Deleted

[brlenox]

Ah, yes, the recesses of my own mind... now where was I?

Who says my perspective completely thwarted the Spirit? You? Unfortunately, you don't have the authority to say that. Ha, ha. That's my appeal to lack of authority (and it is meant to be ironic).

Peace, Friend.

There are things that one can be an authority in whether recognized as such or not. When one takes to undermine the authority of faith based or mystical perspectives if you will it should be only done upon principles of understanding. If I were to take your position and deny the tools of validation that the mystical relies on for affirmation of truth, then if another could observe that I did not utilize the criteria, such as scripture, such as faith in the revealed words of prophets and apostles then I could objectively realize and comment to the fact that the person refuses to acknowledge the established rules of faith based endeavors. Condemning these things reveals to others that you cannot be led in any great degree by the spirit as it requires inputs from these sources to establish the fundamental requirements of faith in Jesus Christ which "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

My position is fortified by the fact that I have embraced the tools that the Savior says he has provided. Those prophets, those apostles and evangelists etc and so on are not rejected by me because I believe the words of Christ where he states, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Thus using the actual tools provided and having been successful in the process, I have something you do not and cannot have - I have knowledge of the successful accomplishment of having used the tools that you deny to achieve the promised results.

Neither can you ever experience the same unless you can believe the words that Christ has spoken as recorded in scripture and as spoken by those called to lead Christ's children - hearing by the word of God, if you will. So in reality, the real issue here is that you do not believe in Jesus Christ with sufficient force to trust his methods and tools which he has promised will lead you back to Him and His Father. It is clear that there is a great void in your observations - a void only filled by faith in the Savior.

Now it is ever the burden of anyone with proper authority to recognize the extent of that authority. Mine is sufficient to recognize a fraud, and to discuss how I know such. I can speak with the knowledge I possess to your weaknesses and failings to discuss a subject about which you have manifestly declared you will not follow the procedures for gaining the understanding that you claim, which understanding differs from the author or in other words the Savior - the expert in these matters.

However, the Expert in these matters does not authorize the abuse of knowledge and the authority it provides to the compulsion of others, but requires that you are free to make all of the mistakes you desire. Thus while I may be an authority in these matters if I hope to retain what
I have I must be willing to allow you your agency to choose what is most important to you. Hope it works out for you.

[MMbelieve]

It's true women have been undervalued for pretty much all of time and that is why there is an upsurge in improper femanism and confusion in society over genders. Women are no less than men. Women are valued and cherished and blessed. He loves his daughters because he was willing to destroy men who broke their hearts.

The idea of women being less is ever prevelant in the back thoughts of many religious men. It's simply not true. And when it comes to priesthood and exaltation and even polygamy, people tend to believe that it's men that are receiving exaltation for the women too. That really makes no sense when we know that a God is male and female joined together ad one governing body. Can't have one without the other. We're equal in value and importance.

How exactly have women been undervalued?

I believe that the real issue is that women want things that are just plain wrong. They want to never submit to a man (how could they? That's a commandment of a religion based in patriarchy!), they want to go out into the workforce instead of being "imprisoned" at home (and it's purely coincidental that surveys of female happiness show a sharp decline as they spend their time being "free" outside the house instead of raising a family, because patriarchy), and they only want equality (right up to the point of considering something like a draft, eliminating alimony, or eliminating the sexism of family courts).

I don't see any good evidence that feminism has arisen from women being undervalued. Feminism has arisen because women bought into the belief that being a loving mother and making the home a heaven on earth is beneath them.

Women have been undervalued in a number of areas. Have you ever felt undervalued by your wife/previous wife? If so why?

Plenty of men complain that their wives do not appreciate them? Or worse, using them for a free ride. Women have the same.feelings in their own ways.

Plenty of women feel less than for a number of reasons.

Today a woman's value is on her appearance not her ability to clean a kitchen or ability to change a diaper. Those tasks are needed and expected of her but usually overlooked. Women are expected to just be home and their work is believed to be easy...not true at all! It's a total and complete sacrifice of self, many women lose themselves during the years of caring for kids and when they leave home, they don't have a clue who they are anymore. It's hard for women just as men have their sacrifices and struggles in their role.

When a man comes home he expects all this care and respect for going out into the workplace and slaving away to make money. He wants respect for that. Women tend to get less of the acknowledgement because they don't go out into the workforce.

This really shouldn't turn into a battle of the sexes or battle over roles. We all want to be appreciated for what we do equally and women don't often get enough acknowledgement from husbands because they don't understand or assume that because she stays home she has it easy. Charged with shaping little minds and little children's world's and caring for their every need is not easy.

[Gage]

*There was a War in Heaven, and two-thirds of the spirits fought for Jesus, and one-third for Lucifer. The two-thirds became humans on Earth, and the one-third became demons (without bodies).
*Some of the two-thirds were "less valiant" (lazy) and as punishment they were born into the lineage of Cain.
*Cain was a white man, son of Adam and Eve, but became the first Negro after the LORD set a "mark" upon him, because he killed Abel. He married his sister, and she became Negro number 2. They became the parents of the Negro race.
*Ham married a Cainite woman who was already pregnant. Her firs child was Canaan (not the son of Ham, but of a Negro/Cainite man). The Canaanites became the black African race.
*Negroes are Cainites, and Canaanites, and cannot receive the priesthood in moral life. They will go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants.

