For Gaz..Struggling Believers' Polygamy Discussion cont.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Gaz...

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.

I'm not sure if you realize that two thousand years ago, slaves, servants, and concubines had to submit to their master/lords as well. Wives were not considered fully human and were treated as property. They were owned by men. Do you understand this?

And, are you seriously suggesting the father in the home is to act like the Savior? That his name is somehow connected with exaltation or salvation? Gaz, where do you get this stuff? Think about this for a second. Seriously. Why do you think the whole name thing is so important? I really don't get this at all. Who in heck cares about what someones name is when it comes to eternal life? Without going into details, in spite of the tokens and names used in the temple, there is NOTHING about this stuff... I think you are making it up to excuse or justify something.

And Gaz, one doesn't need to rule, preside, lead, or be the head of something to serve another. This is nonsense. And, it has nothing to do with a man gaining a harem.

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?

I see service coming from the most humble people on the earth. I do not see leaders as being more service oriented than the average salt of the earth type of people who continually serve their neighbors.

Surely you are not suggesting that the leaders/prophets/rulers have served more than their slaves and servants and women and children?

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.

This is such an odd concept I just don't even know what to think. The idea that somehow someones name increases someones exaltation, or that the more people who take a man's name increases his place or position or glory in the eternities, or that someones name determines their salvation, or that a woman must take upon her the name of a man in order to be saved, or that if a woman has her father's name that is not good enough, or whatever you are thinking here... it is all just really rather convoluted and extreme.

With all due respect Gaz, I don't think you can understand how bizarre this line of thinking is. I think if you could step back for a minute and look at what you are saying you may realize that this whole thing doesn't really make any sense.

Nevertheless, none of this has anything to do with a man having a harem. Unless of course you think heaven is about gaining women, possessions, property etc. etc. so a guy can gain a bigger reward. I understand Abraham thought this way (he was willing to kill his son so he could get a reward), and it is certainly true that the LDS church holds the reward of being a God and King and all that stuff, but seems to me truth should be more about releasing the ego not building it.

Isn't holiness more about letting go of the selfish need for glory, power, and rewards, and embracing love and goodness?

~dancer~

[_Gazelam]

Liz,

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."

I like what Elder Neal A. Maxwell had to say in regards to women.

".... And who came first to the empty tomb of the risen Christ? Two women. Who was the first mortal to see the resurrected Savior? Mary of Magdala. Special spiritual sensitivity keeps the women of God hoping long after many others have ceased.

the charity of good women is such that their "love makes no parade"; they are too busy serving to sit statusfully about, waiting to be offended. Like Mary, they ponder trustingly those puzzlements that disable others. God trusts women so much that he lets them bear and care for his spirit children.

In our modern kingdom, it is no accident that women were, through Relief Society, assigned compassionate service. So often the service of women seems instinctive, while that of some men seems more labored. It is precisely because the daughters of Zion are so uncommon that the adversary will not leave them alone.

We salute our sisters for the joy that is theirs as they rejoice in a baby's first smile and as they listen with eager ear to a child's first day at school, which bespeaks a special selflessness. women, more quickly than others, will understand the possible dangers when the word self is militantly placed before other words like fulfillment. They rock a sobbing child without wondering if today's world is passing them by, because they know they hold tommorow tightly in their arms.

So often our sisters comfort others when their own needs are greater than those being conforted. That quality is ike the generosity of Jesus on the cross. Empathy during agony is a portion of divinity.

When the real history of mankind is fully disclosed, will it feature the echoes of gunfire - or the shaping sound of lullabies? the great armistices made by military men - or the peacemaking of women in homes and in neighborhoods? Will what happened in cradles and kitchens prove to be more controlling than what happened in congress? When the surf of the centuries has made the great pyramids so much sand, the everlasting family will still be standing, because it is a celestial institution, formed outside telestial time. The women of God know this.

[_Gazelam]

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?

Try for a moment to imagine the intimacy shared by a group of people who communicate with one another in the same way the Holy Ghost communicates with us. This same group of people are perfect and Godlike, if not Gods themselves.

Lift your thoughts that high and you will see that there is no sadness there, and a greater intimacy than you can even imagine.

[_KimberlyAnn]

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.

