For Gaz..Struggling Believers' Polygamy Discussion cont.

[_Yoda]

Gaz-

I thought it might be best to create a new thread to address our discussion started on the FLDS thread. I would like to address the point you made here:

A-man,

Are we not all expected to be one with God? How is that achieved?

It is achieved one:one. Why can't oneness with God regarding marriage also be one:one? Why the need for the multiple spouses?

Your not thinking broadly enough. If you are at one with God and in heaven, and your spouse is as well, and your pastor, and your friend, and eveyone else who has worthily upheld the name of Christ...

And your all communicating with the Holy Ghost, and by the Holy Ghost. that's alot of oneness.

The multiple spouses is an extension of the family unit. Its that righteous family name, as in the Father who has properly upheld his covenants with God and is standing in order before God, sealing his name upon his wife/ wives and bearing children with that name sealed upon them. He has claim on them in the world to come, as they bear his name and they are his.

The same as Christ lays claim all all those who took upon themselves his name and bore it with honor. Its the same thing.

Bold emphasis mine.

Addressing the bold emphasis first:

No, it is not the same thing at all. All of us, men and women, take upon the name of Christ at baptism. We do NOT enter into a marriage relationship with Him.

Also, you have still failed to show how the covenants and goals of the gospel cannot be completed in a monogamous marriage. In fact, you admitted that they COULD.

If I am understanding you, you are saying that the plural marriage law is an extension of the monogamous married law, and that the additional wives are given as a gift of God as added blessings, the same as an extended number of children.

The problem with that stance is that it goes directly against the equality of Gods and Goddesses which is made very clear in the temple.

[_asbestosman]

The problem with that stance is that it goes directly against the equality of Gods and Goddesses which is made very clear in the temple.

Equality is made clear in the temple? I don't think I can agree.

[_Yoda]

Withou going into too much detail, the temple is currently the one place where women as well as men exercise priesthood authority through blessings, washing and annointings.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Liz,

Withou going into too much detail, the temple is currently the one place where women as well as men exercise priesthood authority through blessings, washing and annointings.

I'm with Abman on this... :-)

Without going into detail, do you remember the covenants? They most definitely are not about equality, quite the opposite.

If anything they clearly define the inequality and subservient role of women.

What about at the veil? No equality there, again a clear demonstration of where women stand.

~dancer~

[_Gazelam]

No, it is not the same thing at all. All of us, men and women, take upon the name of Christ at baptism. We do NOT enter into a marriage relationship with Him.

Also, you have still failed to show how the covenants and goals of the gospel cannot be completed in a monogamous marriage. In fact, you admitted that they COULD.

If I am understanding you, you are saying that the plural marriage law is an extension of the monogamous married law, and that the additional wives are given as a gift of God as added blessings, the same as an extended number of children.

The problem with that stance is that it goes directly against the equality of Gods and Goddesses which is made very clear in the temple.

Marriage Covenant with Christ: Matthew 25: 1-13. You tak eupon his name in Baptism, just as a bride takes on the name of her husband in marriage. Christ is exalted when we find salvation in his name, and we receive the family blessings if we live up to the family name. It is very much like a marriage and rich in symbolism.

Also, you have still failed to show how the covenants and goals of the gospel cannot be completed in a monogamous marriage. In fact, you admitted that they COULD.

"...Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summerized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D&C 132-1-28)

Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages woudl be valid only if authorized by the President of the church. (D&C 132:7, 29-66.)

"All who pretend or assume to engare in plural marriages in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they were performed, are guilty of gross wickedness." Mormon Doctrine pg. 578-579)


As far as a man and a woman beign equal, notice the language of both D&C 132 and the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Moses"

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

[_TygerFang]

You know this might be random and a bit off topic but I wonder if it's seen as alright in polygamy for a husband to take on a number of wives would they see it as alright for a wife to take on a number of husbands?

I don't expect many serious responses, but I've just always wondered ;)

[_Bond...James Bond]

You know this might be random and a bit off topic but I wonder if it's seen as alright in polygamy for a husband to take on a number of wives would they see it as alright for a wife to take on a number of husbands?

I don't expect many serious responses, but I've just always wondered ;)

Sounds good to me. But none of the hotties on this board are willing to take me on as Number 2.

[_truth dancer]

You know this might be random and a bit off topic but I wonder if it's seen as alright in polygamy for a husband to take on a number of wives would they see it as alright for a wife to take on a number of husbands?

I don't expect many serious responses, but I've just always wondered ;)

Hi TygerFang and welcome to the board!

Your's is actually a great question.

Unless men are happy to share their wives with their buddies, while they remain faithful to ONE wife, they are violating one of Christ's clear and foundational commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

My guess... most of the guys chomping at the bit to have numerous women in their eternal harem would not find it heavenly to reverse the situation.

Just a guess... (smile).

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

Unless men are happy to share their wives with their buddies, while they remain faithful to ONE wife, they are violating one of Christ's clear and foundational commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

My guess... most of the guys chomping at the bit to have numerous women in their eternal harem would not find it heavenly to reverse the situation.

Just a guess... (smile).

I think you're right about people not wanting to share, but . . .
if my wife were already married some other guy before me, I might be willing to have him share her with me. Of course, he might also "accidentally" fall down the stairs and die afterwards too.

[_Yoda]

You know this might be random and a bit off topic but I wonder if it's seen as alright in polygamy for a husband to take on a number of wives would they see it as alright for a wife to take on a number of husbands?

I don't expect many serious responses, but I've just always wondered ;)

Sounds good to me. But none of the hotties on this board are willing to take me on as Number 2.

*sigh* How soon they forget... ;)