Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

[Baurak Ale]

You set up a false dichotomy at almost every turn here. See my responses below:

Knowing how the Lord thought about Emma being “an elect lady” and how Brigham thought about Emma being the “most wicked person on earth”. Any one else find it just a little curious that in D&C 132 which entered the scene 8 years after Joseph’s death —-that straight from Brigham’s safe keeping — the members in SLC learned that Emma is to be destroyed / dammed if she does not get in line with the new order of celestial marriage? Curious expressions, right?

God does not change in his attributes but as men change his opinion of them is bound to reflect their use of agency good or bad. When Hyrum was called to become a counselor to Joseph the Lord said that he would "be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery" (D&C 124:95). There are other examples in the D&C of people who at one time had the favor of God and were called great things by him but who by and by failed to live up that calling and the Lord called them "fallen" (see D&C 118:6). That Emma could have at one time been an 'elect lady' and later "money had become her God" is no surprise to those familiar with human nature, something Joseph learned by "sad experience" (D&C 121:39). That anyone, a wife not excepting, should be damned for not obeying a command of the Lord should not be surprising in the least.

Also, how bout that David and Solomon not being sanctioned to take on wives which we learn this in the BoM but in “132” they were given the green light to practice polygamy.

The Bible does not say that they were not sanctioned to take on wives. If it does then the prophet Nathan was sorely misinformed when he promised David more wives if he had continued in righteousness. From the perspective of the prophets during Old Testament, D&C 132 is in perfect accord with their understanding, having God's green light on polygamy. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi gave his children a commandment not to practice polygamy and yet Jacob had to contend with them on the subject. Why? Because they were justifying immorality by way of the scriptures. Jacob says the Lord viewed David and Solomon's wives as an abomination, but he doesn't specify which wives, for, according to the Bible, many were good in God's sight. That the principle itself cannot be categorically rejected as an abomination is evident in verse 30 where God says he himself—despite being holy—may require it! (omitting the fact that it is part and parcel of the Melchizedek fulness). As Orson Pratt once observed:

JOD 13:183

Because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's domestic relations. The same God that commanded one branch of the House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, 'For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;' that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I gave unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by Him."

And of course the 2 different ways in which polygamy is authorized one way contained within BoM and one entirely different way found in 132?

Assuming that here you actually refer to Jacob 2:30 ("I will command my people"), then what is different from D&C 132, where it says, "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it" (D&C 132:34 – 35)?

Perhaps you are scripturally uninformed, in which case I present the above verses to clarify the matter for you. In both cases marriage is a commandment from God (this is true of monogamy too).

it is more than safe to say, I think we all could agree, If God is the same yesterday today and forever either 132 has been edited / changed and is wrong or the Book of Mormon was not translated correctly and is wrong —-Meaning either 132 is the mind and will of the Lord or the BoM is the mind and will of the Lord.

I don't agree at all. I see the same God throughout both passages, although the Nephite record appears to purposefully omit the rightness of many of David and Solomon's wives and concubines, but this omission makes sense given the actual whoredoms of the Nephite men. That the Lord uses particular wording at times and places and then reveals the true meaning of things later is not unscriptural at all (see D&C 19:4 – 12).

I believe the BoM is with out wiggle room with explaining doctrine with what it is and what it is not. Polygamy being no exception. either the Book contains the fullness which will produce instructions for exaltation / proper behavior or it does not. Jesus said it contains the fullness. I connect dots differently than you based on my belief in the Lords reassurance about the the fullness of the Gospel contained in it.

Fullness of the gospel is contained in a few verses throughout the Book of Mormon wherein the need for faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost are outlined. That is the gospel. That is preserved in the Book of Mormon in full in many places.

The Book of Mormon, if taken as every little opinion recorded in it is part of the fullness of the gospel, also includes as the gospel the trinity, wine in the sacrament, and capital punishment. I personally don’t preclude God from clarifying doctrinal truths through the Holy Ghost after the fact.

