For Gaz..Struggling Believers' Polygamy Discussion cont.

[_Jersey Girl]

Gaz,

You are going some place here that I can't identify with much less can I make sense of. Just sayin' and I'll continue reading your posts.

[_TygerFang]

Gaz, I'm seeing several flaws in your logic.

Who ever said that there's more women then men? I don't think I've ever heard that argument ever put into place before.

And there are many cultures, personalities, and mindsets. What makes one better than the others?

I think the most important of all is: If polygamy is so vital and important then why is it not being practiced today? In fact the church has been trying to get away from the practice since the early 1900's.

[_Gazelam]

Who ever said that there's more women then men? I don't think I've ever heard that argument ever put into place before.

I don't think that I've ever been in an Elders Quorum meeting or a church leadership meeting where the opinion wasn't expressed by someone about how inspireing and great the women of the church are. I've heard more testimonies than I can count about how a mans wife keeps him in line and on the straight and narrow and how grateful he was for her. I constantly hear how much more spiritual women are and how much more in tune.

And there are many cultures, personalities, and mindsets. What makes one better than the others?

The culture we are concerned with is one that we have all already been a part of. We all dwelt in the presence of God and angels in the pre-existence. (I hate that term, it should be refered to as pre-mortal) When we get someone to listen to the Holy Ghost and help them to be more in tune with the Spirit of Christ we are reintroducing them to a culture they are familiar with but have forgotten. If you believe that God is perfect, and you do otherwise you could not excercise faith in him, then you should realize that we are sharing a perfect culture in tellign them to follow the direction of the Holy Ghost.

think the most important of all is: If polygamy is so vital and important then why is it not being practiced today? In fact the church has been trying to get away from the practice since the early 1900's.

Polygamy is an extension of the marriage covenant, and is only one of many principles with a promise. In not living the principle we disconect ourselves from the blessings associated with it. The problem arose when we realized that the church woudl be destrroyed as a whole if we continued the practice, and all of the other covenants and ordinances would be lost if we held firm to that one.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?


The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.


. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .
I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

[_truth dancer]

Gaz... you seriously need to step back for a sec and really ponder what you are saying.

It really comes across as not only nonsensical but pretty bizarre to be honest. (sigh) I can't believe, in your heart of hearts you really believe some of what you seem to be saying.

You think God, the creator of the universe is going to embrace the same archaic, primitive, animalistic way of life instigated by ancient, nomadic, tribal, power hungry men? Really? You can't see how the ancient ways of life were about domination, subjugation, ownership, and abuse of women? Do you realize that in Abraham's day women were nothing but sub-human objects to screw so men could feel powerful? (similar to some men today). Do you realize that one's power was associated with ownership of things (land, possessions, animals, and women and children)?

You think this is Godly?

While certainly there are today those men who associate their power with wealth and sexual domination over women, most enlightened folks find joy in caring for others, making the world a better place, finding joy in the moment, knowing peace in their hearts, contributing something worthwhile to human existence, loving others and creating goodness in the world.

In other words... much of humankind is moving beyond the primitive mindset of Abraham. (yeah we have a way to go, still).

You think God created a plan where the "abomination" must continue for eternity?

Where women will have their hearts broken for eternity (the Book of Mormon says polygamy breaks the hearts of His daughters)?

You think God really cares about what name a person has? Really? Think about this Gaz.

That God created a system where a woman must be attached to a man in a sexual way (seems you are suggesting a father's name is not good enough, it has to be a husband's name), in order to be in heaven (CKHL)?

That God is reduced to following some bizarre rule where a woman must take a man's name or she can't be in heaven?

That one's husband's name is significant, nay, essential to a woman's exaltation?

You don't see that this is ridiculous, making God look like a primitive, ego maniacal, psychopath?

What sort of God is this Gaz?

