Why debate polygamy?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by gardener4life »

You know originally I didn't want to post on this thread. I knew it would be a debate and that people would say things and hurt each other.

But I saw some people circulating falsehoods here. So I have to speak up. So I'll say this;

We won't understand polygamy in this life. It's OK. We won't fully understand everything in this life in other principles either. The most we can do is try to work on the basic principles of the gospel; faith, repentance, charity, following Christ, and becoming a Zion people. We still are not a Zion people yet. Have you read the principles of becoming a Zion people written in the old 'Teachings of the Presidents of the Church; Brigham Young' book? There is some seriously special and amazing things said by Brigham Young about becoming a Zion people.

We're still not there yet.

I think we need to just focus on the basics and becoming a Zion people right now before we can even ATTEMPT to understand something like this.

First off, we live in a fallen world / a telestial world. We also live in country that is grossly immoral and needs repentance badly, as proof by how many signs regarding how close we are to the fulfillment of the time of the Gentiles and by how closely our country is mirroring events that the Nephite country went through before their downfall.

If we live in a world like that, how can we understand things of the Celestial kingdom? We can try but...this is one of those things that we aren't going to understand in this life. We can't see how different our world is from the Celestial kingdom.

So we can't really even say that we can begin to understand why there is such a thing as polygamy.

That is why I would suggest we focus on faith, repentance, becoming Christlike, and becoming a Zion people, keeping and using the spirit, and keeping the commandments.

That being said, we should not call polygamy evil or vile. Nor should we say the same of saints that were asked to practice it or be leaders during its era. And if we are calling polygamy evil then that's the same as calling those leaders vile and evil. Polygamy was NOT implemented about sex; that much I can tell you. It has nothing to do with sex at all in any form. It is the disobedient and rebellious that have attached the meaning of polygamy to sex and something carnal.

In my view also I would point out in the next life there probably are going to be a lot of people adopting children too from destroyed families. This is a beautiful principle. Some families have 1 or 2 righteous people, but the rest are spiritually destroyed and spend their whole time living off the others. Heavenly Father will need to be putting them in healthy families, not necessarily through polygamy but just through adoption of abused and neglected celestial beings who don't have families that accept them and care for them rightly. Why bring this up here? I think if you allow disobedient people to sow distrust you will miss out on wonderful opportunities in your future, or in the next life. Right now also we think that its hard to support a family because its hard to work and costs blood, sweat, and tears to provide. But in the next life it won't be so. The curse on the land associated with the fall of Adam will be taken away. Families will be able to live happier and more pure in the next life, such that there will an overflowing amount of the spirit poured out among them.

So don't allow people to blind you away from the true gospel on some notion of polygamy. And if they cause you to distrust things in the gospel that's the same as blinding you.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

Polygamy was NOT implemented about sex; that much I can tell you. It has nothing to do with sex at all in any form. It is the disobedient and rebellious that have attached the meaning of polygamy to sex and something carnal.
Well yes and no. You need sex to create bodies for humans. However the basic (and I mean basic) idea behind polygamy is to raise a healthy, superior and righteous posterity. Can we say today's "modern" lifestyles are facilitating such a thing? No we cannot and much of the immorality we see today is due to monogamy.

HappyCamper8
captain of 50
Posts: 98

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by HappyCamper8 »

djinwa wrote: August 10th, 2017, 6:14 pm So, I make the case that our answers to prayer and our opinions (including our interpretation of scripture) don't matter, and what does everybody do????? They express their opinions and explain how to get the "right" answers to prayer! Or go off on an assortment of tangents on a practice which we don't even know will happen.

Again, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU THINK OR FEEL!!!!!! You do not set the rules for heaven!!!!!! You can't have different rules for the same game. The rules can't be different for different people. Nonsense to think the rules change with the person. If that was the case, we could do whatever we want.

The only useful information about heaven is straight from God through a prophet.

But guess what - that isn't available either. So we are in the dark.

So fascinating to see people proclaiming how wonderful it is having a prophet, while arguing subjects only a prophet can answer, but doesn't.
This is sooooo strange... I have been saying almost the exact same thing to my wife last week. It doesn't matter what people believe. If there is truth out there, it's truth and is irrelevant to anybody's belief. Shouldn't we be trying to discover truth and not define beliefs?

User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by harakim »

Fiannan wrote: August 10th, 2017, 1:34 pm
Col. Flagg wrote: August 10th, 2017, 1:27 pm
davedan wrote: August 10th, 2017, 12:36 am polygamy (like adoption) is an ancient welfare system meant to care for the fatherless and widow.
I've always heard this as an excuse supposedly justifying why it was practiced/instituted, but if there were some women in my ward or neighborhood who needed support or help with children, I don't need to marry them in order to help them - the excuse doesn't hold any water and is very weak. Polygamy is an abomination and was created as an excuse for men with no regard for chastity or the dignity, emotions and feelings of women and to satisfy their own carnal desires. X(
So do you believe women are capable of choosing to live in polygamy? Do you think there are women who would prefer polygamy? Do you believe that if polygamy came back in the LDS Church that there would be wives who would pressure their husbands to take, for example, their single best friends into the marriage relationship?
I am sure of it

User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by harakim »

skmo wrote: August 10th, 2017, 8:54 pm
djinwa wrote: August 9th, 2017, 11:15 pm I don't come here regularly. Was just browsing the thread on sealings and reading the debate on polygamy.
Thank you for bringing up one of the stupidest and most selfish topics Mormons can't leave dead, where it should be.
In 1997, I had the same question - is polygamy required for exaltation?
If it is, you'll be told about it in God's time by God's messengers as an official directive from Him, explained in chapter and verse.
Different members and leaders had different opinions.
I won't bother with the common saying about opinions other than to say I agree they all stink. People, ordinary members, may have any cockamamie theories and beliefs they want. If their UFO-esque theories differ with basic, plain gospel principles like those outlined in the Articles of Faith I generally disregard them because I've found that a lot of people are real idiots, and being LDS doesn't prevent that from happening. Heck, we've even had some church leaders who spoke out their own personal opinions that turned out to be as incorrect as the theory of transubstantiation or the rules of political discourse. The gospel is very simple: Have faith in God, pray for guidance, obey commandments given by God through His prophets (please note that commandments are different from beliefs and opinions) and do all you can to share Christ's love and His gospel to others. Fulfill responsibilities, and strive to endure to the end. Beyond that, any speculation about "theories" or beliefs not directed by official doctrine of God through His church may be safely disregarded.