[Sarah]

Yes, you are right to suggest that I did ramble on, and I didn't mean to single you out with the comparison to sex, or even to marriage. I said "the husband" as in men in general, not you specifically. I made the comparison in response to your own accusation and judgement call that you made to NeveR about her comment being "telling," judging her (and others) for having concerns about a man having multiple sexual partners/spouses. You judged her no more than I judged you, friend. You're judging those who reject your paradigm of polygamy, for having an incorrect view of sex, when you don't know how they really feel. I pointed out how people's concerns should be validated, based off of what you and your wife's concerns are - that you will not be together in bed every night. Don't you think that is a valid concern for a wife, that she will be alone every night that you are with wife number 2, 3 or 4? You came at NeveR with the assumption that she is only thinking carnally about sex, when we all know there is a lot more to it than that.

NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.

I think whatever you and your wife have going in your own business, and I'm sure you are both sincere. I was just giving my commentary for this statement of yours:

"I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are."

You volunteered the information about you and your wife's relationship, and I observed that you both think not sleeping together would be hard, and I observed that it would be harder for your wife than for you, which you seem not to agree with.

Thank you for explaining your position clearly. I will defend myself by saying that I have considered amply how that her sacrifice is different than mine in that regard; that it would be harder, however, is difficult to quantify when the pain we have discussed is not loneliness so much as it is physically being apart from each other. Even if I was with another wife, I would not be with her.

But my wife has said she’d sacrifice in that way to provide companionship and progeny to a worthy sister. She is motivated by the charity she has toward other women. (Conversely there is no need for such charity toward men as the righteous women will always outnumber them.)

Perhaps we’d try a William Clayton arrangement and all sleep in one bed!

No need for charity for men. Hmm, that is a problem. There are a lot of single men out there. Maybe they could use some help. Maybe if you helped them out to earn a living, or shared your wealth, they could attract a wife. Some men will never attract a wife because of disability. Wouldn't it be nice if we gave these men a chance to have a companion or children?

Even if the women outnumbered men, you could still provide your wives with additional companions if they were free to be with other married men who were your peers, while you were with other wives. Why restrict them from being sealed to whomever they want to be sealed to. There will always be men and women who want some alone time (like me). So for those who want to be with someone, let them be free to be with whichever husband they choose. And there are a lot of dead soldiers up in heaven who never married I bet, who need saving. A lot of single Chinese guys as well? Care to help them out?

Do you really think there will be at least twice as many women in the CK? To me this is saying God designed men to fail and women to succeed, which seems like a ridiculous idea. Christ has died to save these men if they repent, and most of them will.

[Baurak Ale]

That was a bit rambling and incoherent relative to my preceding comments, and it sounded a bit defensive at the end. I do not feel comfortable with the judgements you seem to be making on me and my wife. You don’t know us at all. To say that I have become entitled and selfish in our relationship, even if limited only to my views on plural marriage, is an unfair and mean thing to read into somebody. And then to say that our sex act mirrors this? It’s a bit bizarre (and again shows that you really don’t know us).

Maybe you didn’t mean to apply those things to me, per se, but it sure seemed to read that way—as much of it as I could follow at least.

Yes, you are right to suggest that I did ramble on, and I didn't mean to single you out with the comparison to sex, or even to marriage. I said "the husband" as in men in general, not you specifically. I made the comparison in response to your own accusation and judgement call that you made to NeveR about her comment being "telling," judging her (and others) for having concerns about a man having multiple sexual partners/spouses. You judged her no more than I judged you, friend. You're judging those who reject your paradigm of polygamy, for having an incorrect view of sex, when you don't know how they really feel. I pointed out how people's concerns should be validated, based off of what you and your wife's concerns are - that you will not be together in bed every night. Don't you think that is a valid concern for a wife, that she will be alone every night that you are with wife number 2, 3 or 4? You came at NeveR with the assumption that she is only thinking carnally about sex, when we all know there is a lot more to it than that.

NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.

I would also consider desiring more wives as companions - not for the sex of course - but for companionship and love and children, to be a base desire if you are desiring the privilege while not considering how your wives might also desire companionship, love and children. Did you read the PM I sent you? Anytime we become a taker and not a giver in the same sense, we are acting selfishly.

I fully disagree with your premise. Men and women are complimentary, a basic fact which you refuse to accept. Why are you not upset that God didn’t give men and women both sets of sexual organs so they could both experience giving and receiving in the biological act of procreation? It is because you know that men and women are different, and therefore the nature of giving and receiving is different between them.