See, this is an example of why the LDS church didn't work for me. The church (or some believers) comes up with these bizarre ideas that make absolutely NO sense whatsoever to justify unholy behavior. Some teachings are so removed from anything that would be Godly or enlightened, or lovely that it makes my head swirl. :-)

These teachings rather than fill one's hearts with wonder, awe, gratitude, peace, and love toward God and all things heavenly, reduce God to some cruel, limited, unenlightened, nasty primitive man.

Hard to believe in, let alone worship such a being.

:-(

~dancer~

[_harmony]

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.

You state this several times, with no reference. Where does it say Christ is "exalted" (please make sure that exact word is in the reference) when we, his brothers and sisters, are righteous?

[_harmony]

Gaz... you seriously need to step back for a sec and really ponder what you are saying.

It really comes across as not only nonsensical but pretty bizarre to be honest. (sigh) I can't believe, in your heart of hearts you really believe some of what you seem to be saying.

You think God, the creator of the universe is going to embrace the same archaic, primitive, animalistic way of life instigated by ancient, nomadic, tribal, power hungry men? Really? You can't see how the ancient ways of life were about domination, subjugation, ownership, and abuse of women? Do you realize that in Abraham's day women were nothing but sub-human objects to screw so men could feel powerful? (similar to some men today). Do you realize that one's power was associated with ownership of things (land, possessions, animals, and women and children)?

You think this is Godly?

While certainly there are today those men who associate their power with wealth and sexual domination over women, most enlightened folks find joy in caring for others, making the world a better place, finding joy in the moment, knowing peace in their hearts, contributing something worthwhile to human existence, loving others and creating goodness in the world.

In other words... much of humankind is moving beyond the primitive mindset of Abraham. (yeah we have a way to go, still).

You think God created a plan where the "abomination" must continue for eternity?

Where women will have their hearts broken for eternity (the Book of Mormon says polygamy breaks the hearts of His daughters)?

You think God really cares about what name a person has? Really? Think about this Gaz.

That God created a system where a woman must be attached to a man in a sexual way (seems you are suggesting a father's name is not good enough, it has to be a husband's name), in order to be in heaven (CKHL)?

That God is reduced to following some bizarre rule where a woman must take a man's name or she can't be in heaven?

That one's husband's name is significant, nay, essential to a woman's exaltation?

You don't see that this is ridiculous, making God look like a primitive, ego maniacal, psychopath?

What sort of God is this Gaz?

That would be the God of the Old Testament, the only place where polygamy is acceptable. Not commanded by God, of course, but accepted in the culture. This distinction is significant, since the only record we have is a book that rarely matches the reality of the archeological record. Polygamy was cultural, just as slavery, cannibalism, and freedom of religion are cultural.

Had Joseph been following Christ, instead of the ramblings of ancient men with their own agenda, the church would have had a completely different history and the doctrines would look a whole lot more like the New Testament than the Old Testament. But following Christ's example is not what Joseph was all about. Joseph used King David as his model, and that filter was what he saw through, darkly.

Joseph had one gift. But he wasn't content with one gift. So he threw off the prophetic mantle, and ventured out on his own, and we are now left with God-breathed doctrine co-mingled with the words of a very selfish manipulative deceiver. And our prophets today have no idea how to unwind the mess, nor do they try. They're content to allow the deceiver to continue to devalue God's plan, inserting his own. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[_Gazelam]

I should probably use more scriptures to be more clear on this. Jersey seems to agree with you that I'm being difficult to understand here.

Lets look at Ephesians chp.5:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

What is stated here is that the Father in the Home is to act as the Savior of allthat he places his name upon. Just as Christ suffered and sacrificed himself for our salvation, a husband is to do the same thing. Yes he is placed at the head of the home and the wife is supposed to submit to him, but that is so that he is allowed to be her servant and direct the home in the direction of salvation.

Leadership in the gospel entails servitude Dancer. Do you not see that? Did Christs washing of the Diciples feet not put the point across to you plainly enough?