You're more of a trooper than I am, Jersey Girl. I hope you're wearing your garden clogs while wading though the sanctimony on Gaz's posts.

KA

[_Brackite]

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. ;)

Hi There Liz3564,

There was a Discussion thread on the "FAIR"/MA&D Message Board, that was started By our Friend Beastie here, about two years ago, Where she Pointed out and documented that there are indeed more males than there are females who die in their infancy. Here is Part of Beastie's Opening Post, from that Discussion thread there:

My earlier posts:

QUOTE
The fact that the infant mortality rate has always been higher for male infants than female infants will result in millions more males in the CK than females.

Just look at the figures. The human population, added up from 1 AD (which, obviously, is an underestimation) is over 18.9 billion. (someone will probably need to check my horrible math)

http://desip.igc.org/populationmaps.html

I'm not sure what the overall comparison of male infant mortality to female infant mortality, but in well fed Canada it is a constant 1.3

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/rhs-ssg/factshts/mort_e.html

That seems like a conservative guess for the overal rate (I imagine it's probably higher overall).

Overall infant mortality rate varies quite a bit, but since the US is at 7.6 (per thousand) another conservative guess would be 8 per thousand. Unless my math is really messed up (always possible) that means there will be millions more males in the CK than females.

by the way, the actual figure of how many more infant males than infant females have died since 1 AD, based on the figures I used above, would be 35 million more males than females in the CK, based on infant deaths alone.

(according to my significant other, who is a heck of a lot better at math than I am... and even if the male infant mortality rate was the far more conservative 51 to 49 percent, that would still leave us with 6 million more males than females who went straight to the CK)

It seems to me that any argument that can be made to justify polygyny can also be made to justify polyandry.

I have been accused of engaging in "fallacious generalizations". I'm familiar with the fallacy of hasty generalizations, but that is based on a sample that is too small. I do not see how it applies here.

I have been told that the practices of China would more than compensate for this imbalance. My response is that I chose a very conservative estimate (the reality is that the infant mortality rate has been far higher than the 8 per thousand I chose. Obviously, the higher the base rate, the more the imbalance increases. Additionally, I was only counting from 1 AD, which should provide more than a comfortable cushion for anomalies like China.

I have been told that just because LDS believe infants are automatically guaranteed entrance to the CK, that doesn't mean they are guaranteed entrance into the highest degree of glory. What support is there for that assumption? I've never heard of such an idea before.


( Link: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofive ... 15423.html )

The Following is now Part From an Article, From Wikipedia:

Sex ratio is the ratio of males to females in a population. The primary sex ratio is the ratio at the time of conception, secondary sex ratio is the ratio at time of birth, and tertiary sex ratio is the ratio of mature organisms.[1].

The human sex ratio is of particular interest to anthropologists and demographers. In humans the secondary sex ratio is commonly assumed to be 105 boys to 100 girls (which sometimes is shortened to "a ratio of 105"). In human societies, however, sex ratios at birth or among infants may be considerably skewed by sex-selective abortion and infanticide.

In biology, sex ratio is defined as the proportion of males in the population.


( Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_selection )

[_Gazelam]

Dancer,

I have all this stuff in my head, and I am not eloquent. I apologize to you if I am not being clear on this. This is the simplist concept in the world to me, and it is the real beauty of the teachings of Christ.

Consider this for a moment. The Melchizedek Priesthood is not really called the Melchizedek Priesthood. Its actual name is The Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God. The name was changed to Melchizedek because he was perfect in the honoring and keeping of his priesthood.

As also, the Abrahamic Covenant was not first established with Abraham. It is called the Abrahamic covenant because Abraham was perfect in keeping the New and Everlasting Covenant, also known as marriage.

Both of these are associated and operate through Jesus Christ, but Melchizedek and Abraham Honored their offices to such a degree that their names became associated with Salvation.

Every priesthood holder is expected to do the same.

Melchizedek and Abraham are Gods because of the way they led their households and honored their covenants. Is what i have been saying more clear now?

[_harmony]

It is called the Abrahamic covenant because Abraham was perfect in keeping the New and Everlasting Covenant, also known as marriage.