You equate having wives and children as a base desire if there aren’t other men to marry. Well then you will never see the selfless sacrifices of the man who engages in polygamy—worlds without end—because you refuse to accept the basic numbers argument that demonstrates the imbalance between righteous men and women that justifies polygamy from a simple mathematical standpoint.

Until you accept these foundational elements, the concept that a righteous man can only be a giver when he is a taker will forever elude you.

[diligently seeking]

You set up a false dichotomy at almost every turn here. See my responses below:

Knowing how the Lord thought about Emma being “an elect lady” and how Brigham thought about Emma being the “most wicked person on earth”. Any one else find it just a little curious that in D&C 132 which entered the scene 8 years after Joseph’s death —-that straight from Brigham’s safe keeping — the members in SLC learned that Emma is to be destroyed / dammed if she does not get in line with the new order of celestial marriage? Curious expressions, right?

God does not change in his attributes but as men change his opinion of them is bound to reflect their use of agency good or bad. When Hyrum was called to become a counselor to Joseph the Lord said that he would "be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery" (D&C 124:95). There are other examples in the D&C of people who at one time had the favor of God and were called great things by him but who by and by failed to live up that calling and the Lord called them "fallen" (see D&C 118:6). That Emma could have at one time been an 'elect lady' and later "money had become her God" is no surprise to those familiar with human nature, something Joseph learned by "sad experience" (D&C 121:39). That anyone, a wife not excepting, should be damned for not obeying a command of the Lord should not be surprising in the least.

Also, how bout that David and Solomon not being sanctioned to take on wives which we learn this in the BoM but in “132” they were given the green light to practice polygamy.

The Bible does not say that they were not sanctioned to take on wives. If it does then the prophet Nathan was sorely misinformed when he promised David more wives if he had continued in righteousness. From the perspective of the prophets during Old Testament, D&C 132 is in perfect accord with their understanding, having God's green light on polygamy. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi gave his children a commandment not to practice polygamy and yet Jacob had to contend with them on the subject. Why? Because they were justifying immorality by way of the scriptures. Jacob says the Lord viewed David and Solomon's wives as an abomination, but he doesn't specify which wives, for, according to the Bible, many were good in God's sight. That the principle itself cannot be categorically rejected as an abomination is evident in verse 30 where God says he himself—despite being holy—may require it! (omitting the fact that it is part and parcel of the Melchizedek fulness). As Orson Pratt once observed:

JOD 13:183


And of course the 2 different ways in which polygamy is authorized one way contained within BoM and one entirely different way found in 132?

Assuming that here you actually refer to Jacob 2:30 ("I will command my people"), then what is different from D&C 132, where it says, "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it" (D&C 132:34 – 35)?

Perhaps you are scripturally uninformed, in which case I present the above verses to clarify the matter for you. In both cases marriage is a commandment from God (this is true of monogamy too).

it is more than safe to say, I think we all could agree, If God is the same yesterday today and forever either 132 has been edited / changed and is wrong or the Book of Mormon was not translated correctly and is wrong —-Meaning either 132 is the mind and will of the Lord or the BoM is the mind and will of the Lord.

I don't agree at all. I see the same God throughout both passages, although the Nephite record appears to purposefully omit the rightness of many of David and Solomon's wives and concubines, but this omission makes sense given the actual whoredoms of the Nephite men. That the Lord uses particular wording at times and places and then reveals the true meaning of things later is not unscriptural at all (see D&C 19:4 – 12).

I believe the BoM is with out wiggle room with explaining doctrine with what it is and what it is not. Polygamy being no exception. either the Book contains the fullness which will produce instructions for exaltation / proper behavior or it does not. Jesus said it contains the fullness. I connect dots differently than you based on my belief in the Lords reassurance about the the fullness of the Gospel contained in it.

Fullness of the gospel is contained in a few verses throughout the Book of Mormon wherein the need for faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost are outlined. That is the gospel. That is preserved in the Book of Mormon in full in many places.

The Book of Mormon, if taken as every little opinion recorded in it is part of the fullness of the gospel, also includes as the gospel the trinity, wine in the sacrament, and capital punishment. I personally don’t preclude God from clarifying doctrinal truths through the Holy Ghost after the fact.