You may choose to speculate and ponder any plots and schemes from others, but ultimately you'd be wise to reject anything not specifically proclaimed by official church policy. Individual beliefs may come and go as needed. Official policy is arrived at by common consent of 15 ordained prophets, seers, and revelators in agreement God's Will is being done. That carries a lot more validity than "Somebody's brother's uncle's dog's last owner said that they heard from their boss's daughter's talking parakeet that the practice of pork avoidance should be followed again." (Yes, that was meant to sound sarcastic. Polygamy-babbling is usually less thought out than my given scenario9, and should be as quickly dismissed.)
My wife got different answers to prayer than I did, so now what?
Did your answer direct you to go out and find an additional wife? If so, I would say to you I believe you to be listening to the promptings of satan as we've been clearly directed by official church leaders that polygamy with multiple living spouses is not condoned nor allowed in those who wish to remain active, faithful members of the LDS Church. If you're looking at what may be doctrine and policy in the next life, I would recommend the next life be left until you are a part of it. We're generally not meant to know and participate with what happens beyond the veil of death except in rare and fleeting cases of direction and/or communication of those God allows. Worry about the next life in the next life.
So you probably don't want to invest much time or money in the deal if you don't know where you are headed.
We have all the direction and instruction we need to head in the right direction. God's policy in His church is that polygamy is not currently allowed, thus endeth the discussion. Anything beyond that is either determining the right or wrong dealings of people in the past (which can be studied as a matter of history but has no impact on our actions today) or the selfish and self-gratifyingly improper sexual desires of evil and corrupt men in the present.

I've heard men say that leaders in the past have said polygamy was necessary for exaltation. I'm comfortable with saying their words were incorrectly preserved, had portions of important clarification deleted, or they were wrong in the first place. One apostle of old said that if a man had sex with his wife while she was pregnant they would have a retarded or disfigured child. If an apostle said that to me I'd politely tell them they were wrong or knock them upside the head (figuratively speaking, unclench) for spreading false doctrine. I've no doubt the apostle believed his false ideas. I've also no doubt they were, indeed false.

The simple fact is this: The scriptures and the gospel teachings we have are what we need to have in order to make eternal progress. People will often bring up topics of discussion which are dividing because either they are deceived or they desire to harm God's work. We are not commanded to participate in polygamy, and in fact we have guidance from official church doctrine of what marriage on earth should be. Follow those directions and don't get caught up in dissent by the vain and corrupt words of others.
skmo wrote: I've heard men say that leaders in the past have said polygamy was necessary for exaltation.
So have I
Journal-of-Discourses-11:269 wrote: The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

harakim wrote: August 11th, 2017, 7:50 pm So have I
Journal-of-Discourses-11:269 wrote: The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them
From official pronouncements by the church of which God is the Head:
The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

- https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-d ... s?lang=eng
:bold added:

My previous explanation is still applicable to me: The words you are referencing are likely incorrect, missing vital qualifying information, or are not applicable at this time. We are told directly that JoD includes some doctrine which is speculative in nature. I don't believe it'd be wise for me to attempt to justify selfish behavior on material I've been told by ordained leaders contains speculation.

The simple fact is that every case I've ever seen or heard of involving modern day polygamy is being attempted or justified for selfish reasons. If God has a need or a purpose for it to be returned to practice, it'll be announced and will come through the method established which we proclaim in the Articles of Faith: By those who are in authority to preach and administer the gospel. Attempts to justify polygamous marriage on earth at this time is in direct violation of official policy for God's Church.

It is true that some justify their actions by saying we should always question and doubt our leaders. This is foolish. It is prudent that we voice our prayers to God to support His leaders and direct them always, and ask for confirmation of the correctness of our sustaining votes. If anyone has concerns our leaders are leading us astray, we have priesthood leaders we can discuss this with, and concerns are handled at higher and higher levels if the situation warrants it. If a person believes the church to be in apostasy or in opposition to God's wishes, that is for them to deal with between them, their priesthood authorities, and God. Their decisions, actions, and consequences are theirs to deal with. I will not accept or support apostasy against an organization which I have faith is being led by God.

djinwa
captain of 100
Posts: 809

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by djinwa »

skmo wrote: August 10th, 2017, 8:54 pm
Did your answer direct you to go out and find an additional wife? If so, I would say to you I believe you to be listening to the promptings of satan as we've been clearly directed by official church leaders that polygamy with multiple living spouses is not condoned nor allowed in those who wish to remain active, faithful members of the LDS Church. If you're looking at what may be doctrine and policy in the next life, I would recommend the next life be left until you are a part of it. We're generally not meant to know and participate with what happens beyond the veil of death except in rare and fleeting cases of direction and/or communication of those God allows. Worry about the next life in the next life.
My question was about the next life. Which is supposedly what church is about. Eternal bliss and all.

I like your advice. Forget church and figure things out after you die when you actually have a clue and can exercise free agency.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

djinwa wrote: August 13th, 2017, 2:47 pm My question was about the next life.
The next life contains an important word: Next. This life has its own trials and problems. No need to figure out the next life when this one is already so difficult. Trying to look too far ahead is most often done for selfish reasons,* things like 'How can I get ahead of the next guy" and stuff like that. We need to prepare for the future, but not so far ahead that we look beyond the things we need to see in the here and now. If God has a need for all of us to see into the next life, I have faith He'll show us in the way He's got established: His prophet at the head of His Church.
Which is supposedly what church is about. Eternal bliss and all.
Reflected in the threefold mission of the church: Proclaim the gospel, perfect the Saints, and redeem the dead. There is no mention of the need for polygamy except in the speculated writings of men who were later contradicted by officially proclaimed policy of the church over a hundred years ago. In over a Century, there have been no indications that God has given His Word to change the doctrine given which banished polygamy from our practices.
I like your advice. Forget church and figure things out after you die when you actually have a clue and can exercise free agency.
I wouldn't say forget church. Of course, we can't count on the church to save us. It's God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit and Their Gospel which save us. We need to make sure our connection through faith and prayer are to them. The church is just administration, but it's important administration. It is through the organs of the church the gospel is brought to the world, it is through the church we'll hear if God wants a change in how the gospel is implemented on earth. It's important we participate in this organization as much as we can.