This was called "THE CURSE OF CAIN DOCTRINE". It was an official doctrine of the Church for 130 years.

The origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine stems ultimately from Paracelsus: a Catholic mystic who lived (I think) in the 14th century. This doctrine was picked up by the Pratt brothers, who taught it to other apostles (including Brigham Young). Brigham first rejected it, but came to accept it after a black/Indian Elder named William Cary seduced a number of white Mormon women in Nebraska. He claimed he was the reincarnation of Adam, and each one of them was "Eve" reincarnated. After that, Young taught the Curse of Cain doctrine.

In June 1978, bowing to internal and external threats (the U.S. Government was threatening to end all Federal grants to BYU students, and threatening to yank BYU's academic licenses---this we know for sure--rumor says that the Federal government was even threatening to yank the Church's tax-exempt status). Also, the Church was having trouble finding priesthood-leaders in Brazil; since most "white" Brazilian men have at least one Negro ancestor. Kimball prayed and received a revelation to allow Negroes the priesthood

Can you substantiate any of this or are you the author of the original post on Mormon Discussions? Or did you forget to attribute this to another source, kinda like plagiarism.

Of course if you just read the rest of the thread you will see where this was completely fabricated and no valid sources could be located. You may even notice that it was claimed that Paraclesus actually believed that the negro was a direct descendant of apes...my aren't you a progressive type...bunk.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=10315

No, I saved this what 6 years ago. I never said I agreed with it and never said it was scripture. I actually thought it was humorous is why I saved it. I dont know who originally posted it, I have it saved in Word. Since I am not selling a book or writing a term paper or I would have cited that this is not my opinion and not my thoughts.

[brlenox]

*There was a War in Heaven, and two-thirds of the spirits fought for Jesus, and one-third for Lucifer. The two-thirds became humans on Earth, and the one-third became demons (without bodies).
*Some of the two-thirds were "less valiant" (lazy) and as punishment they were born into the lineage of Cain.
*Cain was a white man, son of Adam and Eve, but became the first Negro after the LORD set a "mark" upon him, because he killed Abel. He married his sister, and she became Negro number 2. They became the parents of the Negro race.
*Ham married a Cainite woman who was already pregnant. Her firs child was Canaan (not the son of Ham, but of a Negro/Cainite man). The Canaanites became the black African race.
*Negroes are Cainites, and Canaanites, and cannot receive the priesthood in moral life. They will go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants.

This was called "THE CURSE OF CAIN DOCTRINE". It was an official doctrine of the Church for 130 years.

The origin of the Curse of Cain Doctrine stems ultimately from Paracelsus: a Catholic mystic who lived (I think) in the 14th century. This doctrine was picked up by the Pratt brothers, who taught it to other apostles (including Brigham Young). Brigham first rejected it, but came to accept it after a black/Indian Elder named William Cary seduced a number of white Mormon women in Nebraska. He claimed he was the reincarnation of Adam, and each one of them was "Eve" reincarnated. After that, Young taught the Curse of Cain doctrine.

In June 1978, bowing to internal and external threats (the U.S. Government was threatening to end all Federal grants to BYU students, and threatening to yank BYU's academic licenses---this we know for sure--rumor says that the Federal government was even threatening to yank the Church's tax-exempt status). Also, the Church was having trouble finding priesthood-leaders in Brazil; since most "white" Brazilian men have at least one Negro ancestor. Kimball prayed and received a revelation to allow Negroes the priesthood

Can you substantiate any of this or are you the author of the original post on Mormon Discussions? Or did you forget to attribute this to another source, kinda like plagiarism.

Of course if you just read the rest of the thread you will see where this was completely fabricated and no valid sources could be located. You may even notice that it was claimed that Paraclesus actually believed that the negro was a direct descendant of apes...my aren't you a progressive type...bunk.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=10315

No, I saved this what 6 years ago. I never said I agreed with it and never said it was scripture. I actually thought it was humorous is why I saved it. I dont know who originally posted it, I have it saved in Word. Since I am not selling a book or writing a term paper or I would have cited that this is not my opinion and not my thoughts.

Well, at least it is good that you do not believe this, however, it begs the question of why you would put this out there in the first place. Notice how Jesef sucked it up like the poison Kool-Aid that it is calling it a "very plausible explanation". Then running off like a Geo -Metro on a full tank of gas he putters through some self-sustaining dribble about the fallibility of leaders and your new revelation to him of the "Curse of Cain doctrine" which though a brand new concept to him is obviously true and correct. Now that you reveal it as a lie, do you suppose it will alter any of his conclusions that he felt substantiated in your mis-information. Nope. I would hope that material like this gets deleted, buried, burned, acid poured all over it, anything to protect the gullible minds that will believe anything.

[gkearney]

Where is in this a view that I have not seen. Many speak of the need for plural marriage to "raise up seed" other to deal with a supposed over abundance of women. Still of other speak of sex.

While I do not believe that in this earthly life we will ever see a return to the practice there is, I think one aspect to this which has been overlooked I am this talk. That is if plural marriage is to ever work, even inn the next life it need to be, in my opinion, based on the desire of the parties involved to bring true love, care and compassion to the partners. This means that the wives need to have the same degree of commitment to each other as they do to the husband.

This can occurs in rare cases I think. Such as where there has been true concern and love for another while maintaining the proper earthly relationships in life.