Eternal life / being Sealed up “a greater portion of his word essential mysteries revealed —- Fullness of the gospel. And, a clear understanding with out wiggle room on his unchanging view on polygamy in this telestial experience .

[Baurak Ale]

NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.

I think whatever you and your wife have going in your own business, and I'm sure you are both sincere. I was just giving my commentary for this statement of yours:

"I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are."

You volunteered the information about you and your wife's relationship, and I observed that you both think not sleeping together would be hard, and I observed that it would be harder for your wife than for you, which you seem not to agree with.

Thank you for explaining your position clearly. I will defend myself by saying that I have considered amply how that her sacrifice is different than mine in that regard; that it would be harder, however, is difficult to quantify when the pain we have discussed is not loneliness so much as it is physically being apart from each other. Even if I was with another wife, I would not be with her.

But my wife has said she’d sacrifice in that way to provide companionship and progeny to a worthy sister. She is motivated by the charity she has toward other women. (Conversely there is no need for such charity toward men as the righteous women will always outnumber them.)

Perhaps we’d try a William Clayton arrangement and all sleep in one bed!

No need for charity for men. Hmm, that is a problem. There are a lot of single men out there. Maybe they could use some help. Maybe if you helped them out to earn a living, or shared your wealth, they could attract a wife. Some men will never attract a wife because of disability. Wouldn't it be nice if we gave these men a chance to have a companion or children?

Even if the women outnumbered men, you could still provide your wives with additional companions if they were free to be with other married men who were your peers, while you were with other wives. Why restrict them from being sealed to whomever they want to be sealed to. There will always be men and women who want some alone time (like me). So for those who want to be with someone, let them be free to be with whichever husband they choose. And there are a lot of dead soldiers up in heaven who never married I bet, who need saving. A lot of single Chinese guys as well? Care to help them out?

Do you really think there will be at least twice as many women in the CK? To me this is saying God designed men to fail and women to succeed, which seems like a ridiculous idea. Christ has died to save these men if they repent, and most of them will.

Many if not most married people in the church will not be exalted. Many elders will wake up in the resurrection and be bitterly disappointed. Joseph Smith said this himself. Furthermore, the heathen are not exalted without knowledge and the ordinances and they are blinded by the traditions of their fathers. If so few of the church will be exalted and retain their wives, why would the many dead heathen be a concern for exaltation? They will be saved by Christ for the knew no law, but they will not be exalted without knowledge. All the dead soldiers and Chinese men you speak of are not going on to marriage hereafter for they neither marry nor are given in marriage hereafter. This is basic stuff.

Men and women will not be judged equally by God. Judgement will be upon his sons but mercy upon his daughters. The man is made the head and becomes as the servant given talents; when he is unworthy his headship is taken from him and the body is saved through another. I must have explained this at least a dozen times on this forum. This is why there will be polygyny in heaven.

[Baurak Ale]

You set up a false dichotomy at almost every turn here. See my responses below:

I believe the BoM is with out wiggle room with explaining doctrine with what it is and what it is not. Polygamy being no exception. either the Book contains the fullness which will produce instructions for exaltation / proper behavior or it does not. Jesus said it contains the fullness. I connect dots differently than you based on my belief in the Lords reassurance about the the fullness of the Gospel contained in it.

Fullness of the gospel is contained in a few verses throughout the Book of Mormon wherein the need for faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost are outlined. That is the gospel. That is preserved in the Book of Mormon in full in many places.

The Book of Mormon, if taken as every little opinion recorded in it is part of the fullness of the gospel, also includes as the gospel the trinity, wine in the sacrament, and capital punishment. I personally don’t preclude God from clarifying doctrinal truths through the Holy Ghost after the fact.

Eternal life / being Sealed up “a greater portion of his word essential mysteries revealed —- Fullness of the gospel. And, a clear understanding with out wiggle room on his unchanging view on polygamy in this telestial experience .

You will have to rewrite that because I cannot figure out what you're trying to say. If you're typing on your phone I'd suggest waiting until you're on a computer to respond. Sorry, mate.

