Warren Jeffs' compound

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm still at a loss then, to understand what problem secular liberals have with plural sexual relationships, whether practiced in non-serial form by Joseph Smith, or in modern serial form by Hugh Hefner.

Please give me evidence from their posts where beastie, harmony, Tarski or Shades have promoted what you suggest.

How 'bout it, Loran?

[_asbestosman]

Yes, common age differences for the age, both within and without the Church.

Perhaps so, but just because slavery was also common for that age does not mean that I think it was fine back then.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hat tip to Chronos. The present fundamentalist sects are not Mormons and, in a very real sense, have no connection to the LDS Church at all except in the most tenuous historical sense.

In another vein, one may as well ascribe present trends among sects and cults claiming descent, in one manner or another, from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to the philandering of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and other of the Lord's anointed (if you accept that they were, indeed, the Lord's anointed), as to Joseph Smith. Joseph did nothing, regarding plural marriage, other than what some of the great patriarchs and prophets of the past had done under the authority of the Priesthood, as is well documented in the Old Testament.

Joseph took many more wives than Abraham and Jacob. Joseph also introduced a doctrine that polygamy was required by God for exaltation. This seems very different from the Bible where it seems more like God tolerated a cultural practice rather than commanded it.

And I yes there is a connection to the LDS Church. Many of the doctrines are the same. And many they hold are right out of 19th century Mormonism all though I think they have bastardized polygamy. I don't see that it in general was near as abusive in 19th century Mormonism for the most part.

[_Coggins7]

Please give me evidence from their posts where beastie, harmony, Tarski or Shades have promoted what you suggest.

So, you are here claiming that the above personages do not, in general, support, or at the very least, take a morally neutralist, or relativist view of premarital sex, including serial premarital relationships, homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and other standard deviations from the Judeo/Christian norm (I'll back off on adultery, but not on the core point to be made here, that the overwhelming focus on the sexual aspect (to the extent that much of anything at all is known about it) of Joseph's relationship with his various wives belies a selective moral outrage based, not in a concern for the moral grounds of human sexual relationships per se, but in a need to destroy and deligitimate Joseph as that which he claimed to be. The fact remains, and I've yet to see so much as an attempt at a serious critical response, that serial sexual relationships are an accepted fact within secular liberal culture, and vast quantities of ink have been spent legitimizing, justifying, and celebrating such. But something seems to be wrong with non-serial sexual relationships, in which, not only does a man engage in sexual relationships with multiple woman, but produces offspring from such relationships, whom, along with his wives, he supports economically and takes personal responsibility for. Is it the sex that one finds so reprehensible about Joesph's plural marriage? Strange if it were so, because it is the sex that so obsesses the Baby Boomers and their progeny in a society in which 30% of all children are born out of wedlock and some 54% of couples cohabit before marriage, and have multiple sexual partners before settling on a long term mate.)

[_Jason Bourne]

We also need to remember that the 2nd President of the LDS Church, Brigham Young, also married pretty very young females as wives when he was over the age of 40 years old.
Here are a list of some of the young Wives, of Brigham Young:

Age of Female:-----------Age of Brigham Young:-----Date of Marriage:
Clarissa C. Decker 15------Brigham Young 42------------May 8, 1844
Emmeline Free 19----------Brigham Young 43-----------April 30, 1845
Ellen Rockwood 16---------Brigham Young 44-----------January, 1846
Mary J. Bigelow 19---------Brigham Young 45-----------March 20, 1847
Lucy Bigelow 16-----------Brigham Young 45------------March 20, 1847

Ouch!! Maybe my post above was erroneous to some extent.

[_Brackite]

In another vein, one may as well ascribe present trends among sects and cults claiming descent, in one manner or another, from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to the philandering of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and other of the Lord's anointed (if you accept that they were, indeed, the Lord's anointed), as to Joseph Smith. Joseph did nothing, regarding plural marriage, other than what some of the great patriarchs and prophets of the past had done under the authority of the Priesthood, as is well documented in the Old Testament.

The Polygamy that was practiced by Abraham and Jacob (Israel) was not the same kind of Polygamy that was practiced by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball.
Abraham had just three wives. The main reason why Abraham took Hagar to wife, is because Abraham's wife Sarah wasn't able to have a child by Abraham at that time. Abraham had just three wives throughout his lifetime.
Isaac had just only one wife throughout his lifetime.
Jacob (Israel) had four wives throughout his lifetime.
Moses had just two wives throughout his lifetime.
Joseph Smith had over 28 wives throughout his lifetime.
Brgham Young had over 28 wives throughout his lifetime.
Heber C. Kimball had over 28 wives throughout his lifetime.

[_Jersey Girl]

Please give me evidence from their posts where beastie, harmony, Tarski or Shades have promoted what you suggest.