He was so good at keeping his marriage covenant, he slept with his wife's maid, and then shoved her and her son out into the desert to die. Yeah, he was a stellar example of keeping the marriage covenant.

Assuming of course he actually existed.

[_Gazelam]

harmony,

Assuming of course he actually existed.

Has your faith slid so far that you are now calling Christ a liar? John 8:56-59

[_truth dancer]

Hi Gaz,

I totally understand what you are saying... you are clear and eloquent! :-) I get your theory but find it nonsensical. (smile)

And you haven't answered any of my questions about your theory.

Do you really think women must have the name of their husbands in order to be heaven (CKHL)?

What about all the societies for millennia where women do not take the last name of their husbands? If one's exaltation is based on a name, these women will not be sealed to their husbands.

What about my TBM friend who kept her maiden name... will she not be with her husband?

Where in the temple does it even remotely suggest a woman must have the name of her husband for exaltation?

Why do you think God cares at ALL about a name?

You said this 'name business' is the real beauty of Christ... really? Not love, not care, not kindness, not holiness, not peace, but the attachment to others because of their name? This is what I find odd Gaz.

See, in ancient, less enlightened days, men thought the more they owned the more they were blessed. They associated their power and ego building possessions with goodness and Godliness. The more land, animals, possessions, and women, the more they were blessed. You seem to be holding onto this idea. As if one's glory increases with more women and offspring so long as they are owned (have the same name).

Can you see that this idea is rather primitive? (As I said I do realize that the enticement that men will be Gods and Kings influences this idea).

I think the world over, people are realizing that having things does not bring true happiness, and that riches, women, fame and glory do not equate to joy, peace and deep love, (what I consider true holiness).

While possessions, power, might, and violence, once did indeed ensure greater survival, (and obviously to a much lesser degree still do today), again, humankind seems to have evolved to a new awareness that there is more to life than surviving. Many people would trade in all their glory for a sense of peace, or to live in joy.

Again, ruling, reigning, power, glory are not what life is about for most of civilized enlightened humankind. Most of us look upon these sorts of men with disgust, no?

The way I see it, religion should move humankind toward great good, kindness, love, peace and joy rather than keeping men in the grips of power and glory through dominating, owning, degrading women.

The very idea that a man's glory and power increase with the numbers of wives and offspring really is disturbing Gaz.

Seriously... :-(


~dancer~

[_Inconceivable]

If we have all eternity to create and populate worlds, and time is only measured to man, what difference does it make if the man has only one mistress or one thousand? Diversity?

Do our worlds need populations of billions?

Why do intelligences need a spiritual birth by an immortal couple in the first place? Or do they?

Are there zillions of intelligences waiting for only a righteous immortal couple to create them spiritually?

Do they choose their parents too like in Mormonism?

Will a time come when immortal baby machines become barren because there are no more intelligences?

Will spiritual procreation eventually turn to recreation as it is here when parents say they have enough children?

When is enough, well, enough?

Do immortal baby makers give birth to multiple spirit children (like invitro produces today) or do they pop out only one at a time?

What is the gestation period for the typical immortal woman's womb since time is only measured to man?

Do immortal women have to deal with monthly cycles? Is time then, measured only to woman?

Do immortal women get a break inbetween pregnancies or will they always look pregnant? (blah)

Will they have breasts? Is immortal milk necessary for spirit children? If yes, what constitutes a weaned spiritual child?

What is the purpose of an immortal man's nipples? Will they have a function we are yet aware of?

Can we count on our second spiritual son to become evil, be banished to our world(s) for opposition's sake and take 1/3 of our spiritual children with him? Never to return to us?

Shall we expect such devastatingly dismal numbers of our children returning to live eternally with us?

Anticipating such a failure, is there anything we can do more perfecter than the perfect Mormon God to stem the tide of dissent?

Will our firstborn spiritual son have supernatural powers that will enable him to be brutally sacrificed for all of our other children?

Will we physically create a son on our earth, anesthetize him and remove a rib to.. ? make a daughter? How will our first physical son have an extra rib to do this with?

Is there one big Terestrial, Telestrial and Outer Darkness for the entire universe or do we have to find a place for our own rotten children in our own solar systems?

Who are these aliens that visit earth in space ships? Why are they always abducting us to run such bizzarre tests?