[diligently seeking]

I believe the BoM is with out wiggle room with explaining doctrine with what it is and what it is not. Polygamy being no exception. either the Book contains the fullness which will produce instructions for exaltation / proper behavior or it does not. Jesus said it contains the fullness. I connect dots differently than you based on my belief in the Lords reassurance about the the fullness of the Gospel contained in it.

Fullness of the gospel is contained in a few verses throughout the Book of Mormon wherein the need for faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost are outlined. That is the gospel. That is preserved in the Book of Mormon in full in many places.

The Book of Mormon, if taken as every little opinion recorded in it is part of the fullness of the gospel, also includes as the gospel the trinity, wine in the sacrament, and capital punishment. I personally don’t preclude God from clarifying doctrinal truths through the Holy Ghost after the fact.

Eternal life / being Sealed up “a greater portion of his word essential mysteries revealed —- Fullness of the gospel. And, a clear understanding with out wiggle room on his unchanging view on polygamy in this telestial experience .

You will have to rewrite that because I cannot figure out what you're trying to say. If you're typing on your phone I'd suggest waiting until you're on a computer to respond. Sorry, mate.

Chuckle, you are smart fella. Show some charity. I think you can make sense of it. Or you can choose to let my lack writing skills sift you? Read your message before the confusing post of mine for more clear context.

[Sarah]

Yes, you are right to suggest that I did ramble on, and I didn't mean to single you out with the comparison to sex, or even to marriage. I said "the husband" as in men in general, not you specifically. I made the comparison in response to your own accusation and judgement call that you made to NeveR about her comment being "telling," judging her (and others) for having concerns about a man having multiple sexual partners/spouses. You judged her no more than I judged you, friend. You're judging those who reject your paradigm of polygamy, for having an incorrect view of sex, when you don't know how they really feel. I pointed out how people's concerns should be validated, based off of what you and your wife's concerns are - that you will not be together in bed every night. Don't you think that is a valid concern for a wife, that she will be alone every night that you are with wife number 2, 3 or 4? You came at NeveR with the assumption that she is only thinking carnally about sex, when we all know there is a lot more to it than that.

NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.

I would also consider desiring more wives as companions - not for the sex of course - but for companionship and love and children, to be a base desire if you are desiring the privilege while not considering how your wives might also desire companionship, love and children. Did you read the PM I sent you? Anytime we become a taker and not a giver in the same sense, we are acting selfishly.

I fully disagree with your premise. Men and women are complimentary, a basic fact which you refuse to accept. Why are you not upset that God didn’t give men and women both sets of sexual organs so they could both experience giving and receiving in the biological act of procreation? It is because you know that men and women are different, and therefore the nature of giving and receiving is different between them.

You equate having wives and children as a base desire if there aren’t other men to marry. Well then you will never see the selfless sacrifices of the man who engages in polygamy—worlds without end—because you refuse to accept the basic numbers argument that demonstrates the imbalance between righteous men and women that justifies polygamy from a simple mathematical standpoint.

Until you accept these foundational elements, the concept that a righteous man can only be a giver when he is a taker will forever elude you.

I recognize that a man with many wives must also be a giver of himself in so many ways, and I think that's great if he tries to give, give, give, all day long to his many wives and children. That system has been tried and most often fails. It results in many wives who must work outside the home, wives who don't conceive as much as they could if they were monogamous, wives and children only seeing their husband or dad a few minutes each month, etc. Can that same man also humble himself enough to recognize that he can only give so much by himself? Can he be humble enough to recognize that his dependents could receive more than just what he can give them alone? He needs to be humble enough to seek help from others. Other men working together would accomplish much more than one man trying to get his wives to do all the work that needs to be done.

[Baurak Ale]

Fullness of the gospel is contained in a few verses throughout the Book of Mormon wherein the need for faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost are outlined. That is the gospel. That is preserved in the Book of Mormon in full in many places.

The Book of Mormon, if taken as every little opinion recorded in it is part of the fullness of the gospel, also includes as the gospel the trinity, wine in the sacrament, and capital punishment. I personally don’t preclude God from clarifying doctrinal truths through the Holy Ghost after the fact.

Eternal life / being Sealed up “a greater portion of his word essential mysteries revealed —- Fullness of the gospel. And, a clear understanding with out wiggle room on his unchanging view on polygamy in this telestial experience .

