Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_charity]

How does one's mind leap from CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE to cleave unto his wive's.

Because each marriage/sealing is betwen the man and his wife. We have no trouble in the idea that parents can love many children, and that the love one has for one child does not take away from the love for another child.

Today I was listening to Ann Wilder from a Mormon stories podast. She is a plural wife in and independent plural marriage group. She loves polygamy, thinks it the idea life style, think the LDS Church has abandoned up to 95 doctrinal issues that were critical to the true church. She went on and on about polygamy then about Adam God. And her comments reminded me so much of your style here Charity.

Do you practice polygamy now? No. She thinks you are apostate then. Do you believe in Adam as your God? No. She thinks you have the wrong God and that Brigham and Joseph most certainly taught this. Do you think God is Eloheim? She says Eloheim is not on individual but a council of Gods. And she has a testimony as sure as yours. One's mind can confirm anything you know.

Satan is a powerful deceiver. We are told that the days will have to be foreshortened or else the very elect will be deceived.

Quote:


You are rigth. It is in the Doctrine and Covenants that it is clarified. Notice the bolded part.

Doctrine and Covenants 132: 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.


Yes Charity I am aware of this. God condems it with no exception for David and Solomon int the Book of Mormon-the book that is the key stone to our religion-the most correct book, the book that we can use to get closer to God than any other book. And the D&C directly conflicts with it. So which one is correct? I have never been able to relove this one and it has bothered me long before I had questions about things LDS. And don't give me the continuiing revelation deal. I am not talking about polygamy being allowed and it not being allowed. I am talking about whether David and Solomon comnitted abominations. The Book of Mormon says yes they did and give them no wiggle room out of it.

You have to be aware of all God's words, and not just pick and choose. Nathan, the prophet, gave the plural wives to David. God did not condemn that action. To say, in the Book of Mormon that David and Solomon committed abominations is true. They did. But the abominations were not in the pure practice of plural marriage. It was in the abuse of the practice.

People here have repeatedly said that monogamy is the Lord's will. What a an abusive marriage? Suppose he beats his wife, suppose he convinces her she is worth nothing except to be a slave to him, suppose he forces sexual relations when she is sick. Doees this mean monogamy is an abomination? You can't argue that position.

The Book of Mormon is the most correct book. But read on the very first page, "If there are erros, they be errors of men." Yes, David and Solomon committed abominations. But you are placing your own interpretation on what the source of those abominations were.

And in the Book of Mormon, plural marriage is specifically allowed, WHEN it is God's purpose. There is no conflict.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.htm

I see you gave me know current LDS leaders who teach this or even those who are experts about this. And who is the person and what is their specialty? Or are they just an apologist for polygamy.

Leaders don't talk about polygamy. There is no reason for them to. It is not a current practice. They cannnot divert their attention from the 3 fold mission of the Church. Polygamy isn't one of those.

The Christian Polygamy movement has people who believe that God approves of polygamy. I don't think they are only concerned in promoting multiple sex partners. In this culture, men don't have to take on the responbility for wives and children to have unlimited access to willing females.

This is something I have been curious about as well. Even leaders today say that the Book of Mormon is the keystone to our religion, and that it is "the most correct book on earth".

Right.

If that is the case, there is a stark conflict here in what is said.

Also, isn't it true that section 132 was not considered part of the official D&C canon until long after Joseph Smith's death?

This is not a conflict. No one verse is meant to be read alone. It all has to fit together. And saying that David and Solomon committed abominations stands perfectly with the further explanation of how what they did wrong was outside of the pure practice of plural marraige. And we believe in continuing revelation, so it doesn't matter when the Lord's word is canonized. It was God's word as soon as it was revealed to the prophet.

Sec 132 was canonized in 1852, If I recall correctly. Brigham sprung it on the Saints in a general conference after they were thousands of miles away from their families and essentially forced them to ratify it or be abandoned in the desert. Nice guy, our Brigham.

What a silly statement that is. The Saints KNEW why they were in the valley. They did not feel co-erced by Brigham Young. You should read their journals, harmony. You really demean their lives and their faith.

