LDS Sexuality

[_Jersey Girl]

Nehor

Beauty of heaven. Honey-do lists can be handled by speaking and looking and seeing that it is good. I assume PMS will NOT be there. Pregnancy will be a painless breeze. With eternity and an infinite amount of time to do anything and everything I don't think I'd have a problem with polygamy or polyandry. At any moment being omniscient I'll know exactly how a woman feels about me so what jealousy or envy could exist?

Are you joking in the above comments or are you serious? I'm not trying to cut you down here, I'm asking because I can't tell.

[_harmony]

I'm quite sure he obeyed that verse.

Only if he was monogamous, which we know he wasn't. THere is mention of only one wife.

Out of context. From the Old Testament we see that God does authorize plural marriage from time to time. Therefore the command can be obeyed no matter how many wives one has.

Authorize? No. Command? No. Allow? Yes. There's a big difference between authorize and allow.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Aha, I easily googled the old "verbal flashing" thread from Z, so here it is, for your reading "pleasure". ;)

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 1&stop=120

(by the way, I'm seven of niine - pent currently posts as "CI" on FAIR/MAD)

Oh a great read! Thanks!

[_Seven]

I'm quite sure he obeyed that verse.

Only if he was monogamous, which we know he wasn't. THere is mention of only one wife.

Out of context. From the Old Testament we see that God does authorize plural marriage from time to time. Therefore the command can be obeyed no matter how many wives one has.

Authorize? No. Command? No. Allow? Yes. There's a big difference between authorize and allow.

God allowed many abominable acts to take place in the Old Testament. The words of God in the Bible are only correct as far as they have been translated correctly. Good thing we have the Book of Mormon, the most correct book on earth, to clear this up for us!

Jacob 2
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

[_Doctor Steuss]

I'm quite sure he obeyed that verse.

Only if he was monogamous, which we know he wasn't. THere is mention of only one wife.

Out of context. From the Old Testament we see that God does authorize plural marriage from time to time. Therefore the command can be obeyed no matter how many wives one has.

Authorize? No. Command? No. Allow? Yes. There's a big difference between authorize and allow.

God allowed many abominable acts to take place in the Old Testament. The words of God in the Bible are only correct as far as they have been translated correctly. Good thing we have the Book of Mormon, the most correct book on earth, to clear this up for us!

Jacob 2
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

Unfortunately, verse 30 makes things a wee bit less clear... sort of.

[_Seven]

Hey Beastie...

Wow.. that was fun going down memory lane!

I well remember that thread! Pretty amazing!

More to the point...

I find LDS men who joke about polygamy disturbing.

in my opinion, it is NOTHING to joke about. It was/is a horrific, dispicable, cruel practice that speaks to the most primitive and animalistic urges of men while hurting women and children.

Nothing funny about it.

~dancer~

What do you think about women who joke about polygamy?

Hi Nehor,
I find women who joke about polygamy ignorant, but I also recognize that it is how they deal with a topic that makes them very uncomfortable & sick inside. (except for the TBM ladies at MAD who can't wait for it to return!) The women who joke about it and find nothing wrong with polygamy are the disturbing ones.

One of the jokes I often hear that really irritates me is when women will say "my husband can barely handle me, let alone other wives.." Men will often say the same thing about their wives. It's degrading to women when I hear this repeated.
As if we are so horrible to be married to! Marraige is tough work on both sides.

The reality is, the more wives a man has, the less he will even worry about the needs or cares of his wife, so it's a stupid joke to make. If you study polygamy, you will find that women were on their own and were neglected in so many ways by their husband. The women had to fill both roles of father and mother and sometimes even provider. He becomes nothing more than a sperm donor and a "Mr. so and so" visited with me today. The nature of polygamy forces women into a submissive/suboordinate role that gave men power over them. Boo hoo, those poor guys.

[_Seven]

God allowed many abominable acts to take place in the Old Testament. The words of God in the Bible are only correct as far as they have been translated correctly. Good thing we have the Book of Mormon, the most correct book on earth, to clear this up for us!

Jacob 2
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

Unfortunately, verse 30 makes things a wee bit less clear... sort of.

Only the LDS interpretation mixed with 132 muddies it up. If you put that scripture into context of the entire message and chapter of Jacob 2, it's clear that polygamy is abominable to God, and even more importantly, wasn't required for exaltation anywhere in the Bible or Book of Mormon.
Another way to look at verse 30-IN CONTEXT:
http://restorationbookstore.org/article ... /chp18.htm

How can God call plural marriage & concubines whoredoms, abominations etc. and then in verse 30 say if he wants to "raise seed" UNTO HIM (righteous seed) then He commands whoredoms?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Only the LDS interpretation mixed with 132 muddies it up.

This is certainly possible. 2 Samuel 12:7-8, and 1 Kings 11:1-6 might cause a bit of mud too. But then again, man has had his hands in scripture long enough to add whatever kind of mud he wants.

If you put that scripture into context of the entire message and chapter of Jacob 2, it's clear that polygamy is abominable to God,

Agreed, to the extent that they were doing it without His consent. Audience is important.

and even more importantly, wasn't required for exaltation anywhere in the Bible or Book of Mormon.

On this we definitely agree, and it is an aspect of D&C 132 that makes very little sense to me. Then again, marriage in general doesn't make sense to me as a requirement for exaltation (but maybe that's because I'm single and there isn't exactly much hope for that changing).