You will have to rewrite that because I cannot figure out what you're trying to say. If you're typing on your phone I'd suggest waiting until you're on a computer to respond. Sorry, mate.

Chuckle, you are smart fella. Show some charity. I think you can make sense of it. Or you can choose to let my lack writing skills sift you? Read your message before the confusing post of mine for more clear context.

I was going for charity before. I actually don't understand what you were trying to say. You are missing some key sentence components that make it impossible for me to know what you are trying to say for sure. I am not trying to be rude.

[Sarah]

I think whatever you and your wife have going in your own business, and I'm sure you are both sincere. I was just giving my commentary for this statement of yours:

"I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are."

You volunteered the information about you and your wife's relationship, and I observed that you both think not sleeping together would be hard, and I observed that it would be harder for your wife than for you, which you seem not to agree with.

Thank you for explaining your position clearly. I will defend myself by saying that I have considered amply how that her sacrifice is different than mine in that regard; that it would be harder, however, is difficult to quantify when the pain we have discussed is not loneliness so much as it is physically being apart from each other. Even if I was with another wife, I would not be with her.

But my wife has said she’d sacrifice in that way to provide companionship and progeny to a worthy sister. She is motivated by the charity she has toward other women. (Conversely there is no need for such charity toward men as the righteous women will always outnumber them.)

Perhaps we’d try a William Clayton arrangement and all sleep in one bed!

No need for charity for men. Hmm, that is a problem. There are a lot of single men out there. Maybe they could use some help. Maybe if you helped them out to earn a living, or shared your wealth, they could attract a wife. Some men will never attract a wife because of disability. Wouldn't it be nice if we gave these men a chance to have a companion or children?

Even if the women outnumbered men, you could still provide your wives with additional companions if they were free to be with other married men who were your peers, while you were with other wives. Why restrict them from being sealed to whomever they want to be sealed to. There will always be men and women who want some alone time (like me). So for those who want to be with someone, let them be free to be with whichever husband they choose. And there are a lot of dead soldiers up in heaven who never married I bet, who need saving. A lot of single Chinese guys as well? Care to help them out?

Do you really think there will be at least twice as many women in the CK? To me this is saying God designed men to fail and women to succeed, which seems like a ridiculous idea. Christ has died to save these men if they repent, and most of them will.

Many if not most married people in the church will not be exalted. Many elders will wake up in the resurrection and be bitterly disappointed. Joseph Smith said this himself. Furthermore, the heathen are not exalted without knowledge and the ordinances and they are blinded by the traditions of their fathers. If so few of the church will be exalted and retain their wives, why would the many dead heathen be a concern for exaltation? They will be saved by Christ for the knew no law, but they will not be exalted without knowledge. All the dead soldiers and Chinese men you speak of are not going on to marriage hereafter for they neither marry nor are given in marriage hereafter. This is basic stuff.

Men and women will not be judged equally by God. Judgement will be upon his sons but mercy upon his daughters. The man is made the head and becomes as the servant given talents; when he is unworthy his headship is taken from him and the body is saved through another. I must have explained this at least a dozen times on this forum. This is why there will be polygyny in heaven.

Right, you've explained the concept dozens of times and I've pointed out the the Lord expects you to cast your talents into the storehouse that all may be made equal. You don't horde your talents to yourself. They belong to the Lord, and he is able to give to whomever he wants to give them to.

I agree, that a large portion of people will not qualify for eternal blessings initially, but we have a thousand years to get them up to speed while they repent of their sins. There are also lots of women who appear to be more righteous, but they can be just as self centered as any man. I think your assumption about the CK is wrong when it comes to numbers of each gender. Like I said, you believe that God gave men more weaknesses that cause him to fail eternally. I guess that would have to mean that the "greater intelligence" fell on woman's side

[Baurak Ale]

NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.

I would also consider desiring more wives as companions - not for the sex of course - but for companionship and love and children, to be a base desire if you are desiring the privilege while not considering how your wives might also desire companionship, love and children. Did you read the PM I sent you? Anytime we become a taker and not a giver in the same sense, we are acting selfishly.