That conflict creates a dichotomy that is impossible to ignore, if one accepts the Book of Mormon a the word of God. The only remaining explanation is that Sec 132 is not a valid revelation, because God is not a god of confusion and conflicting revelations is confusion, squared.

There is no dichotomy. God is not a god of confusion, but people can sure get confused. Your confusion starts with your absolute denial of plural marriage. Then you have to twist and turn yourself into a pretzel to maintain that denial in the fact of revelation from God.

During my sixyear investigation, there was one ward president who said BY is his exemplar. I have given him a few saying/sermon/teaching of BY from the JofD (printed in english and hungarian). In the next two years of his reign, he has taken care not to remain téte-a-téte with me.

You have nothing but derision for faithful LDS, you think their beliefs are laughable, and you wonder why your conversations are not enjoyable? Hmmmmmm.

Monogamy is the default position in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Default. Exactly. UNLESS God commands otherwise. We have no disagreement there.

[_truth dancer]

Because each marriage/sealing is betwen the man and his wife.

I find it amazing that anyone can read... one man and one wife/cleaving to each other and none other/one man having his own wife and a wife having her own husband, as, one man and many women.

It really astounds me that something so clear can be twisted to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means.

We have no trouble in the idea that parents can love many children, and that the love one has for one child does not take away from the love for another child.

This is another argument that astounds me... as if the parent/child relationship is anything at all like the relationship between a husband and a wife.

I wonder if those who embrace the harem lifestyle have a different idea than most of what is a healthy marriage. I do not know and I am not making any judgments here it is just this argument really baffles me.

~dancer~

[_charity]

I wonder if those who embrace the harem lifestyle have a different idea than most of what is a healthy marriage. I do not know and I am not making any judgments here it is just this argument really baffles me.

~dancer~

No judgements? Harem? At least be honest about it TD. Youi are making a very strong judgement.

Let me clear this up for you. A harem is a corruption of the pure doctrine of plural marriage. It is one of Satan's countefeits.The fact that you continue to use the word shows your lack of understanding, or your desire to mock and ridicule. Don't give us that "I am not making any judgements" line when you so clearly are.

Your judgement about people who would do as God commands them, and find blessings in obeying God, is cruel and unjustified.

[_Jason Bourne]

How does one's mind leap from CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE to cleave unto his wive's.

Because each marriage/sealing is betwen the man and his wife. We have no trouble in the idea that parents can love many children, and that the love one has for one child does not take away from the love for another child.

That is not the point and it does not say what you wish it did in spite of your interprative acrobats. It says one wife. Other New Testament passages do as well. You are simply wrong on this.

Today I was listening to Ann Wilder from a Mormon stories podast. She is a plural wife in and independent plural marriage group. She loves polygamy, thinks it the idea life style, think the LDS Church has abandoned up to 95 doctrinal issues that were critical to the true church. She went on and on about polygamy then about Adam God. And her comments reminded me so much of your style here Charity.

Do you practice polygamy now? No. She thinks you are apostate then. Do you believe in Adam as your God? No. She thinks you have the wrong God and that Brigham and Joseph most certainly taught this. Do you think God is Eloheim? She says Eloheim is not on individual but a council of Gods. And she has a testimony as sure as yours. One's mind can confirm anything you know.

Satan is a powerful deceiver. We are told that the days will have to be foreshortened or else the very elect will be deceived.

Oh sure. Maybe you are the one deceived? Fundie EVs sure think so.


Quote:


You are rigth. It is in the Doctrine and Covenants that it is clarified. Notice the bolded part.

You have to be aware of all God's words, and not just pick and choose. Nathan, the prophet, gave the plural wives to David. God did not condemn that action. To say, in the Book of Mormon that David and Solomon committed abominations is true. They did. But the abominations were not in the pure practice of plural marriage. It was in the abuse of the practice.

I am aware of all of Gods supposed words. The two conflict. There is no way around it. As for Nathan did you ever consider this was figurative and again part of the culture? God gave David his kingship, his lands, his cows, his riches and his wives. No approval here, just a statement of fact. And no command to practice it.