Without this kind of commitment by all the parties we turn this into a base and vulgar situation which as we have seen here is offensive and hurtful to many here. With this sort of commitment by all those concerned it is possible for plural marriage to work but even then only in the next life with its benefits of the light that such would give us.

[Gage]

Well everything is pretty close to what I was taught growing up. I am not sure as to how the "teaching" got started as doctrine or who started it so I am not sure about those allegations. It doesnt matter. Everyone hated blacks back then, the entire nation hated them. Most if not all churches and religions hated them. Its just today the Mormon church gets singled out for it along with the polygamy allegations.

[brlenox]

Well everything is pretty close to what I was taught growing up. I am not sure as to how the "teaching" got started as doctrine or who started it so I am not sure about those allegations. It doesnt matter. Everyone hated blacks back then, the entire nation hated them. Most if not all churches and religions hated them. Its just today the Mormon church gets singled out for it along with the polygamy allegations.

This is my generation you are claiming such clear insight concerning. I grew up in the South. I had as many black Friends as I had white friends. It was a period of transition and "everyone" did not hate blacks. Sure attitudes were changing and there were some that held to prejudice and such, but in my experience it was a period of rapidly improving situations for blacks. The only one I ever had any trouble with was Eva Whitlock and that's because in the classroom she was smarter than me and on the playground she could kick my booty - that girl was mean and smart. Ricky Bradshaw was considered the toughest kid in school and he was my friend...mostly cause I needed some one to protect me from Eva...Anyway I digress.

The church did not hate blacks then either. I'm not sure where you are getting your perspectives from.

[MMbelieve]

Where is in this a view that I have not seen. Many speak of the need for plural marriage to "raise up seed" other to deal with a supposed over abundance of women. Still of other speak of sex.

While I do not believe that in this earthly life we will ever see a return to the practice there is, I think one aspect to this which has been overlooked I am this talk. That is if plural marriage is to ever work, even inn the next life it need to be, in my opinion, based on the desire of the parties involved to bring true love, care and compassion to the partners. This means that the wives need to have the same degree of commitment to each other as they do to the husband.

This can occurs in rare cases I think. Such as where there has been true concern and love for another while maintaining the proper earthly relationships in life.

Without this kind of commitment by all the parties we turn this into a base and vulgar situation which as we have seen here is offensive and hurtful to many here. With this sort of commitment by all those concerned it is possible for plural marriage to work but even then only in the next life with its benefits of the light that such would give us.

I have to disagree here, women do not have a responsibility to anything but her marriage and her children.

Women should not be expected to love or even like polygamy, it goes it against her very design. Women were not designed to share husbands. Therefore if it ever is required of a woman to share, she has ZERO responsibility to the other woman to make anything peaceful or easy for her beyond letting them have their marriage.

Polygamy is on the man to do. It's him that it's taking on all the extra work and effort and struggle to have another family or two. It's the man who carries the burden of making it work, not the woman. Women are women and he cannot expect them not to be. Women will not like polygamy or the idea of him getting another wife. The burden lies on him to make it all work out, not the wives.

Polygamy in the Muslim religion is this way, the religious passage that dictates polygamy is written to the men not the women. Men must be able to accomplish it and handle it peacefully. So if he cannot persuade his 1st wife to stay after he takes another wife then he's not doing it right and should divorce his additional wife and write of polygmay as something he is unable to do.

I really don't like it when so my people say that the women have to get along and become best friends and sister wives and never have issue with the situation...if a man wants another wife, he must receive permission from his first wife and the burden lies on him to figure out how to make it all work out so both wives are happy and not cheated out on anything they were previously accosted to.

People think the woman should sacrifice everything here for the man to live his polygamous life...no way, the sacrifice lies on the man because he has to be able to make it work for all the women involved and not ever condemn or dominate them for their natural feelings of hurt and jealously and lonliness.

Of course mormon polygamy minds disagree with this but take a look at Muslim polygamy, a more established religious practice and they will agree that the burden to make it possible is on the man.

It's not the 1st wife's additional marriage, it's the man additional marriage so why do we expect the women to act like sister wives?

[brlenox]

Where is in this a view that I have not seen. Many speak of the need for plural marriage to "raise up seed" other to deal with a supposed over abundance of women. Still of other speak of sex.

While I do not believe that in this earthly life we will ever see a return to the practice there is, I think one aspect to this which has been overlooked I am this talk. That is if plural marriage is to ever work, even inn the next life it need to be, in my opinion, based on the desire of the parties involved to bring true love, care and compassion to the partners. This means that the wives need to have the same degree of commitment to each other as they do to the husband.

This can occurs in rare cases I think. Such as where there has been true concern and love for another while maintaining the proper earthly relationships in life.

Without this kind of commitment by all the parties we turn this into a base and vulgar situation which as we have seen here is offensive and hurtful to many here. With this sort of commitment by all those concerned it is possible for plural marriage to work but even then only in the next life with its benefits of the light that such would give us.

I have to disagree here, women do not have a responsibility to anything but her marriage and her children.

Women should not be expected to love or even like polygamy, it goes it against her very design. Women were not designed to share husbands. Therefore if it ever is required of a woman to share, she has ZERO responsibility to the other woman to make anything peaceful or easy for her beyond letting them have their marriage.