There will be times God makes a difference in how the gospel is to be implemented, because there are differences in how far society travels toward or away from righteousness. The society in Enoch had progressed to where no prophet or organization needed to exist. Nowhere on the earth is near to that today. At the time of Christ, there was no need for a Word of Wisdom, so Christ was able to provide wine for a wedding, one which some have speculated may have been His own (a theory I believe, but that's another discussion.) In much older times, God commanded Saul to kill all of the Amalekites and everything living in their village, yet when Christ came He preached love and forgiveness for even your enemies. Different times, different needs.

How God commands His organization to be run is His concern, not mine. My responsibility is to ensure I follow the Gospel as it is preached, obey the commandments we are given, and build my personal relationship with Him through faith and prayer. Understanding why He runs things the way He does is not my concern as long as I have faith in Him and His inspired leadership. If, in my personal relationship with Him, I am led to question things, I will do so in private as much as I can, and through my established priesthood chain if needed. I have been directed to have discussions with Stake Presidents, Area Presidents, and in one case even a sit-down discussion with a Seventy of the church in the LDS Headquarters building in SLC before, so I know from personal experience that God listens, and His leaders, at least in my experience, do the best they can to lead through His inspiration.

I have never seen an attempt to bring a change in polygamy be inspired by anything but selfishness. Having a desire to understand words which are confusing and misleading can be a struggle, but just as I make mistakes in how I live the gospel, leaders have made mistakes in how they teach the gospel. I have never really bothered reading the Journal of Discourses, because I believe they're like what the D&C said about the Apocrypha: For those who have the spirit to discern the correct from the wrong, some benefit may be gained, but there are enough mistakes to not warrant their close study, especially since there are already so many other important things which ARE beneficial. I have faith the organization of the church is led by God, and I have faith that the official policies it proclaims have the approval of God. I have faith in His power and leadership to make changes if necessary.


*It is of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE to me that you understand I'm not calling you selfish. As I said in my last paragraph, I understand looking at words of past leaders for guidance and an understanding of the formation of the early restored church. However, the desire some people have to climb often means crawling over bodies if needed to be 'better than the Jonses' which to me, is selfish. I always try to do the best I can, but I fail often enough that I have lost my desire to be seen as one of the great ones in this life. Christ lives simply, He never sought greatness but rose to it through the greatness which was already within Him. I won't be judged by how high I climbed, but how well I lived and what I achieved with the gifts I have been given.

djinwa
captain of 100
Posts: 809

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by djinwa »

skmo, when I read that it seems to be "a mass of confusion".

Something about don't worry about the next life, but follow the church. Even though the point of the church is to exalt us in the next life. So to exercise your free agency and choose your desired level of exaltation, you need to know what the options are and what is going to happen.

I mean, what about all the sealing for eternity, etc? Now you're saying that doesn't matter?

And something about following the church even though later the current doctrine will be considered "the speculated writings of men".

Your opinion on polygamy doesn't interest me. I asked for clarification from the prophet and got none. End of story for me. We cannot choose if we don't have an answer from a central authority, which they refused to give. If polygamy is wrong and will never be practiced again, they could have said so.

Which leaves open the possibility it will be required. I once asked my sister if she was okay with that. She said she did not like the idea, but was hoping that in the next life, her feelings will change.

So how is that free agency? We are to choose what we don't want based on the hope we will someday want it? No wonder so many are depressed. When does the fun begin? So we're pressured to do what we're told, like it or not, and follow the herd. And then told how free we are!

And so then you end up for eternity practicing what you hate. Sounds like the definition of hell.

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by MMbelieve »

paid2play wrote: August 10th, 2017, 10:11 am In my opinion Celestial Plural marriage is essential for the highest degree in the kingdom of God, many men like Joseph Smith, BY, John Taylor, Abraham, Jacob, etc have stated it several times and or lived it, many will believe contrary to that of course, also many will say it has been taken away at this time, which of course is left up to interpretation. Many will receive different answers because like God said there are 3 Kingdoms of God and in those kingdoms there are many degrees, you cannot make or get a telestial person to understand the Celestial laws, (i'm not saying a person who does not understand is bad or anything) but everyone is different and has a different level of understanding, they may not accept it now but will later who knows. in my opinion you receive answers to your prayers according to the desire of your heart and your level of understanding, which is why many receive different answers to the same question.
No one can understand or interpret celestial ways because no one is capable of celestial thinking or understanding. I believe there is alot of assumptions made because of this.

We just assume polygamy is required for exaltation...why? Where does that belief or idea even come from?

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by MMbelieve »

Fiannan wrote: August 11th, 2017, 8:25 am
Polygamy was NOT implemented about sex; that much I can tell you. It has nothing to do with sex at all in any form. It is the disobedient and rebellious that have attached the meaning of polygamy to sex and something carnal.
Well yes and no. You need sex to create bodies for humans. However the basic (and I mean basic) idea behind polygamy is to raise a healthy, superior and righteous posterity. Can we say today's "modern" lifestyles are facilitating such a thing? No we cannot and much of the immorality we see today is due to monogamy.
Some would say that immorality today is due to selfishness and a lack of self control.

When you say it's due to monogamy it kind of sends a bad message against women or negatively reflects on women. Men have a multiple person sex drive and women with their jealous monogamy prevent men from being happy.

Infidelity is not due to monogamy it's due to a fallen world. If men don't or can't be monogamous then they aren't Christians. The main stream christian doesn't believe in polygamy.

