West, promised amnesty if he would renounce plural marriage, but Elder Snow replied, "I thank you, Governor, but having adopted sacred and holy principles for which we have already sacrificed property, home and life on several occasions,…we do not propose, at this late hour, to abandon them because of threatened danger" (Romney, p. 381). He remained in prison for eleven months before being released under mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Elder Snow radiated a purity and holiness that were extraordinary. He dedicated the Manti Temple in south-central Utah in 1888. Rhoda W. Smith, who was present, wrote, "When Apostle Lorenzo Snow arose, a beautiful heavenly light enveloped his head and shoulders; he looked angelic" (Spiritual Manifestations in the Manti Temple, Millennial Star, 50, Aug. 13, 1888, p. 522).

About the time of his conversion as a young man, Elder Snow had been promised an ancient apostolic power by Joseph Smith, Sr.: "If expedient the dead shall rise and come forth at thy bidding" (Romney, p. 406). In 1891, he restored life to a young woman, Ella Jensen, after she had been dead for two hours.

During the April 1889 general conference, Lorenzo Snow was sustained as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He became the first president of the Salt Lake Temple in 1893, and on September 13, 1898, at age eighty-four, he was sustained as the fifth President of the Church. Worried about his advanced age, he pleaded for a manifestation of divine will. He testified that the Lord appeared to him in the Salt Lake Temple and affirmed that he should serve and that he should immediately reorganize the First Presidency (pp. 677-79). The reorganization took place without the lengthy interval that had followed the deaths of the first four Presidents of the Church and established a custom of immediate succession.

Another question firmly resolved by his succession was that seniority among the Twelve was determined not by chronological age but by date of ordination to the quorum.

Not bad for a polygamist.

[freedomforall]

Rulon C Allred.jpg (60.7 KiB) Viewed 1533 times

Rulon Clark Allred
(March 29, 1906
https://www.scribd.com/document/82372362/Rulon-C-Allred" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May 10, 1977) was a homeopathic physician and chiropractor in Salt Lake City and the leader of what is now the Apostolic United Brethren, a breakaway sect of polygamous Mormon fundamentalists in Utah, Colorado, and Arizona, United States. He was murdered (two women, at least one was a wife of Ervil, used handguns to kill Allred) on the orders of Ervil LeBaron, the head of a rival polygamous sect.

Rulon had at least 12 wives.

[rewcox]

Rulon Clark Allred
(March 29, 1906
https://www.scribd.com/document/82372362/Rulon-C-Allred" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May 10, 1977) was a homeopathic physician and chiropractor in Salt Lake City and the leader of what is now the Apostolic United Brethren, a breakaway sect of polygamous Mormon fundamentalists in Utah, Colorado, and Arizona, United States. He was murdered (two women, at least one was a wife of Ervil, used handguns to kill Allred) on the orders of Ervil LeBaron, the head of a rival polygamous sect.

Rulon had at least 12 wives.

Don't practice polygamy unless God approves it, cause some people get jealous.

[Rachael]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

[rewcox]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

What about millions of planets?

There is a lot we don't know about the first 1,000 years. How did brother and sister pair off?

I don't see why you can't do it with monogamy. We also have seen polygamy, sometimes on and sometimes off. Whichever way God wants, that's what we do. We do monogamy in our day, the world is doing a lot of concubine and now a lot of sameo stuff.

[freedomforall]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

[rewcox]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

I'm going to have to go back to school to figure that one out...

[cayenne]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

"Dreading the eternities without variety" lol

[freedomforall]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

I'm going to have to go back to school to figure that one out...

orate = to communicate; impart; make known:
postulate = a necessary condition; prerequisite.
procreate = to produce; bring into being.
populate = everybody knows this one
prorate = to make an arrangement on a basis of proportional distribution.
proportionately = being in due proportion

So one communicates the necessity for a necessary prerequisite of having more than one wife, so one can produce lots of children proportionate to the community one resides in, rendering the proportion of kids surrounding the area as equal.

Hope this helps. I was a :-B in school. :ymblushing:

[rewcox]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

I'm going to have to go back to school to figure that one out...

orate = to communicate; impart; make known:
postulate = a necessary condition; prerequisite.
procreate = to produce; bring into being.
populate = everybody knows this one
prorate = to make an arrangement on a basis of proportional distribution.
proportionately = being in due proportion

So one communicates the necessity for a necessary prerequisite of having more than one wife, so one can produce lots of children proportionate to the community one resides in, rendering the proportion of kids surrounding the area as equal.

Hope this helps. I was a :-B in school. :ymblushing:

Rachel has to accept this, it is so reasonble!

