Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

charity wrote:Oliver Cowdery came back. William Law was an adulterer who got caught and wanted revenge. None of Joseph's close companions wanted to have to live the law of plural marriage.


You really believe this? Really?

I think it is projection on the part of many here who assume that men were more than eager to have multiple wives. Get your minds out the gutter, those of you who are guilty.


Some of us are able to judge a man by his actions. And some of us are able to see God's hand (or rather the lack of God's hand) in events as they happened.

As to your comment about the Puritans: they had no commandment, no priesthood, no duty to God's own church. What happened to them was a natural consequence of their actions. What happened to Joseph was a result of his betrayal of God and his priesthood. But what happened to the majority of the Saints was a result of following the wrong man down the road to hell.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote: This time the Church is not going to fall into apostacy.


Right, because this time they have the super-duper get-out-of-jail-free-card guarantee that it won't.


The church is already in apostacy. Pres Benson said so.

*forcibly withdrawing tongue from cheek*
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Post by _Brackite »

The Following is Part From an Article, From Wikipedia:

Sex ratio is the ratio of males to females in a population. The primary sex ratio is the ratio at the time of conception, secondary sex ratio is the ratio at time of birth, and tertiary sex ratio is the ratio of mature organisms.[1] In humans the secondary sex ratio is commonly assumed to be 105 boys to 100 girls (which sometimes is shortened to "a ratio of 105"). In human societies, however, sex ratios at birth or among infants may be considerably skewed by sex-selective abortion and infanticide.

In biology, sex ratio is defined as the proportion of males in the population.

...

The natural sex ratio at birth is estimated close to 1.05 males/female. Due to the generally higher life expectancy of females, sex ratio tends to even out in adult population, and result in an excess of females among the elderly (e.g., the male to female ratio falls from 1.05 for the group aged 15 to 65 to 0.70 for the group over 65 in Germany, from 1.00 to 0.72 in the USA, from 1.06 to 0.91 in mainland China and from 1.07 to 1.02 in India).

Even in the absence of sex selection practices, a range of "normal" sex ratios at birth of between 103 to 107 boys per 100 girls has been observed in different societies, and among different ethnic and racial groups within a given society[2]. Darwin, in his The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, cites a sex ratio of 120 boys to 100 girls for Jewish communities in 19th century Livonia, where infanticide is not historically documented, and the means for pre-natal sex determination did not exist.

In the United States, the sex ratios at birth over the period 1970-2002 were 105 for the white non-Hispanic population, 104 for Mexican Americans, 103 for African Americans and Indians, and 107 for mothers of Chinese or Filipino ethnicity.[3] Among European countries ca. 2001, the ratios ranged between 104 in Belgium and 107 in Portugal. In the aggregated results of 56 Demographic and Health Surveys[4] in African countries, the ratio is 103, though there is also considerable country-to-country variation.[5]


( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio )


If there is Celestial Polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, then how come there is No Celestial Polyandry in the Celestial Kingdom???
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

So, why do you think that those who knew Joseph Smith the best, worked with him everyday, followed him as they were chased from place to place to place did so if they thuoght he had an affair and lost the spiriti? They were in a better position to know you any of you. They didn't think so. I go with first person witnesses, rather than arm chair sleuths 160 years later. But that's just me.



Why do apologists make this argument. Sure some stuck by Joseph Smith, and others who knew him well did not. All famous leaders had people stick by them and loyalists. What does this prove in and of itself?
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Oliver Cowdery came back. William Law was an adulterer who got caught and wanted revenge.


You sure about that? Source please?
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Post by _Brackite »

harmony wrote:We have the result of Joseph's gift (the Book of Mormon) and the result of Joseph's ego (the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham).

The answer to your question is that Joseph wasn't listening to God, Liz. He was listening to his own ego.



Hi Harmony,

You are really definitely right about this, Harmony. And Plus, as has already been Pointed out in this Discussion thread, The Book of Mormon fully Condemns the Practice of Polygamy (having many wives).
Please Check Out And See (again):

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#130379

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#130528

And:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#131172
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Post Reply