MMbelieve
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5072

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by MMbelieve »

djinwa wrote: August 14th, 2017, 9:48 pm skmo, when I read that it seems to be "a mass of confusion".

Something about don't worry about the next life, but follow the church. Even though the point of the church is to exalt us in the next life. So to exercise your free agency and choose your desired level of exaltation, you need to know what the options are and what is going to happen.

I mean, what about all the sealing for eternity, etc? Now you're saying that doesn't matter?

And something about following the church even though later the current doctrine will be considered "the speculated writings of men".

Your opinion on polygamy doesn't interest me. I asked for clarification from the prophet and got none. End of story for me. We cannot choose if we don't have an answer from a central authority, which they refused to give. If polygamy is wrong and will never be practiced again, they could have said so.

Which leaves open the possibility it will be required. I once asked my sister if she was okay with that. She said she did not like the idea, but was hoping that in the next life, her feelings will change.

So how is that free agency? We are to choose what we don't want based on the hope we will someday want it? No wonder so many are depressed. When does the fun begin? So we're pressured to do what we're told, like it or not, and follow the herd. And then told how free we are!

And so then you end up for eternity practicing what you hate. Sounds like the definition of hell.
Something that has really bothered me is the idea that God will simply change women to accept polygamy and find reason to rejoice in it. Force change of character and personality.

Also, we try to be faithful to our spouse, a guy looking at other women or porn or anything . Why stop him? He's just doing what he's planning to in the future.

I don't think we will actually be in heaven practicing anything that we hate. That just might disqualify us.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

djinwa wrote: August 14th, 2017, 9:48 pm I mean, what about all the sealing for eternity, etc? Now you're saying that doesn't matter?
Of course it matters. The covenants of baptism, Priesthood, Endowment, and Eternal Sealing is very important, that's why we have them on the earth. That's why we perform those ordinances, that's why we re-learn the importance of those things in our meetings and official publications such as the Ensign.
And something about following the church even though later the current doctrine will be considered "the speculated writings of men".
You're trying to pick words from individuals a Century and a half ago, words that may or may not be recorded correctly, and apply them to today. Does your doctor use the first edition of Grey's Anatomy to diagnose you? I know it's an imperfect comparison, but have you bothered to learn what the JoD really was, or are you just clinging to it because you find a single point in it which offers you a chance to have something you may find appealing? You question of whether current doctrine will be considered "the speculated writings of men" hints to me that you're looking to try to find a reason to discount what church leaders say. Disagree if you will but if you learn about the history of the JoD from the church, who publishes official doctrine which has been approved of God's ordained and prophetic leadership, you'll see it's not of significant importance:
The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

The content of the Journal of Discourses was transcribed, sometimes inaccurately, and published between 1854 and 1886 in England. The compilation contains some statements of doctrine as well as other materials of interest to Latter-day Saints who lived far from the center of the Church, including speeches given for a variety of occasions, funeral addresses, reports from returning missionaries, prayers, and the proceedings of a trial. The Journal of Discourses was produced under the guidance of those who transcribed the materials, including George D. Watt, David W. Evans, and George W. Gibbs.

Skilled in the use of shorthand, George D. Watt had transcribed many conferences and sermons for the Deseret News. He received little pay for his work. Since the Deseret News was not generally available outside of the United States, Watt proposed to Brigham Young the idea of publishing these materials on a subscription basis. Such a plan would make the materials available to more Saints and allow Watt to earn a living with his work. President Brigham Young supported the plan, and a letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume encouraging Church members to cooperate in the “purchase and sale” of the journal.

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.
Those last words are important:
it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine
You have faith in God's Church or you do not. If you choose to base your choices off of words which the prophet of God has said were inaccurately transcribed, that is your choice. I do not deem it to be wise, but your choices are your own to make. A desire to believe inaccurate material is more valid than the word of a living prophet does not make the material any more legitimate in God's eyes, nor in mine. You must make your own choice. You may also look inward to try to discover why you want to disbelieve the prophet.
Your opinion on polygamy doesn't interest me.
Nor should it. It should, however, be of interest from where I form my opinions. They come from following a living prophet and the inspired and sustained teachings of him and fourteen other ordained prophets in accord, presented to the world as God's official teachings. If you choose to ignore them and accept words those same prophets have said may be inaccurate, may you find what you want. It seems foolish and dangerous to me.
I asked for clarification from the prophet and got none.
A prophet has already given clarification. You asked if writings prior to that clarification could be used in place of God's official directions. If you're unwilling to accept the gospel position which the prophet has already given, it's clear you're asking for permission to go against that. We have our declared and sustained information of polygamy at this time. If polygamy should be brought back at some future time, ask leaders all the questions you want wish about that change at that time.
End of story for me.
So be it. You are unwilling to accept the answer we already have, so a desire to be at odds with that answer is yours to choose. It does not change the fact that we already have that answer.
We cannot choose if we don't have an answer from a central authority, which they refused to give.
We have been given an answer. You read a previous, possible incorrect belief which disagrees with the established revelation and wish a new one, or you wish to be told the prophet's answer is still valid. Unless there is a more recent change given to us from a prophet, I fail to see why a prophet should be required to say "Yes, God's word is still God's word."

At one point in time, not all men were allowed to hold the Priesthood. When a change was made, it came through a prophet and an official church policy was made to follow the change in application of the gospel on earth. Until such time as it becomes an issue, polygamy is a settled question.
If polygamy is wrong and will never be practiced again, they could have said so.
I don't remember hearing that polygamy, when it was practiced with God's approval, was wrong. However, we are plainly told that we may not practice polygamy today. If it were a requirement for exaltation, why would a loving god fail to include it in His current church to members who are told we have the fullness of the gospel? You are asking the church to clarify words they have already said come from a source with inaccuracies. You are also told the church has all of the commandments and covenants you need for exaltation. I fail to see how accepting the word of the prophets, words which have been given over a hundred years ago and have not been rescinded, can be a refusal to answer. You are asking for a reiteration of an answer. That looks to me like a lack of faith in God's leadership of His church.
Which leaves open the possibility it will be required.
If it is required in the next life, we will be told in the next life. We are told that in this life is it not required, and in fact, it is not even allowed.
So how is that free agency?
We have been given an answer from God. You can freely accept them or reject them because you wish for different words. You are asking for words which are not God's doctrine to be applied. Why?
Sounds like the definition of hell.
Do you believe God would allow His church to force people to live their lives not knowing the truth? You are being deceived by cunning plans to force you to doubt God and His ordained leaders.