I fully disagree with your premise. Men and women are complimentary, a basic fact which you refuse to accept. Why are you not upset that God didn’t give men and women both sets of sexual organs so they could both experience giving and receiving in the biological act of procreation? It is because you know that men and women are different, and therefore the nature of giving and receiving is different between them.

You equate having wives and children as a base desire if there aren’t other men to marry. Well then you will never see the selfless sacrifices of the man who engages in polygamy—worlds without end—because you refuse to accept the basic numbers argument that demonstrates the imbalance between righteous men and women that justifies polygamy from a simple mathematical standpoint.

Until you accept these foundational elements, the concept that a righteous man can only be a giver when he is a taker will forever elude you.

I recognize that a man with many wives must also be a giver of himself in so many ways, and I think that's great if he tries to give, give, give, all day long to his many wives and children. That system has been tried and most often fails. It results in many wives who must work outside the home, wives who don't conceive as much as they could if they were monogamous, wives and children only seeing their husband or dad a few minutes each month, etc. Can that same man also humble himself enough to recognize that he can only give so much by himself? Can he be humble enough to recognize that his dependents could receive more than just what he can give them alone? He needs to be humble enough to seek help from others. Other men working together would accomplish much more than one man trying to get his wives to do all the work that needs to be done.

What spare head of another set of wives and children could there be to help out with another man's family? Your mental conception would require a man to not have a family to tend to already so he could be available to help out elsewhere. Even if there was one woman for every man in the Celestial Kingdom, men having spare time would be neglecting what he already has. That OR you're proposing a constant wife swapping scheme. Under a situation with more women than men, where polygyny makes sense, then the only spare men must be slaves without other responsibilities. It is a mass of confusion!

You say that a man must be humble to realize he must give more of himself for his children. Is it a greater mark of humility to have fewer children with one wife then? If he had more than one he would be selfishly cutting the child's time in half. This of course is not an issue in the economy of heaven.

Polygyny 100% requires a woman to be far more independent and able to function alone as a priestess and queenly matriarch than monogamy. The management of her children becomes a supreme task as their father is overseeing a greater population. Hence the single angels who assist and serve in the mansions above.

I had a dream of this once and the sheer army of souls that will be assembled to minister to the needs of the royal families of heaven eliminates concerns of a man thinking he has to personally cuddle and coddle each of his offspring as much as possible in order to be a good father. It is myopic of any of us to apply our own ideals of fatherhood to our Father in Heaven.

[Baurak Ale]

Thank you for explaining your position clearly. I will defend myself by saying that I have considered amply how that her sacrifice is different than mine in that regard; that it would be harder, however, is difficult to quantify when the pain we have discussed is not loneliness so much as it is physically being apart from each other. Even if I was with another wife, I would not be with her.

But my wife has said she’d sacrifice in that way to provide companionship and progeny to a worthy sister. She is motivated by the charity she has toward other women. (Conversely there is no need for such charity toward men as the righteous women will always outnumber them.)

Perhaps we’d try a William Clayton arrangement and all sleep in one bed!

No need for charity for men. Hmm, that is a problem. There are a lot of single men out there. Maybe they could use some help. Maybe if you helped them out to earn a living, or shared your wealth, they could attract a wife. Some men will never attract a wife because of disability. Wouldn't it be nice if we gave these men a chance to have a companion or children?

Even if the women outnumbered men, you could still provide your wives with additional companions if they were free to be with other married men who were your peers, while you were with other wives. Why restrict them from being sealed to whomever they want to be sealed to. There will always be men and women who want some alone time (like me). So for those who want to be with someone, let them be free to be with whichever husband they choose. And there are a lot of dead soldiers up in heaven who never married I bet, who need saving. A lot of single Chinese guys as well? Care to help them out?

Do you really think there will be at least twice as many women in the CK? To me this is saying God designed men to fail and women to succeed, which seems like a ridiculous idea. Christ has died to save these men if they repent, and most of them will.

Many if not most married people in the church will not be exalted. Many elders will wake up in the resurrection and be bitterly disappointed. Joseph Smith said this himself. Furthermore, the heathen are not exalted without knowledge and the ordinances and they are blinded by the traditions of their fathers. If so few of the church will be exalted and retain their wives, why would the many dead heathen be a concern for exaltation? They will be saved by Christ for the knew no law, but they will not be exalted without knowledge. All the dead soldiers and Chinese men you speak of are not going on to marriage hereafter for they neither marry nor are given in marriage hereafter. This is basic stuff.