Another way to look at verse 30-IN CONTEXT:
http://restorationbookstore.org/article ... /chp18.htm

Interesting how they interpret it. Although I think their attempt to harmonize the verse is a bit of a stretch; my main problem with their analysis is this:
“This interpretation makes this passage completely out of harmony with all the rest of Jacob's revelation against polygamy, and all of Joseph Smith's writings which were printed before his death.”
It makes it out of harmony to an extent, but that’s what we would expect. Exceptions to rules are by definition going to be “out of harmony” with the current established rule. Paul’s saying that circumcision isn’t important is “out of harmony” with it being an everlasting covenant in regards to Abraham.

How can God call plural marriage & concubines whoredoms, abominations etc. and then in verse 30 say if he wants to "raise seed" UNTO HIM (righteous seed) then He commands whoredoms?

How can G-d say that murder is bad, and then have Nephi kill Laban? Methinks that what makes a given thing an abomination or “whoredom” is when G-d hasn’t commanded it (or expressly forbidden it). In the case of Jacob, it was forbidden and thus a whoredom. In the case of others, perhaps it wasn’t.

But, then again, maybe D&C 132 wasn’t really a revelation, and I’m the offspring of whoredoms, concubines and abominations. It’s certainly possible, and something I’m not completely adverse to. It certainly seems to be something that offends the general sensibilities; and I wonder if G-d granted us sensibilities that are completely adverse to His own(?).

[_Seven]

[quote="Seven

How can God call plural marriage & concubines whoredoms, abominations etc. and then in verse 30 say if he wants to "raise seed" UNTO HIM (righteous seed) then He commands whoredoms?

How can G-d say that murder is bad, and then have Nephi kill Laban? Methinks that what makes a given thing an abomination or “whoredom” is when G-d hasn’t commanded it (or expressly forbidden it). In the case of Jacob, it was forbidden and thus a whoredom. In the case of others, perhaps it wasn’t.

There are times when killing is necessary but killing innocent unarmed people I would never participate in. God can do his own dirty work if it's that important to him. I won't be turned into a cold blooded murderer.

I don't believe the example of Nephi killing Laban is comparable to LDS polygamy. The Saints were not given plural marriage as an Abrahamic test or temporary command. Had it been just a temporary command to raise seed quickly, then you might have a point. In LDS doctrine it is an eternal principle of the highest order The raising of seed was done unto God to raise a righteous people and will be required for exaltation. Murder is not an eternal principle required for exaltaion. Polygamy is on hold right now because of the government law but there hasn't been an LDS prophet to reveal that polygamy is once again an abomination or whoredom. It is only against God's law right now (when GBH states it) because we follow the law of the land and not because it suddenly became immoral when Woodruff's manifesto came out.

But, then again, maybe D&C 132 wasn’t really a revelation, and I’m the offspring of whoredoms, concubines and abominations. It’s certainly possible, and something I’m not completely adverse to. It certainly seems to be something that offends the general sensibilities; and I wonder if G-d granted us sensibilities that are completely adverse to His own(?).

Some great people have descended from racists, adulterers, murderers......There are some really good LDS people that descended from murderers of MMM. It really doesn't matter where you came from but it does matter that we don't repeat our ancestors mistakes.
I believe our conscience leads us and is God given. If you believe right or wrong are only defined by what God supposedly commands, then there is no moral law of heaven and God is one of confusion. (and a monster if you read the Old Testament) How would we ever know if a Prophet is speaking as a man if we believe whatever God commands is right no matter how abominable it is?

[_asbestosman]

One of the jokes I often hear that really irritates me is when women will say "my husband can barely handle me, let alone other wives.." Men will often say the same thing about their wives. It's degrading to women when I hear this repeated.

Or perhaps it refers to our natural desire to be slackers. One reason some men have difficulty with women is that we see different things as necessary. We generally aren't as concerned with how nice everything looks inside. We generally get lazy about the trash and such. When we're home we want to slack. Add to that the fact that men generally tend to be more loners while women tend to be more social (note, that may all be cultural instead of inherently genetic) and that the women I know tend to like conversation a lot more than I do.

As if we are so horrible to be married to! Marraige is tough work on both sides.

Quite true. However my guess is that marriage is usually harder on women than men even today even in a good marriage. Men tend to withdraw under stress, but I don't see that working with women. The ones I know just get all the more stressed.

The reality is, the more wives a man has, the less he will even worry about the needs or cares of his wife, so it's a stupid joke to make. If you study polygamy, you will find that women were on their own and were neglected in so many ways by their husband. The women had to fill both roles of father and mother and sometimes even provider. He becomes nothing more than a sperm donor and a "Mr. so and so" visited with me today. The nature of polygamy forces women into a submissive/suboordinate role that gave men power over them. Boo hoo, those poor guys.

Perhaps you are correct, but that idea seems so foreign to me. If there's little committment involved then I suppose plenty of men would like the idea. I just doubt modern woman would go for that kind of deal. The only worthwhile women for me are the ones who actually have a spine. The only problem I have with modern woman are the ones who tend to give the impression that men are inherently evil or oppressive. I'm frank to the ponit of rudeness, it's true, but I don't see the place of woman as inherently anything other than what she chooses.