God has established, through His commanding revelation, that polygamy is NOT to be practiced at this time. You want to use words that we are told are inaccurate to challenge that. You may exercise faith in God and His willingness to have His leaders lead us according to His will, or you may use human's weaknesses and satan's cunning to make you lose faith in God's leadership. In that, you have all free agency.

I have fallen into cunning traps set by satan. They damaged me beyond what I thought I would be able to recover from. I am relearning that faith, repentance, and the Atonement have no limits. I will not fall into cunning plans again, as far as I am able. I urge you to do t he same. It is a shame to see, but satan can even use words of God's chosen to deceive and mislead. Fortunately, we also have living prophets to direct us if we need to alter our course. God has given us our course through the inspired official doctrine of the church. Do not fall to the weakness and failures of men, especially when we are told by the church that they are incorrect.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

MMbelieve wrote: August 14th, 2017, 11:00 pm We just assume polygamy is required for exaltation...why? Where does that belief or idea even come from?
It comes from the Journal of Discourses:
The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them
- Journal of Discourses 11:269
However, the Journal of Discourses are a collection of sermons given by many LDS officials at various times in history. Their compilation as a project was done to preserve a historical record of sermons, but in addition to the fact that some of these sermons were matters of personal belief rather than doctrine, the transcription is likely to have errors. We are told by the church:
...It (the Journal of Discourses) included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest...

...The content of the Journal of Discourses was transcribed, sometimes inaccurately, and published between 1854 and 1886 in England...

...Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.
Nevertheless, the idea of polygamy will not die out in the minds of some, most often for selfish reasons. In addition to this, satan preys upon weaknesses in the human mind to force people to question the church and its official doctrine, and there's no better way than using words of God's own servants (sometimes incorrect words) against the establishment of ordained, prophetic leadership.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

MMbelieve wrote: August 14th, 2017, 11:13 pm
Fiannan wrote: August 11th, 2017, 8:25 am
Polygamy was NOT implemented about sex; that much I can tell you. It has nothing to do with sex at all in any form. It is the disobedient and rebellious that have attached the meaning of polygamy to sex and something carnal.
Well yes and no. You need sex to create bodies for humans. However the basic (and I mean basic) idea behind polygamy is to raise a healthy, superior and righteous posterity. Can we say today's "modern" lifestyles are facilitating such a thing? No we cannot and much of the immorality we see today is due to monogamy.
Some would say that immorality today is due to selfishness and a lack of self control.

When you say it's due to monogamy it kind of sends a bad message against women or negatively reflects on women. Men have a multiple person sex drive and women with their jealous monogamy prevent men from being happy.

Infidelity is not due to monogamy it's due to a fallen world. If men don't or can't be monogamous then they aren't Christians. The main stream christian doesn't believe in polygamy.
As said in Jurassic Park nature will find a way. If there is a shortage of available women then men will compete more in the marketplace to get the best looking, or at least, available wife. Much of the GDP growth in China today is due to an imbalance of men to women. On the other hand if there is a surplus of women then those women will employ other strategies to catch a man. They will get breast jobs (Salt Lake City #1) and will compromise morality to catch and keep a man. And it does not have to be real numbers either. It can be as today where fewer and fewer men want to marry. This means you get women competing but also many of the more psychopathic males will treat this market like a Grizzly Bear in Alaska during salmon season treat the fish -- casually biting into one and not even consuming it before moving on to another and another and another.

And sex robots are going to make this even worse.

paid2play
captain of 10
Posts: 23

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by paid2play »

skmo wrote: August 14th, 2017, 11:51 pm
MMbelieve wrote: August 14th, 2017, 11:00 pm We just assume polygamy is required for exaltation...why? Where does that belief or idea even come from?
It comes from the Journal of Discourses:
The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them
- Journal of Discourses 11:269
However, the Journal of Discourses are a collection of sermons given by many LDS officials at various times in history. Their compilation as a project was done to preserve a historical record of sermons, but in addition to the fact that some of these sermons were matters of personal belief rather than doctrine, the transcription is likely to have errors. We are told by the church:
...It (the Journal of Discourses) included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest...

...The content of the Journal of Discourses was transcribed, sometimes inaccurately, and published between 1854 and 1886 in England...

...Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.
Nevertheless, the idea of polygamy will not die out in the minds of some, most often for selfish reasons. In addition to this, satan preys upon weaknesses in the human mind to force people to question the church and its official doctrine, and there's no better way than using words of God's own servants (sometimes incorrect words) against the establishment of ordained, prophetic leadership.
I've seen you say several times that past sermons and discourses are not doctrine, so my question to you is where is it doctrine that monogamy is essential for exaltation?, yes the scripture talks about monogamy from time to time but D&C 132 states what the new and everlasting covenant is for exaltation does it not? and if you believe that Joseph Smith restored the fullness of the gospel for the last time in this dispensation why then would God take out one of his most holy principles shortly have restoring the gospel to its fullest?...also ever since Adam fell this world has been since then a 'telestial world' yet throughout history the most righteous have lived to the best of their ability the celestial principles of God, even in this day and age why shouldn't that be our goal? why sell our generation short saying that no one on this earth is righteous enough to live it?

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Michelle »

MMbelieve wrote: August 10th, 2017, 1:29 pm
Our environment is hurting our fertility and also harming our bodies. The society and culture is such that things are all messed up, it's too stressful, too complicated, too manufactured.
The quick fix society (which just might include sperm donations and abortions) is crippling us as well as the disposable society we live in.
Having the man committed to a 9 to 5 for 50 years is also a bad thing. We do not have ideal circumstances because the world is all messed up, which we should realize is part of the last days.