People here have repeatedly said that monogamy is the Lord's will. What a an abusive marriage? Suppose he beats his wife, suppose he convinces her she is worth nothing except to be a slave to him, suppose he forces sexual relations when she is sick. Doees this mean monogamy is an abomination? You can't argue that position.

Oh please. This is a ludicrous argument.

The Book of Mormon is the most correct book. But read on the very first page, "If there are erros, they be errors of men." Yes, David and Solomon committed abominations. But you are placing your own interpretation on what the source of those abominations were.

So Jacob 2 was in error about what it said about David and Solomon?

And in the Book of Mormon, plural marriage is specifically allowed, WHEN it is God's purpose. There is no conflict.

Says it is an abomination plain and simple. Conflicts with another passage. which one is correct?

[_truth dancer]

No judgements? Harem? At least be honest about it TD. Youi are making a very strong judgement.

No judgments here Charity. I'm asking and wondering about something I do not understand. Rather than reply with your nastiness why not just explain it?

Let me clear this up for you. A harem is a corruption of the pure doctrine of plural marriage. It is one of Satan's countefeits.The fact that you continue to use the word shows your lack of understanding, or your desire to mock and ridicule. Don't give us that "I am not making any judgements" line when you so clearly are.

I do not consider a man with many women/wives/concubines or anything else a marriage. It is an alternative lifestyle in my opinion. I have repeatedly stated that I am aware of many who enjoy this lifestyle. I make no judgments about it at all IF participants are consenting ADULTS. No mockery at all Charity. Nothing.

The issue is not the term... it is the dynamics of the lifestyle. Call it what you will.

Your judgement about people who would do as God commands them, and find blessings in obeying God, is cruel and unjustified.

Once again you make up stuff so you have an excuse to be nasty. :-( I have NEVER judged ADULTS who freely participate in alternative lifestyles of their choice. NEVER. In fact I have repeatedly stated that I am fine with those who choose whatever form of partnering they desire (so long as children are not hurt).

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

We have no trouble in the idea that parents can love many children, and that the love one has for one child does not take away from the love for another child.

You lose me on this argument every time, Charity. It is not a valid argument. It is a comparison of apples to oranges. There is a completely different dynamic between husband and wife and parent and child.

You have to be aware of all God's words, and not just pick and choose.

With all due respect, Charity, aren't you doing the same thing? Here is the full scripture in full context:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
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;

Nathan, the prophet, gave the plural wives to David. God did not condemn that action. To say, in the Book of Mormon that David and Solomon committed abominations is true. They did. But the abominations were not in the pure practice of plural marriage. It was in the abuse of the practice.

Where, in this scripture does it say that? In full context, that is NOT how this scripture reads.

It is pretty straightforward. It talks about how the act of having many wives and concubines is an abomination, and that going forward men will have only one wife and no concubines.

[_charity]

No judgements? Harem? At least be honest about it TD. Youi are making a very strong judgement.

No judgments here Charity. I'm asking and wondering about something I do not understand. Rather than reply with your nastiness why not just explain it?

Let me clear this up for you. A harem is a corruption of the pure doctrine of plural marriage. It is one of Satan's countefeits.The fact that you continue to use the word shows your lack of understanding, or your desire to mock and ridicule. Don't give us that "I am not making any judgements" line when you so clearly are.

I do not consider a man with many women/wives/concubines or anything else a marriage. It is an alternative lifestyle in my opinion. I have repeatedly stated that I am aware of many who enjoy this lifestyle. I make no judgments about it at all IF participants are consenting ADULTS. No mockery at all Charity. Nothing.

The issue is not the term... it is the dynamics of the lifestyle. Call it what you will.

Your judgement about people who would do as God commands them, and find blessings in obeying God, is cruel and unjustified.

Once again you make up stuff so you have an excuse to be nasty. :-( I have NEVER judged ADULTS who freely participate in alternative lifestyles of their choice. NEVER. In fact I have repeatedly stated that I am fine with those who choose whatever form of partnering they desire (so long as children are not hurt).

~dancer~

The issue IS the term. TD, I don't know what your educaitonal background is. But words mean things. This is what a "harem" is: the residence of women in a Muslim household, including the mother, sisters, wives, concubines, daughters, entertainers, and servants.