Polygamy is on the man to do. It's him that it's taking on all the extra work and effort and struggle to have another family or two. It's the man who carries the burden of making it work, not the woman. Women are women and he cannot expect them not to be. Women will not like polygamy or the idea of him getting another wife. The burden lies on him to make it all work out, not the wives.

Polygamy in the Muslim religion is this way, the religious passage that dictates polygamy is written to the men not the women. Men must be able to accomplish it and handle it peacefully. So if he cannot persuade his 1st wife to stay after he takes another wife then he's not doing it right and should divorce his additional wife and write of polygmay as something he is unable to do.

I really don't like it when so my people say that the women have to get along and become best friends and sister wives and never have issue with the situation...if a man wants another wife, he must receive permission from his first wife and the burden lies on him to figure out how to make it all work out so both wives are happy and not cheated out on anything they were previously accosted to.

People think the woman should sacrifice everything here for the man to live his polygamous life...no way, the sacrifice lies on the man because he has to be able to make it work for all the women involved and not ever condemn or dominate them for their natural feelings of hurt and jealously and lonliness.

Of course mormon polygamy minds disagree with this but take a look at Muslim polygamy, a more established religious practice and they will agree that the burden to make it possible is on the man.

It's not the 1st wife's additional marriage, it's the man additional marriage so why do we expect the women to act like sister wives?

I think you are selling yourself short here. You can do this...and when the day comes that you get to work with that second wife you'll find that deep down inside you can do it. You can make it work because you are a warm, giving, compassionate person who only strives for peace and positive interactions. It will be a glorious day ... you wait...you'll see.

[Sarah]

Where is in this a view that I have not seen. Many speak of the need for plural marriage to "raise up seed" other to deal with a supposed over abundance of women. Still of other speak of sex.

While I do not believe that in this earthly life we will ever see a return to the practice there is, I think one aspect to this which has been overlooked I am this talk. That is if plural marriage is to ever work, even inn the next life it need to be, in my opinion, based on the desire of the parties involved to bring true love, care and compassion to the partners. This means that the wives need to have the same degree of commitment to each other as they do to the husband.

This can occurs in rare cases I think. Such as where there has been true concern and love for another while maintaining the proper earthly relationships in life.

Without this kind of commitment by all the parties we turn this into a base and vulgar situation which as we have seen here is offensive and hurtful to many here. With this sort of commitment by all those concerned it is possible for plural marriage to work but even then only in the next life with its benefits of the light that such would give us.

I have to disagree here, women do not have a responsibility to anything but her marriage and her children.

Women should not be expected to love or even like polygamy, it goes it against her very design. Women were not designed to share husbands. Therefore if it ever is required of a woman to share, she has ZERO responsibility to the other woman to make anything peaceful or easy for her beyond letting them have their marriage.

Polygamy is on the man to do. It's him that it's taking on all the extra work and effort and struggle to have another family or two. It's the man who carries the burden of making it work, not the woman. Women are women and he cannot expect them not to be. Women will not like polygamy or the idea of him getting another wife. The burden lies on him to make it all work out, not the wives.

Polygamy in the Muslim religion is this way, the religious passage that dictates polygamy is written to the men not the women. Men must be able to accomplish it and handle it peacefully. So if he cannot persuade his 1st wife to stay after he takes another wife then he's not doing it right and should divorce his additional wife and write of polygmay as something he is unable to do.

I really don't like it when so my people say that the women have to get along and become best friends and sister wives and never have issue with the situation...if a man wants another wife, he must receive permission from his first wife and the burden lies on him to figure out how to make it all work out so both wives are happy and not cheated out on anything they were previously accosted to.

People think the woman should sacrifice everything here for the man to live his polygamous life...no way, the sacrifice lies on the man because he has to be able to make it work for all the women involved and not ever condemn or dominate them for their natural feelings of hurt and jealously and lonliness.

Of course mormon polygamy minds disagree with this but take a look at Muslim polygamy, a more established religious practice and they will agree that the burden to make it possible is on the man.

It's not the 1st wife's additional marriage, it's the man additional marriage so why do we expect the women to act like sister wives?

I think you are selling yourself short here. You can do this...and when the day comes that you get to work with that second wife you'll find that deep down inside you can do it. You can make it work because you are a warm, giving, compassionate person who only strives for peace and positive interactions. It will be a glorious day ... you wait...you'll see.

It would be a lot harder for me personally to share a house and kitchen than it would be sharing a husband. Do you have a home office, or a space where everything is in it's place and where you want it? Imagine having to share a home office with someone that either already has copies of things you have and wants to fit them into your same spaces, or just wants to use all your things too but at the same time you want to also use them. You would have to schedule that home office to only be able to go in it half of the time. Now imagine sharing that home office with more than one person. That's really what you're imagining for women, and that isn't an issue of not having enough compassion to enjoy something, it really is an issue of order and stewardship and how much to you truly share and how much to you have stewardship over for yourself. I personally would really like to have my own house for every husband I have a life with and it sounds like houses are on the list for everything that we can have hundreds of! If I have to share a house with a woman before the Millennium is in full swing, I will try to do it cheerfully, but that is not going to be heaven on earth by any stretch of the imagination.

[MMbelieve]

Where is in this a view that I have not seen. Many speak of the need for plural marriage to "raise up seed" other to deal with a supposed over abundance of women. Still of other speak of sex.