I do agree that regardless of the reason, getting in shape and being healthy is always the way to go! We only have one body and we are required to take good care of it.
MMbelieve,

We do not always agree, but I could not agree more with this post. This is absolutely true!

User avatar
bbsion
captain of 100
Posts: 419
Contact:

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by bbsion »

skmo wrote: August 14th, 2017, 11:51 pm
MMbelieve wrote: August 14th, 2017, 11:00 pm We just assume polygamy is required for exaltation...why? Where does that belief or idea even come from?
It comes from the Journal of Discourses:
The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them
- Journal of Discourses 11:269
However, the Journal of Discourses are a collection of sermons given by many LDS officials at various times in history. Their compilation as a project was done to preserve a historical record of sermons, but in addition to the fact that some of these sermons were matters of personal belief rather than doctrine, the transcription is likely to have errors. We are told by the church:
...It (the Journal of Discourses) included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest...

...The content of the Journal of Discourses was transcribed, sometimes inaccurately, and published between 1854 and 1886 in England...

...Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.
Nevertheless, the idea of polygamy will not die out in the minds of some, most often for selfish reasons. In addition to this, satan preys upon weaknesses in the human mind to force people to question the church and its official doctrine, and there's no better way than using words of God's own servants (sometimes incorrect words) against the establishment of ordained, prophetic leadership.
The church and its official doctrine. So what is established as doctrine? Just the standard works? Because this current "establishment of ordained, prophetic leadership" you speak of when being pitted against "words of God's own servants" seems contradictory from time to time. Are you saying that only what is spoken by current apostles becomes actual church doctrine? Whereas anything said in past sermons from God's own servants can be disavowed or chalked up to being "transcribed, sometimes inaccurately". What makes you think current quotes from leadership is exempt from being "personal belief rather than doctrine"? It looks like you got that quote from LDS.org. Who said it? What makes that statement so accurate and doctrinal that you would so willingly disregard the Journal of Discourses as just including some practical teachings. You said "We are told by the church:" and then proceed to quote the church's website. Yet wouldn't those in the JOD be considered "the church" as well? So we are told by "the church" that "the church" in the past can sometimes be wrong...

So the Journal of Discourses is a collection of sermons from past prophets and apostles. Couldn't the same be said of the Ensign and other conference talks nowadays? If you lived back in the day when the sermons presented in the JOD were being said, you would likely not have a problem believing it then. It's only now when sometimes contradictory statements are said by current leadership that some people will completely disregard what was said in the past. That line of thinking would also allow us to disregard the standard works since they are a collection of teachings from past prophets. So what's an easy way to justify that thinking? By saying that the current prophet is the most important prophet and that the prophet will never lead us astray. Seems like an airtight excuse to me.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

paid2play wrote: August 15th, 2017, 9:15 am I've seen you say several times that past sermons and discourses are not doctrine, so my question to you is where is it doctrine that monogamy is essential for exaltation?
Thank you for the example of you demonstrating that you hear what you want to, not what is said.

I have not said what is doctrine for the church, nor what is not, as I am not a person with that authority. What I HAVE said is that I turn to those who ARE called and ordained to speak for God to us on the earth. I listen to what they say. The offician church position is that the JoD are collected sermons, some of which contain doctrine and some of which does not, therefore the JoD as a set are not considered doctrine for the LDS Church. I sustain that.

I will also say I don't fall in step like a good little soldier, if I have a problem with a position of the church or one of its leaders I go to God in prayer. In my whole life I've had that happen once, and I am still not fully convinced the church is taking the correct position, but I've also been given the feelings that I don't have access to the communication with God the prophet is, so I'll defer for the present time to my faith in God's leadership. If, at some point in the future, I feel a need to stand up and speak out, rest assured, I will. I have met one time with a Seventy in my life, and I expressed to him why I believed him to be in error (while my wife was trying desperately to make herself invisible) but when I believe I am correct I maintain my belief until I am convinced otherwise by someone who can demonstrate why I am wrong. That does, actually happen quite often, but it almost never happens with matters of the gospel.

As an exception to that, I guess I'll admit there was one criticism I've made of a particular sermon by Orson Hyde with which I have taken issue, and I've stated I believe him to have been completely in error in what he said. However, I'm not crusading to the members that Orson Hyde was a false prophet or anything of the sort. Were an apostle say today what he did then, rest assured I'd stand in church in open opposition (well, when I become a member again) during the sustainings of church officers in General Conference, and I'd walk my disagreement all the way up to the prophet's office.
...why then would God take out one of his most holy principles shortly have restoring the gospel to its fullest?...
Why did Moses go up on to the Mount and receive the stone tablets and then bring them down and break them, rather than giving them to the people? Why, then, did he have to go back up to receive a lesser law for the Hebrews to live for that time? Because in a short period of time the people demonstrated they had not the faith to live a higher law. The law of polygamy could have helped in a society where many good and faithful sisters were deprived of a righteous husband because of the hard times they faced ending the lives of many men and the more corruptible nature of men to be led to base desires rather than righteous ones. I have never seen or heard of a reliable piece of doctrine saying polygamy is required for exaltation, but I believe it could have been a help to some, had the saints been able to live it. As they couldn't, it was taken from them as t he stone tablets were taken from the Israelites.

As you implied, I believe there are some even today who could fairly, lovingly, and righteously live polygamy as a benefit to a few. I also believe they're very few and very far between. I certainly am not one of them, I couldn't live the law of chastity, let alone polygamy. However, the problems it would cause in the society we've become are innumerable, and I don't believe in the body of the church as a whole to be able to demonstrate the kind of churchwide faith we'd need to exhibit to do so. One need look no further than the home teaching percentages and the rates of porn use in Utah to understand this.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

bbsion wrote: August 15th, 2017, 10:13 am The church and its official doctrine. So what is established as doctrine?
1) The words of the living prophet, given to us on earth today for us today to be what God wants us to know today.

Moroni was a prophet of God, one of the most influential for our time. Should we use his record of the Sacrament Prayer to bless wine to represent the Blood of Christ? We have a living prophet to give us Gods words for us as we need them now.