LDS are not Muslims. LDS practice of plural marriage did not include concubines and entertainers.

When you use the word "harem" you have to know you are conjuring up images of obscenely rich eastern potentates whose only interest in women is sex and producing a large number of offspring. In addition, the women have no choice. If the sultan wants them, they are his. He has no interest in the multitudinous offspring, except for maybe a son or two who will replace him.

So, I hope you will see now, that your use of the term "harem" is totally inappropriate. But I think you used it on purpose to denigrate LDS men and their wives.

So I am not making anything up to say you are disrespecting women and men who have lived plural marriage under the Lord's direciton. If you don't want me to reply to you again in this way, stop using the word harem to refer to LDS plural marriage.

[_ludwigm]

The issue IS the term. TD, I don't know what your educaitonal background is. But words mean things. This is what a "harem" is: the residence of women in a Muslim household, including the mother, sisters, wives, concubines, daughters, entertainers, and servants.

LDS are not Muslims. LDS practice of plural marriage did not include concubines and entertainers.

"the residence of women in a Muslim household"
- or the residence of women in Brigham Young's household (You know, the Lion House "The Lion House was home for up to twelve of Brigham Young's wives and his children by them")

"LDS are not Muslims"
- ooops! A few minute before - on the "urimthummim" thread - I made a parallel between moslim countries and US

[_truth dancer]

The issue IS the term. TD, I don't know what your educaitonal background is. But words mean things. This is what a "harem" is: the residence of women in a Muslim household, including the mother, sisters, wives, concubines, daughters, entertainers, and servants.

I use the term in the behavioral sense. From the dictionary:

Animal Behavior. a social group of females, as elephant seals, accompanied or followed by one fertile male who denies other males access to the group.

My intent in using the word harem is because I think it is the most appropriate word to describe the behavior of many women attaching to one male. I do not in any way associate the word harem with Islam or any other religion. Again, it is used in the behavioral sense.

Marriage as defined by our law and the law during the time of Joseph Smith was... one man and one woman. I do not think there is such a thing as multiple wives. By definition there can only be one wife.

LDS are not Muslims. LDS practice of plural marriage did not include concubines and entertainers.

what does this have to do with anything?

When you use the word "harem" you have to know you are conjuring up images of obscenely rich eastern potentates whose only interest in women is sex and producing a large number of offspring. In addition, the women have no choice. If the sultan wants them, they are his. He has no interest in the multitudinous offspring, except for maybe a son or two who will replace him.

This may be the image YOU conjure up but it is nothing at all what I image. Not at all. Again, because YOU have a particular reaction does not mean this is the intent.

So, I hope you will see now, that your use of the term "harem" is totally inappropriate. But I think you used it on purpose to denigrate LDS men and their wives.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK... I do not use the term to denigrate anyone. How many times do I need to repeat the fact that I do not condemn those who chose alternative lifestyles. I use the term harem because I believe it is the mating strategy that equates to one man mating with many females. It is the most appropriate term, in my opinion. I'm sorry if it offends you but it is what it is.

So I am not making anything up to say you are disrespecting women and men who have lived plural marriage under the Lord's direciton. If you don't want me to reply to you again in this way, stop using the word harem to refer to LDS plural marriage.

Yes, you are making things up. I am NOT disrespecting women or men. Over and over I state that I have no problem with women who want to engage in various lifestyles. I really do not.

You can reply any way you wish... it does not matter to me. I just point out your tendency to make up stuff, then get all nasty about your made up stuff. Again, I seriously do not care at all and if you feel good about it keep it up. Just do not be surprised when people call you on it.

Unless you can demonstrate that there is such a thing in our country as multiple wives, and that there is a better word to describe the mating strategy of animals, where multiple women attach themselves to one man, harem seems to fit. It is not a disparaging word but a descriptive word.

~dancer~

[_charity]

Okay, TD, you win. You define the words anyway you want, change definitions in the middle of discussion, insult and denigrate adult faithful believers, tell wives they aren't really married and their children are bastards. Whatever makes you feel better.

You can throw your mud at someone else. I won't engage you on this topic anymore.