As Christ is to the church, Husbands and Fathers are supposed to be to their wives and familys. And they will be held accountable for their stewardship.

Just as Christ is exalted by all those who take upon themselves his name and find salvation. So are Fathers and Husbands when all that bear their name find salvation by doing the things those Husbands and Fathers taught.

[_harmony]

I should probably use more scriptures to be more clear on this. Jersey seems to agree with you that I'm being difficult to understand here.

Lets look at Ephesians chp.5:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

What is stated here is that the Father in the Home is to act as the Savior of allthat he places his name upon. Just as Christ suffered and sacrificed himself for our salvation, a husband is to do the same thing. Yes he is placed at the head of the home and the wife is supposed to submit to him, but that is so that he is allowed to be her servant and direct the home in the direction of salvation.

Leadership in the gospel entails servitude Dancer. Do you not see that? Did Christs washing of the Diciples feet not put the point across to you plainly enough?

As Christ is to the church, Husbands and Fathers are supposed to be to their wives and familys. And they will be held accountable for their stewardship.

Just as Christ is exalted by all those who take upon themselves his name and find salvation. So are Fathers and Husbands when all that bear their name find salvation by doing the things those Husbands and Fathers taught.

I've read and reread that scripture several times, but I'm still not seeing "home" in it. Nor do I see "head of the home" in it. Nor do I see the word "father" in any context in it.

I think you interpret too freely that which you wish supported your point of view.

That passage isn't talking about home or fathers or head of household. It's talking about the relationship of marriage, as it was constituted in Paul's time, which may have little to do with marriage now. And nowhere does it mention polygamy at all. Interesting that we have no record that Paul was married, although we certainly know he didn't like women much at all.

[_Brackite]

Perhaps your attitude will change when you see how many more women there are than men in the celestial kingdom.

Hello Gazelam,

How in the world are there going to be many more women than there are men in the Celestial Kingdom, when there are 105 boys born for every 100 girls worldwide?
The Following is From About.com:

How many boys are born for every 100 girls?

There are 105 boy babies born for ever 100 girl babies worldwide but scientists haven't determined why this sex ratio is so.


( Link: http://geography.about.com/library/faq/ ... eratio.htm )

[_Yoda]

Hello Gazelam,

How in the world are there going to be many more women than there are men in the Celestial Kingdom, when there are 105 boys born for every 100 girls worldwide?

This is something I have always taken issue with as well. Beastie actually started a very extensive thread which included various studies a couple of years ago on FAIR/MAD. I believe that was when she was banned by Juliann. ;)

Also, I have two doctrinal follow-up questions, Gaz:

1. Please provide a scriptural or doctrinal reference where it states that the reason for celestial plural marriage has to do with there being more righteous women than men eligible for the Celestial Kingdom. I was under the impression that this was more an "educated guess."

2. If it is, indeed the case, that women are more righteous than men, then why would the Lord punish women for their righteousness by subjecting them to a situation which has mass potential to provide eternal sadness for them?

You mentioned earlier that in the next life, we won't have the sexual hang-ups we have here. OK, I'll buy that. But what goes on in a marriage has to do with a lot more than sex. The emotional intimacy that is involved with partnering and parenting just can't be done adequately on more than a one-on-one basis. All of the perimeters change.

I suppose that for some, it might work. I just don't see that kind of situation working for me. And I don't think that I should be penalized or my husband should be penalized because neither one of us could be eternally happy in a plural marriage situation. Again, my issue with plural marriage is that I don't think that anyone should be required to live it to receive the fullness of celestial blessings. That is what I take issue with. It just feels completely wrong. And this is something I have spent YEARS praying about.

I have always found the concept of being married for time and all eternity to my husband a beautiful thing. That is not what I have issue with. But I could not accept another woman being brought into the relationship. The other big argument that I have heard is, "Well, you're the first wife, so you have final say on who comes into the relationship and what happens." OK...let's say I WAS able to accept it. How fair would that be to whoever was the second wife?