While I do not believe that in this earthly life we will ever see a return to the practice there is, I think one aspect to this which has been overlooked I am this talk. That is if plural marriage is to ever work, even inn the next life it need to be, in my opinion, based on the desire of the parties involved to bring true love, care and compassion to the partners. This means that the wives need to have the same degree of commitment to each other as they do to the husband.

This can occurs in rare cases I think. Such as where there has been true concern and love for another while maintaining the proper earthly relationships in life.

Without this kind of commitment by all the parties we turn this into a base and vulgar situation which as we have seen here is offensive and hurtful to many here. With this sort of commitment by all those concerned it is possible for plural marriage to work but even then only in the next life with its benefits of the light that such would give us.

I have to disagree here, women do not have a responsibility to anything but her marriage and her children.

Women should not be expected to love or even like polygamy, it goes it against her very design. Women were not designed to share husbands. Therefore if it ever is required of a woman to share, she has ZERO responsibility to the other woman to make anything peaceful or easy for her beyond letting them have their marriage.

Polygamy is on the man to do. It's him that it's taking on all the extra work and effort and struggle to have another family or two. It's the man who carries the burden of making it work, not the woman. Women are women and he cannot expect them not to be. Women will not like polygamy or the idea of him getting another wife. The burden lies on him to make it all work out, not the wives.

Polygamy in the Muslim religion is this way, the religious passage that dictates polygamy is written to the men not the women. Men must be able to accomplish it and handle it peacefully. So if he cannot persuade his 1st wife to stay after he takes another wife then he's not doing it right and should divorce his additional wife and write of polygmay as something he is unable to do.

I really don't like it when so my people say that the women have to get along and become best friends and sister wives and never have issue with the situation...if a man wants another wife, he must receive permission from his first wife and the burden lies on him to figure out how to make it all work out so both wives are happy and not cheated out on anything they were previously accosted to.

People think the woman should sacrifice everything here for the man to live his polygamous life...no way, the sacrifice lies on the man because he has to be able to make it work for all the women involved and not ever condemn or dominate them for their natural feelings of hurt and jealously and lonliness.

Of course mormon polygamy minds disagree with this but take a look at Muslim polygamy, a more established religious practice and they will agree that the burden to make it possible is on the man.

It's not the 1st wife's additional marriage, it's the man additional marriage so why do we expect the women to act like sister wives?

I think you are selling yourself short here. You can do this...and when the day comes that you get to work with that second wife you'll find that deep down inside you can do it. You can make it work because you are a warm, giving, compassionate person who only strives for peace and positive interactions. It will be a glorious day ... you wait...you'll see.

Lol

[Arenera]

Consider a bishop...

Imagine having to counsel a man with seven wives. That would be like a council.

Maybe they would have to start paying bishops then...

[brlenox]

Consider a bishop...

Imagine having to counsel a man with seven wives. That would be like a council.

Maybe they would have to start paying bishops then...

I've counseled a man with one wife and 6 daughters ... and it was no picnic at that...

[Mark]

Consider a bishop...

Imagine having to counsel a man with seven wives. That would be like a council.

Maybe they would have to start paying bishops then...

I've counseled a man with one wife and 6 daughters ... and it was no picnic at that...

I have a wife and 3 daughters and the family dog was even female. I somewhat feel his pain. Especially at certain times of the month. =p~ I will say that this concept will never be understood by telestial people living in a telestial sphere. It would be akin to discussing the true nature of God and The glories of eternity with a Bill Marr type avowed and committed atheist. Totally foreign and foolish to such an individual. Until we become celestialized in our nature and disposition we will not understand or appreciate true celestial principles but will always Revert those principles we truly don't understand or even abhor back to a kind of telestial confirmation bias we might carry. Gods ways are not mans ways. We will eventually understand that truth once we become like God. Patience is a virtue. We Just may know very little about the things of God no matter how spiritually advanced we see ourselves.

[gkearney]

Where is in this a view that I have not seen. Many speak of the need for plural marriage to "raise up seed" other to deal with a supposed over abundance of women. Still of other speak of sex.

While I do not believe that in this earthly life we will ever see a return to the practice there is, I think one aspect to this which has been overlooked I am this talk. That is if plural marriage is to ever work, even inn the next life it need to be, in my opinion, based on the desire of the parties involved to bring true love, care and compassion to the partners. This means that the wives need to have the same degree of commitment to each other as they do to the husband.

This can occurs in rare cases I think. Such as where there has been true concern and love for another while maintaining the proper earthly relationships in life.

Without this kind of commitment by all the parties we turn this into a base and vulgar situation which as we have seen here is offensive and hurtful to many here. With this sort of commitment by all those concerned it is possible for plural marriage to work but even then only in the next life with its benefits of the light that such would give us.

I have to disagree here, women do not have a responsibility to anything but her marriage and her children.

Women should not be expected to love or even like polygamy, it goes it against her very design. Women were not designed to share husbands. Therefore if it ever is required of a woman to share, she has ZERO responsibility to the other woman to make anything peaceful or easy for her beyond letting them have their marriage.

Polygamy is on the man to do. It's him that it's taking on all the extra work and effort and struggle to have another family or two. It's the man who carries the burden of making it work, not the woman. Women are women and he cannot expect them not to be. Women will not like polygamy or the idea of him getting another wife. The burden lies on him to make it all work out, not the wives.