2) The scriptures, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible, understanding that some part of the Bible lost "plain and precious" truths needed, which is why we focus more on the Book of Mormon.

3) Official church publications - Sunday School manuals, Priesthood and Relief Society manuals, and I would offer my opinion that Ensign manuals are, though I do not know if that is considered official doctrine by the church.

4) Information printed by the church or put on their website that establishes what official positions of the church are. They could not be put in place without receiving approval of current church leadership, thus I believe it applies to our world and its needs today.
Are you saying that only what is spoken by current apostles becomes actual church doctrine? Whereas anything said in past sermons from God's own servants can be disavowed or chalked up to being "transcribed, sometimes inaccurately".
In the early 90's, then Elder Monson gave a talk to bishops and stake presidents. One of the first things he did was address comments he'd heard that some bishops were having it taught in their wards that drinking Coke or Pepsi was a sin. He pulled a can of Mtn. Dew out, popped it open and took a sip, then set it down. He said nothing more but continued on with his talk. Was he issuing doctrine that members should drink Mt. Dew? No, certainly not. What he did do, however, was to instruct bishops and SP's to NOT teach as doctrine, things which were clearly personal belief and not doctrine.

How did we get the Book of Mormon and the D&C? They were words of God given directly to His prophet and recorded as God wanted them to be. We know them to be doctrine because we are told they are God's words to us. How do we get Sunday School manuals and the like? They are written and approved by church officials under the direction of the Apostles and Prophets, and they are reviewed and approved by unanimous consent of all 15 members of the Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, a total of fifteen men who are called and ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

How were sermons recorded in 1875 in a regional conference in Manti, Utah? During the talk, people would record with shorthand what was said, to be transcribed later presumably by the same person who tried their best to remember exactly what was said. I'm sure some talks were prepared before hand and were saved, but in the 19th Century, how many apostles were excommunicated for their teaching and/or beliefs? Some later repented and were re-baptized, but which of their words can be completely accepted?

We know what we need to be exalted. The basic commandments are clear. The directions we receive about our teachings and our behaviors change as the need for our society's habits and needs change. I remember a letter being read in the late 80s in my ward in Ogden addressing concerns from the Prophet about the actions and behaviors of people in Utah toward non and inactive members needing to be Christ-like and not judgmental or haughty. How much would you be willing to bet me that my home ward in Colorado didn't hear that letter? How about a ward in New Zealand? I would say that letter might be considered doctrine because it was an exhortation by the prophet himself directing members to follow Christ and more fully represent Him in their actions with people not of our faith. There was doctrine that was probably not given to all members.
It looks like you got that quote from LDS.org. Who said it? What makes that statement so accurate and doctrinal that you would so willingly disregard the Journal of Discourses as just including some practical teachings.
Because it was a plain statement officially made by the church about a specific item. They clearly state what it is and why it was historically important, but that because of inaccuracies it cannot be considered complete correct.
...wouldn't those in the JOD be considered "the church" as well?
We are told directly that there are MISTAKES and INACCURACIES in it, so no, they did not speak for the whole church as the leaders in SLC today do.
So the Journal of Discourses is a collection of sermons from past prophets and apostles. Couldn't the same be said of the Ensign and other conference talks nowadays?
Yes, and as I noted above, I generally consider the Ensign to contain doctrine. If there are mistakes made in it I'm quite sure we'll get a report about it. So what, you may ask, is the difference? We have means and methods of communication which can be used to verify exactly what is said today. That was largely not available in 1890. In addition, I believe leaders are more careful now to verify what they teach or print is correct, having learned lessons from the past mistakes like Elder Hyde's sermon regarding sex or the mistakes researchers have found in the JoD.
That line of thinking would also allow us to disregard the standard works since they are a collection of teachings from past prophets.
We have had consistent assurance that the scriptures received in our day are scriptures as God wanted them revealed to His people. It is worth noting that even Joseph Smith made mention that we have an issue with possible transcription mistakes in the Holy Bible.
So what's an easy way to justify that thinking? By saying that the current prophet is the most important prophet...
No, by saying the prophet we have today gives us the words God has for us today which may be important for us to hear for our current situation. Nephi had already been given words that he should not kill. He was also given contradictory information in a situation he found himself in later in his life. He was willing to listen to what God had to say at that particular time.
Seems like an airtight excuse to me.
Sounds like words aimed at giving people a reason to disregard a living prophet.

User avatar
bbsion
captain of 100
Posts: 419
Contact:

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by bbsion »

skmo wrote: August 15th, 2017, 3:16 pm
bbsion wrote: August 15th, 2017, 10:13 am The church and its official doctrine. So what is established as doctrine?
1) The words of the living prophet, given to us on earth today for us today to be what God wants us to know today.

Moroni was a prophet of God, one of the most influential for our time. Should we use his record of the Sacrament Prayer to bless wine to represent the Blood of Christ? We have a living prophet to give us Gods words for us as we need them now.

2) The scriptures, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible, understanding that some part of the Bible lost "plain and precious" truths needed, which is why we focus more on the Book of Mormon.

3) Official church publications - Sunday School manuals, Priesthood and Relief Society manuals, and I would offer my opinion that Ensign manuals are, though I do not know if that is considered official doctrine by the church.

4) Information printed by the church or put on their website that establishes what official positions of the church are. They could not be put in place without receiving approval of current church leadership, thus I believe it applies to our world and its needs today.
Are you saying that only what is spoken by current apostles becomes actual church doctrine? Whereas anything said in past sermons from God's own servants can be disavowed or chalked up to being "transcribed, sometimes inaccurately".
In the early 90's, then Elder Monson gave a talk to bishops and stake presidents. One of the first things he did was address comments he'd heard that some bishops were having it taught in their wards that drinking Coke or Pepsi was a sin. He pulled a can of Mtn. Dew out, popped it open and took a sip, then set it down. He said nothing more but continued on with his talk. Was he issuing doctrine that members should drink Mt. Dew? No, certainly not. What he did do, however, was to instruct bishops and SP's to NOT teach as doctrine, things which were clearly personal belief and not doctrine.