So, you are here claiming that the above personages do not, in general, support, or at the very least, take a morally neutralist, or relativist view of premarital sex, including serial premarital relationships, homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and other standard deviations from the Judeo/Christian norm (I'll back off on adultery, but not on the core point to be made here, that the overwhelming focus on the sexual aspect (to the extent that much of anything at all is known about it) of Joseph's relationship with his various wives belies a selective moral outrage based, not in a concern for the moral grounds of human sexual relationships per se, but in a need to destroy and deligitimate Joseph as that which he claimed to be. The fact remains, and I've yet to see so much as an attempt at a serious critical response, that serial sexual relationships are an accepted fact within secular liberal culture, and vast quantities of ink have been spent legitimizing, justifying, and celebrating such. But something seems to be wrong with non-serial sexual relationships, in which, not only does a man engage in sexual relationships with multiple woman, but produces offspring from such relationships, whom, along with his wives, he supports economically and takes personal responsibility for. Is it the sex that one finds so reprehensible about Joesph's plural marriage? Strange if it were so, because it is the sex that so obsesses the Baby Boomers and their progeny in a society in which 30% of all children are born out of wedlock and some 54% of couples cohabit before marriage, and have multiple sexual partners before settling on a long term mate.)

No, Loran. I'm making no claim whatsoever. I'm asking you to supply evidence of your claim.

[_Coggins7]

Joseph took many more wives than Abraham and Jacob.

So what?

Joseph also introduced a doctrine that polygamy was required by God for exaltation.

Only for those who were called to practice that principle. which the overwhelming majority of Saints at the time were not. Even if we really high ball the numbers here, and claim that some 10% to 15% of LDS practiced polygamy, or even somewhat more, this leaves 80% to 85% of the Saints never called to the practice, and hence, by your argument here, barred from exaltation. And since none of the BorfM peoples were called to practice it, none of the Book of Mormon saints ever attained exaltation. My patience with this nonsense is running thin, as is my patience with the lack of homework those who claim to be long time members of the Church have done pertaining to the broader doctrines and philosophy of the Gospel that mediate principles such as plural marriage, or any other (any principle of which we are aware, understand, and have covenanted to accept and live becomes a requirement for our exaltation. Plural marriage is just a specific and special case of this general principle).

This seems very different from the Bible where it seems more like God tolerated a cultural practice rather than commanded it.

This is an old EV trope. The law of Moses contains explicit rules for the maintinence of plural wives, (Deut. 21:15-17) and Nathan unambiguously upbraided David for not qualifying himself for the reception of more plural wives than he presently had.

And I yes there is a connection to the LDS Church. Many of the doctrines are the same. And many they hold are right out of 19th century Mormonism all though I think they have bastardized polygamy. I don't see that it in general was near as abusive in 19th century Mormonism for the most part.

You've said nothing here other than what I've already admitted. There is a tenuous historical connection. The fact remains that they are not Mormons, and, most of them at least, have never been. They are not Latter Day Saints, and they are no more Latter Day Saints than Pope Ratzinger is a Latter Day Saint.

[_Coggins7]

Please give me evidence from their posts where beastie, harmony, Tarski or Shades have promoted what you suggest.

So, you are here claiming that the above personages do not, in general, support, or at the very least, take a morally neutralist, or relativist view of premarital sex, including serial premarital relationships, homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and other standard deviations from the Judeo/Christian norm (I'll back off on adultery, but not on the core point to be made here, that the overwhelming focus on the sexual aspect (to the extent that much of anything at all is known about it) of Joseph's relationship with his various wives belies a selective moral outrage based, not in a concern for the moral grounds of human sexual relationships per se, but in a need to destroy and deligitimate Joseph as that which he claimed to be. The fact remains, and I've yet to see so much as an attempt at a serious critical response, that serial sexual relationships are an accepted fact within secular liberal culture, and vast quantities of ink have been spent legitimizing, justifying, and celebrating such. But something seems to be wrong with non-serial sexual relationships, in which, not only does a man engage in sexual relationships with multiple woman, but produces offspring from such relationships, whom, along with his wives, he supports economically and takes personal responsibility for. Is it the sex that one finds so reprehensible about Joesph's plural marriage? Strange if it were so, because it is the sex that so obsesses the Baby Boomers and their progeny in a society in which 30% of all children are born out of wedlock and some 54% of couples cohabit before marriage, and have multiple sexual partners before settling on a long term mate.)

No, Loran. I'm making no claim whatsoever. I'm asking you to supply evidence of your claim.

Yeah, sure you are. Days of research in the archives just to prop up an obvious fact in this place? No way. Next time a thread opens up on this subject, I'll point it out to you. In fact, I think I'll just open up a new thread attacking the sexual revolution, the sixties, Gay marriage, and other holy relics of the secular left and let the exmo lefties come out, come out, wherever they are, and join in the fray. This kind of thread is like sweet nectar to the secular leftists who inhabit this board, and we will be able to consolidate and analyze the general thrust of the beliefs and attitudes each in their turn. I'll demonstrate my point there, but I'm not posting here enough anymore to justify an archaeological dig into the archives.

Not worth my time.

[_harmony]

In any case, they have no Priesthood authority, and hence, no authority to enter lawfully into this principle.

Neither do the LDS, Loran. LDS can't even produce a decent revelation restoring the Melch priesthood. And the timing was all wrong. Joseph organized the church with only the Aaronic priesthood, If I recall correctly, and because his priesthood didn't cover anything remotely like that, he overstepped his authority.

And let us not forget that Joseph had multiple wives long before Sec 132 was canonized.

They also have rejected the mysteries; the highest ordinances of the Gospel and the sealing power, without which, all bonds, oaths, contracts, and obligations entered into in this life, with one wife or with many, are void upon exit from this life.

FLDS have a temple in Texas. There is no reason to assume they do not perform ordinance work in it.