Polygamy in the Muslim religion is this way, the religious passage that dictates polygamy is written to the men not the women. Men must be able to accomplish it and handle it peacefully. So if he cannot persuade his 1st wife to stay after he takes another wife then he's not doing it right and should divorce his additional wife and write of polygmay as something he is unable to do.

I really don't like it when so my people say that the women have to get along and become best friends and sister wives and never have issue with the situation...if a man wants another wife, he must receive permission from his first wife and the burden lies on him to figure out how to make it all work out so both wives are happy and not cheated out on anything they were previously accosted to.

People think the woman should sacrifice everything here for the man to live his polygamous life...no way, the sacrifice lies on the man because he has to be able to make it work for all the women involved and not ever condemn or dominate them for their natural feelings of hurt and jealously and lonliness.

Of course mormon polygamy minds disagree with this but take a look at Muslim polygamy, a more established religious practice and they will agree that the burden to make it possible is on the man.

It's not the 1st wife's additional marriage, it's the man additional marriage so why do we expect the women to act like sister wives?

This reply is why I say that this is not something we can ever hope to see understand or implement in our mortal lives. I can only hope that in the next life we can have a more expansive view of our relationships.

[Alaris]

This is unabashedly my third plug, but it ties into the threads in which I am posting.

http://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/2 ... ns_12.html

Celestial ascension requires many descents into telestial spheres, which could also help explain why polygamy is an eternal truth. Many in this thread have bashed polygamy while wearing telestial blinders. This is folly. Despite my challenging words I invite you to read my articles on the levels of mankind that explain ascension and how the laws and rewards of the gospel align perfectly to the dispensation heads. Please read with a humble heart and a prayer. Thank you.

I recommend reading the article above before having a look at this chart:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z4W8sy_VMI0/ ... ankind.jpg

Hold CTRL + mousewheel to shrink the picture size if your browser makes it massive.

[MMbelieve]

Where is in this a view that I have not seen. Many speak of the need for plural marriage to "raise up seed" other to deal with a supposed over abundance of women. Still of other speak of sex.

While I do not believe that in this earthly life we will ever see a return to the practice there is, I think one aspect to this which has been overlooked I am this talk. That is if plural marriage is to ever work, even inn the next life it need to be, in my opinion, based on the desire of the parties involved to bring true love, care and compassion to the partners. This means that the wives need to have the same degree of commitment to each other as they do to the husband.

This can occurs in rare cases I think. Such as where there has been true concern and love for another while maintaining the proper earthly relationships in life.

Without this kind of commitment by all the parties we turn this into a base and vulgar situation which as we have seen here is offensive and hurtful to many here. With this sort of commitment by all those concerned it is possible for plural marriage to work but even then only in the next life with its benefits of the light that such would give us.

I have to disagree here, women do not have a responsibility to anything but her marriage and her children.

Women should not be expected to love or even like polygamy, it goes it against her very design. Women were not designed to share husbands. Therefore if it ever is required of a woman to share, she has ZERO responsibility to the other woman to make anything peaceful or easy for her beyond letting them have their marriage.

Polygamy is on the man to do. It's him that it's taking on all the extra work and effort and struggle to have another family or two. It's the man who carries the burden of making it work, not the woman. Women are women and he cannot expect them not to be. Women will not like polygamy or the idea of him getting another wife. The burden lies on him to make it all work out, not the wives.

Polygamy in the Muslim religion is this way, the religious passage that dictates polygamy is written to the men not the women. Men must be able to accomplish it and handle it peacefully. So if he cannot persuade his 1st wife to stay after he takes another wife then he's not doing it right and should divorce his additional wife and write of polygmay as something he is unable to do.

I really don't like it when so my people say that the women have to get along and become best friends and sister wives and never have issue with the situation...if a man wants another wife, he must receive permission from his first wife and the burden lies on him to figure out how to make it all work out so both wives are happy and not cheated out on anything they were previously accosted to.

People think the woman should sacrifice everything here for the man to live his polygamous life...no way, the sacrifice lies on the man because he has to be able to make it work for all the women involved and not ever condemn or dominate them for their natural feelings of hurt and jealously and lonliness.

Of course mormon polygamy minds disagree with this but take a look at Muslim polygamy, a more established religious practice and they will agree that the burden to make it possible is on the man.

It's not the 1st wife's additional marriage, it's the man additional marriage so why do we expect the women to act like sister wives?

This reply is why I say that this is not something we can ever hope to see understand or implement in our mortal lives. I can only hope that in the next life we can have a more expansive view of our relationships.

True, and if we hope for more expansive views on relationships in the next life such as all wives are having their relationships and such then I suspect that we may find that there are men who might have to become brothers instead of just 1 man in a group of women. It's unbalanced in the traditional view. And since sex and reproduction like we do here is likely not done there, there really is no need to have 1 man for tons of women to impregnate more rapidly. Not saying it won't be there just saying in the tradional sense of why polygamy makes sense to be unbalanced probably won't be so in the next life.

I just can't imagine creating mini God's through natural reproduction, it's more we will be organizing intelligence and matter.

Anyway I agree just wanted to add a little about my thoughts on the next life.

[brianj]

Interesting post, but...

Women have been undervalued in a number of areas. Have you ever felt undervalued by your wife/previous wife? If so why?

Plenty of men complain that their wives do not appreciate them? Or worse, using them for a free ride. Women have the same.feelings in their own ways.

Plenty of women feel less than for a number of reasons.