[freedomforall]

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

I'm going to have to go back to school to figure that one out...

orate = to communicate; impart; make known:
postulate = a necessary condition; prerequisite.
procreate = to produce; bring into being.
populate = everybody knows this one
prorate = to make an arrangement on a basis of proportional distribution.
proportionately = being in due proportion

So one communicates the necessity for a necessary prerequisite of having more than one wife, so one can produce lots of children proportionate to the community one resides in, rendering the proportion of kids surrounding the area as equal.

Hope this helps. I was a :-B in school. :ymblushing:

Rachel has to accept this, it is so reasonble!

I'm not certain I do. I think this idea came about due to brain gas.
Wait! Now I know why people around me, wherever I go, try to avoid me. It is because I'm an old fart. @-)

[Rachael]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

What about millions of planets?

There is a lot we don't know about the first 1,000 years. How did brother and sister pair off?

I don't see why you can't do it with monogamy. We also have seen polygamy, sometimes on and sometimes off. Whichever way God wants, that's what we do. We do monogamy in our day, the world is doing a lot of concubine and now a lot of sameo stuff.

What about millions of planets? I'll just let God be God, instead of trying to be a god(dess). He can handle whatever He decides to create. Satan and Eve were two cardinal, biblical examples that wanted to become like God-- that is to have god-like powers. We are instructed to follow God's example in the flesh, Jesus. But many are worried about being exalted, when Jesus said those that try to exalt themselves will be abased. Our works are called "filthy rags" before a Holy God. But we should bring our dirty laundry to Christ any way so He can wash them in His blood and make them spotless.

[Rachael]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

All I had to do was fornicate and I populated/procreated without orating, postulating, etc. A Power that God gave me, not of myself. I violated that power, but God made it turn it out for good. That is what He does. Praise Him!

[Rachael]

Dreading the eternities without variety... That's what it boils down to with the male defenders of polygamy. Wanting to make their eternal rounds like a tom cat.

God populated all of us on earth with the example of monogamy.

If you get your own planet to populate, it can be done the same way.

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

I'm going to have to go back to school to figure that one out...

orate = to communicate; impart; make known:
postulate = a necessary condition; prerequisite.
procreate = to produce; bring into being.
populate = everybody knows this one
prorate = to make an arrangement on a basis of proportional distribution.
proportionately = being in due proportion

So one communicates the necessity for a necessary prerequisite of having more than one wife, so one can produce lots of children proportionate to the community one resides in, rendering the proportion of kids surrounding the area as equal.

Hope this helps. I was a :-B in school. :ymblushing:

Wisdom of men is ________ to God. But l appreciate your ability to break down demographics. I can't do it efficiently. I hate running stats. That's why I'm so glad a Mighty God does the orating. He doesn't have to do all the other things on your list of tasks like postulate ( He knows all, no hypotheticals), or worry about procreating/populating ( He can make some more of us out of dirt, or raise up seed from Abraham out of stones). His prorating skills are perfect, as well as proportions. And He liked monogamy better. Some men didn't. He worked with them anyway, but it doesn't justify polygamy no many times you torture the facts to get them to confess otherwise.

[Rachael]

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

I'm going to have to go back to school to figure that one out...

orate = to communicate; impart; make known:
postulate = a necessary condition; prerequisite.
procreate = to produce; bring into being.
populate = everybody knows this one
prorate = to make an arrangement on a basis of proportional distribution.
proportionately = being in due proportion

So one communicates the necessity for a necessary prerequisite of having more than one wife, so one can produce lots of children proportionate to the community one resides in, rendering the proportion of kids surrounding the area as equal.

Hope this helps. I was a :-B in school. :ymblushing:

Rachel has to accept this, it is so reasonble!

=))

[freedomforall]

One must, first, orate the need to postulate in order to procreate and then populate according to the requirement to prorate proportionately.

I'm going to have to go back to school to figure that one out...

orate = to communicate; impart; make known:
postulate = a necessary condition; prerequisite.
procreate = to produce; bring into being.
populate = everybody knows this one
prorate = to make an arrangement on a basis of proportional distribution.
proportionately = being in due proportion

So one communicates the necessity for a necessary prerequisite of having more than one wife, so one can produce lots of children proportionate to the community one resides in, rendering the proportion of kids surrounding the area as equal.

Hope this helps. I was a :-B in school. :ymblushing:

Wisdom of men is ________ to God. But l appreciate your ability to break down demographics. I can't do it efficiently. I hate running stats. That's why I'm so glad a Mighty God does the orating. He doesn't have to do all the other things on your list of tasks like postulate ( He knows all, no hypotheticals), or worry about procreating/populating ( He can make some more of us out of dirt, or raise up seed from Abraham out of stones). His prorating skills are perfect, as well as proportions. And He liked monogamy better. Some men didn't. He worked with them anyway, but it doesn't justify polygamy no many times you torture the facts to get them to confess otherwise.

A man has to be ntus to wnat mroe tahn one wfie. Plgmaoy is of no iretsnt to me.