How did we get the Book of Mormon and the D&C? They were words of God given directly to His prophet and recorded as God wanted them to be. We know them to be doctrine because we are told they are God's words to us. How do we get Sunday School manuals and the like? They are written and approved by church officials under the direction of the Apostles and Prophets, and they are reviewed and approved by unanimous consent of all 15 members of the Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, a total of fifteen men who are called and ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

How were sermons recorded in 1875 in a regional conference in Manti, Utah? During the talk, people would record with shorthand what was said, to be transcribed later presumably by the same person who tried their best to remember exactly what was said. I'm sure some talks were prepared before hand and were saved, but in the 19th Century, how many apostles were excommunicated for their teaching and/or beliefs? Some later repented and were re-baptized, but which of their words can be completely accepted?

We know what we need to be exalted. The basic commandments are clear. The directions we receive about our teachings and our behaviors change as the need for our society's habits and needs change. I remember a letter being read in the late 80s in my ward in Ogden addressing concerns from the Prophet about the actions and behaviors of people in Utah toward non and inactive members needing to be Christ-like and not judgmental or haughty. How much would you be willing to bet me that my home ward in Colorado didn't hear that letter? How about a ward in New Zealand? I would say that letter might be considered doctrine because it was an exhortation by the prophet himself directing members to follow Christ and more fully represent Him in their actions with people not of our faith. There was doctrine that was probably not given to all members.
It looks like you got that quote from LDS.org. Who said it? What makes that statement so accurate and doctrinal that you would so willingly disregard the Journal of Discourses as just including some practical teachings.
Because it was a plain statement officially made by the church about a specific item. They clearly state what it is and why it was historically important, but that because of inaccuracies it cannot be considered complete correct.
...wouldn't those in the JOD be considered "the church" as well?
We are told directly that there are MISTAKES and INACCURACIES in it, so no, they did not speak for the whole church as the leaders in SLC today do.
So the Journal of Discourses is a collection of sermons from past prophets and apostles. Couldn't the same be said of the Ensign and other conference talks nowadays?
Yes, and as I noted above, I generally consider the Ensign to contain doctrine. If there are mistakes made in it I'm quite sure we'll get a report about it. So what, you may ask, is the difference? We have means and methods of communication which can be used to verify exactly what is said today. That was largely not available in 1890. In addition, I believe leaders are more careful now to verify what they teach or print is correct, having learned lessons from the past mistakes like Elder Hyde's sermon regarding sex or the mistakes researchers have found in the JoD.
That line of thinking would also allow us to disregard the standard works since they are a collection of teachings from past prophets.
We have had consistent assurance that the scriptures received in our day are scriptures as God wanted them revealed to His people. It is worth noting that even Joseph Smith made mention that we have an issue with possible transcription mistakes in the Holy Bible.
So what's an easy way to justify that thinking? By saying that the current prophet is the most important prophet...
No, by saying the prophet we have today gives us the words God has for us today which may be important for us to hear for our current situation. Nephi had already been given words that he should not kill. He was also given contradictory information in a situation he found himself in later in his life. He was willing to listen to what God had to say at that particular time.
Seems like an airtight excuse to me.
Sounds like words aimed at giving people a reason to disregard a living prophet.
I am going to respectfully disagree with nearly everything you said as I regard it as your opinion.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

bbsion wrote: August 15th, 2017, 3:45 pmI am going to respectfully disagree with nearly everything you said as I regard it as your opinion.
Respectfully or not, that's wise for you. (very polite to be respectful, though) I share my beliefs because they make sense for me, I hope to either help others see what I do or learn from others why I'm wrong. (I'll admit, ;) it's theoretically possible for me to be wrong) One of the reasons I'm not hesitant to share my mistakes is that I have suffered horribly from stupidity on my part, I hope my shared experiences can help people avoid my stupidity.

Take from my words what benefits you, leave what doesn't. The only thing I stress everyone should learn from me is faith in God and hope to find happiness no matter how long and dirty the road is.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

This whole debate on polygamy and such is going to get really interesting in regards to the coming age of robots. If you want a preview catch the first season of Westworld and ask yourself how many men are going to leave the marriage pool when they can have synthetic perfection. Women will buy these devices like they do substitutes today -- not as a replacement for a man but something on the side. Men are entirely wired differently.

If you have kids today their daughters will probably be spinsters or will have to visit the fertility clinic on occasion.

So will technology make polygamy absolutely necessary?

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by skmo »

Fiannan wrote: August 15th, 2017, 11:21 pm This whole debate on polygamy and such is going to get really interesting in regards to the coming age of robots. If you want a preview catch the first season of Westworld and ask yourself how many men are going to leave the marriage pool when they can have synthetic perfection.
I watched Serenity with friends once. We were teachers from all over the country with wildly different backgrounds and beliefs. We were teased about being LDS, and when Mr. Universe talks about his relationship with his "Love-bot" and shows the marriage scene, somebody asked if I could have multiple wives if they were love-bots like this. It was a joke, but I know another man through a different connection who spent about $10,000 on a top of the line synthetic silicone doll because he said it would be cheaper than buying another house. He was crazy bitter on the idea of marriage ever again, and I'm quite certain he was teaching his boy to be the same. I never knew his ex, and I don't know what input she might have had on their kid, but in many schools I've seen a good many kids clearly have a terrible idea of marriage.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Why debate polygamy?

Post by Fiannan »

I was speaking with a young lesbian yesterday. She said the only real purpose of a man was to have babies with. I noted that I once heard of a rabbi who said that perhaps if polygamy existed then a man could take two additional wives who were in a relationship to each other and just be the donor, which would give the children a father they would know growing up. She thought that idea was logical.

The future actually will be made up of polyamorous, female-centered, family units. It is all part of the plan and robots will help make this possible. Of course some of these units will have a husband and it will look a lot like polygamy except in a generation or so the idea of "sexual orientation" will be considered ancient. Pan sexuality is going to be the norm.

Post Reply