Today a woman's value is on her appearance not her ability to clean a kitchen or ability to change a diaper. Those tasks are needed and expected of her but usually overlooked. Women are expected to just be home and their work is believed to be easy...not true at all! It's a total and complete sacrifice of self, many women lose themselves during the years of caring for kids and when they leave home, they don't have a clue who they are anymore. It's hard for women just as men have their sacrifices and struggles in their role.

When a man comes home he expects all this care and respect for going out into the workplace and slaving away to make money. He wants respect for that. Women tend to get less of the acknowledgement because they don't go out into the workforce.

This really shouldn't turn into a battle of the sexes or battle over roles. We all want to be appreciated for what we do equally and women don't often get enough acknowledgement from husbands because they don't understand or assume that because she stays home she has it easy. Charged with shaping little minds and little children's world's and caring for their every need is not easy.

Have I ever felt undervalued by my wife? What has that got to do with anything? Do we see a large and growing movement of women calling for anything from the marginalization of men to the extermination of men because their husbands didn't value them enough? I really doubt it, especially since a great many of these women have never been married.

Yes, a woman's value in the world is focused more on her appearance than anything else, but are men entirely to blame? Look at the editorial staff and writers at popular woman's magazines and what do you find? Women or men using female pseudonyms?
Women pretend they put less of an emphasis on appearance than men, but women are far more vicious than men at attacking women based on appearance.
In 2009 OkCupid released a story describing some interesting trends. There's no surprise in finding that about 2/3 of men put most of their effort into connecting with the one third of women who are most attractive, or that evaluations of the attractiveness of women are fairly close to a bell curve distribution. But take a look at how women evaluate men. According to women, 80% of men have a below median appearance. How can 80% of anything be below the median?

It's really sad that a mother may pay so little attention to herself that she has no idea who she is when she becomes an empty nester. But is this really the fault of the husband or the children? Does the woman bear any responsibility for refusing to pay attention to herself, not retaining or developing any dreams, or not looking forward to the opportunities that more free time and a good income from her husband can provide?
I home taught one young family where, as soon a the last kid started school, the stay at home mother started banjo lessons. I have seen other women who take advantage of free time to cultivate other talents or take a volunteer position. One of the most inspiring women in the church I have known was the wife of my first Bishop, because of the many volunteer positions she held. She was rapidly moving up the ladder to positions that could be every bit as important as what her husband did at work, only she chose to focus on volunteer positions with charities to make the world a better place instead of making her home a wealthier place. But if a woman wants to work and gets a part time job when the kids are in school, or a full time job when the last one leaves, great! Be ambitious! Set and strive to fulfill goals! But don't blame your husband when you don't do any of this and forget who you are.

What you said about when a man comes home is something that husbands and wives need to work out on their own and is not the basis for fourth wave feminism. But we can agree on everything you said in your last paragraph.

[brianj]

I should have added the OkCupid source:
https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks- ... 15c0f1561e

Here's a chart showing how men rate female appearance and how likely they are to message a woman based on her appearance:


And the same thing showing how women view and message men:

[brlenox]

Consider a bishop...

Imagine having to counsel a man with seven wives. That would be like a council.

Maybe they would have to start paying bishops then...

I've counseled a man with one wife and 6 daughters ... and it was no picnic at that...

I have a wife and 3 daughters and the family dog was even female. I somewhat feel his pain. Especially at certain times of the month. =p~ I will say that this concept will never be understood by telestial people living in a telestial sphere. It would be akin to discussing the true nature of God and The glories of eternity with a Bill Marr type avowed and committed atheist. Totally foreign and foolish to such an individual. Until we become celestialized in our nature and disposition we will not understand or appreciate true celestial principles but will always Revert those principles we truly don't understand or even abhor back to a kind of telestial confirmation bias we might carry. Gods ways are not mans ways. We will eventually understand that truth once we become like God. Patience is a virtue. We Just may know very little about the things of God no matter how spiritually advanced we see ourselves.

And this is precisely one of the most obvious elements that I consider fundamental to questions that some think they can answer when they do not have all of the information. We claim to believe that we understand in our telestial state that we are driven by compromised capacity to truly understand righteousness. We claim that we understand that we have tendencies to be more base, more selfish, less patient. We claim to know that Satan has greater capacity now to influence our thoughts than he will ever have again over the righteous. We understand barely enough but we can draw distinctions between the capacity of a person living in the fullness of a Celestial mindset and those of individuals residing in telestial trappings to comprehend truth. For some it is all just words without meaning, thoughts without faith to see them through. Yet for others of wisdom, we do not slam doors shut with declaration of this far will I obey but no further.

Concerning those who suppose to shut those doors, I might consider the words of Elder Bruce R. McConkie "I have been sorely tempted to say at this point that any who so suppose have the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp — but of course I would never say a thing like that.” In my own minds eye I might add to his words additional thoughts:

When push comes to shove, the arrogant of us think they can determine now with practically no information, fully possessed of telestial limitations, obviously lacking in spiritual maturity, exactly how we are going to respond to God when he begins to teach of what is eternal life. In this case, if eternal life involves taking additional wives, those insanely lacking in intelligence and possessed of a spirit of stupidity have predetermined that they will not accept and that God will say to them, "Oh well go ahead and you can have all of the blessings of the obedient anyway."

It does not work that way and I for one shake my head as I observe these infantile commitments to extreme prejudice and ignorance which may prevail enough at that day for the magnitude of the monumental level of the asinine mental conditioning that fosters repulsion at something that may well be one of the highest states of eternal existence. There certainly is ample commentary from prophets and apostles that such is the case and yet those abysmally lacking in foresight and intelligence, brimming with self-righteousness with claims on being faithful and true to their eternal spouse will place themselves eye to eye with God and inform him that he fails to live to the standard that they set for themselves and that somehow the life he lives is beneath them. Is this not the height of idiocy and arrogance?

Could there be any frame of mind more enshrined in the cretinous, moronic veils of darkness and the abrogation of noble character than such as these "that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge"? Is not this the state of those that would force decisions and predetermine to call good evil and their evil good? Can one claim to any higher level of lofty presupposition that if not repented of will ultimately result in a tragic fall from dizzying heights and finally result in the loss of all that they claim to be seeking? I think not.

Of course as Elder McConkie, I would never speak such things and they must forever remain secluded within the confines of my minds eye lest anyone might suppose that I was speaking to their specific behaviors and take greater offense than my usual boldness might engender. We must all be grateful that the inner thoughts from the recesses of our minds are not open to the perceptions of others but that we have a moment between the thought and speaking our true understandings wherein we can more gracefully describe and tactfully couch in fairer terms less offensive to the wicked ears that might singe at their utterance.

Nonetheless, few speak so clearly to this frame of mind - that I do not speak openly to, only figuratively in mindful illustrations of creative thought, (for who would dare speak such things aloud to rebellious ears that would only further stand upon claims of agency and privilege claiming such words to be hard words as indeed the unrighteous would perforce respond) still none speaks to this unspoken but inferred state so clearly as does Joseph F. Smith in these words:

There is a great deal said about our plural marriage by the outside world, and sometimes it is referred to by the Latter-day Saints at home. I fancy sometimes that not, only is the world without knowledge in relation to this principle, but many of those who profess to be Latter-day Saints are far from possessing a correct understanding of it....In the first place, it is a principle that savors of life unto life, or of death unto death; therefore it is well for those who have embraced the Gospel to obtain a knowledge in relation to this matter. It is a principle that pertains to eternal life, in other words, to endless lives, or eternal increase. It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment, ...It is a pure and holy principle; and, therefore, persons, either male or female, who have not the desire in their hearts to become pure and righteous, have no business to practice it, ...

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... [common background on Joseph Smith, skipped here] ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine....

The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order of marriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally by the wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divine law, but upon physiological and scientific principles. In the latter view, the wives are even more benefitted, (sp) if possible, than the husband physically. But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes, and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, are immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage covenant.

... As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. ... (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878)

Can it be said more clearly ... again I think not. Now away D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis and Porthos for can anymore good be done with words than swells from these most nobly spoken. Nay but that by staying longer we might be required to defend these words with (s)words. Let that day not come at our hands but remand it to the avenging angels that come at dawns judgment.

[True]

Most dramatic post ever! Sounds like you've been reading the Journal of Discourses!

[brianj]

Most dramatic post ever! Sounds like you've been reading the Journal of Discourses!

And turning to Dumas for some light reading!

[brlenox]

Most dramatic post ever! Sounds like you've been reading the Journal of Discourses!

And turning to Dumas for some light reading!

Tis more common that rare wit is destroyed by ignorance but you good sir have shown yourself both a scholar and a gentlemen of refinement and temperance. ^:)^ Aye! Dumas indeed. One for all and all for one!! (Unless of course, in the theme of this conversation one is granted two or three. Then the resounding cry of agreement - "One for all and three for one" or better still "one for all and four for one")After all what self- respecting musketeer would not rather lay claim to four feathery plumes in his Cavalier hat over one. Does one not wonder at the impressive display that would have been Brigham Young's hat at 55 plumes? Impressive for sure!

[brianj]

Most dramatic post ever! Sounds like you've been reading the Journal of Discourses!

And turning to Dumas for some light reading!

Tis more common that rare wit is destroyed by ignorance but you good sir have shown yourself both a scholar and a gentlemen of refinement and temperance. ^:)^ Aye! Dumas indeed. One for all and all for one!! (Unless of course, in the theme of this conversation one is granted two or three. Then the resounding cry of agreement - "One for all and three for one" or better still "one for all and four for one")After all what self- respecting musketeer would not rather lay claim to four feathery plumes in his Cavalier hat over one. Does one not wonder at the impressive display that would have been Brigham Young's hat at 55 plumes? Impressive for sure!

Melville is more my style, as I relate in some ways to Queequeg. I'm the guy who, in real life, gets little respect until someone treating me derisively falls overboard and I jump in to save him.
I wish a few more ward members recognized that it's better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.

[Arenera]

I regret starting the polygamy threads that I did. It's always interesting to have conversations on the issue because there is so much differences between past and modern prophets and apostles that in all honesty we are all speculating and have no idea what the fate of polygamy and plural marriage is. What we do know is if we try to practice polygamy today we would be excommunicated. Now why do you think that is? That's the most severe punishment the church can hand out and they do it for something others think is of God. But I also say look at how messed up the people of the FLDS and Rulon Jeffs and Warren Jeffs are.

Hard to start, hard to stop. Who would have thought that same-sex marriage would be accepted more than polygamy. Course, the Jeffs practiced perversion.