Men and women will not be judged equally by God. Judgement will be upon his sons but mercy upon his daughters. The man is made the head and becomes as the servant given talents; when he is unworthy his headship is taken from him and the body is saved through another. I must have explained this at least a dozen times on this forum. This is why there will be polygyny in heaven.

Right, you've explained the concept dozens of times and I've pointed out the the Lord expects you to cast your talents into the storehouse that all may be made equal. You don't horde your talents to yourself. They belong to the Lord, and he is able to give to whomever he wants to give them to.

I agree, that a large portion of people will not qualify for eternal blessings initially, but we have a thousand years to get them up to speed while they repent of their sins. There are also lots of women who appear to be more righteous, but they can be just as self centered as any man. I think your assumption about the CK is wrong when it comes to numbers of each gender. Like I said, you believe that God gave men more weaknesses that cause him to fail eternally. I guess that would have to mean that the "greater intelligence" fell on woman's side

He gave men weightier responsibilities as the head, not greater weaknesses as his sons.

[Sarah]

I would also consider desiring more wives as companions - not for the sex of course - but for companionship and love and children, to be a base desire if you are desiring the privilege while not considering how your wives might also desire companionship, love and children. Did you read the PM I sent you? Anytime we become a taker and not a giver in the same sense, we are acting selfishly.

I fully disagree with your premise. Men and women are complimentary, a basic fact which you refuse to accept. Why are you not upset that God didn’t give men and women both sets of sexual organs so they could both experience giving and receiving in the biological act of procreation? It is because you know that men and women are different, and therefore the nature of giving and receiving is different between them.

You equate having wives and children as a base desire if there aren’t other men to marry. Well then you will never see the selfless sacrifices of the man who engages in polygamy—worlds without end—because you refuse to accept the basic numbers argument that demonstrates the imbalance between righteous men and women that justifies polygamy from a simple mathematical standpoint.

Until you accept these foundational elements, the concept that a righteous man can only be a giver when he is a taker will forever elude you.

I recognize that a man with many wives must also be a giver of himself in so many ways, and I think that's great if he tries to give, give, give, all day long to his many wives and children. That system has been tried and most often fails. It results in many wives who must work outside the home, wives who don't conceive as much as they could if they were monogamous, wives and children only seeing their husband or dad a few minutes each month, etc. Can that same man also humble himself enough to recognize that he can only give so much by himself? Can he be humble enough to recognize that his dependents could receive more than just what he can give them alone? He needs to be humble enough to seek help from others. Other men working together would accomplish much more than one man trying to get his wives to do all the work that needs to be done.

What spare head of another set of wives and children could there be to help out with another man's family? Your mental conception would require a man to not have a family to tend to already so he could be available to help out elsewhere. Even if there was one woman for every man in the Celestial Kingdom, men having spare time would be neglecting what he already has. That OR you're proposing a constant wife swapping scheme. Under a situation with more women than men, where polygyny makes sense, then the only spare men must be slaves without other responsibilities. It is a mass of confusion!

You say that a man must be humble to realize he must give more of himself for his children. Is it a greater mark of humility to have fewer children with one wife then? If he had more than one he would be selfishly cutting the child's time in half. This of course is not an issue in the economy of heaven.

Polygyny 100% requires a woman to be far more independent and able to function alone as a priestess and queenly matriarch than monogamy. The management of her children becomes a supreme task as their father is overseeing a greater population. Hence the single angels who assist and serve in the mansions above.

I had a dream of this once and the sheer army of souls that will be assembled to minister to the needs of the royal families of heaven eliminates concerns of a man thinking he has to personally cuddle and coddle each of his offspring as much as possible in order to be a good father. It is myopic of any of us to apply our own ideals of fatherhood to our Father in Heaven.

"What spare head of another set of wives and children could there be to help out with another man's family?"

The other man/husband of your wife would not be helping out with "your" family. You need to get away from all this possessive stuff. Your wife is promised the same blessings as you are. Kingdoms, principalities, powers, everything plural. The other husband and and your wife would have their own family together, that they would council about their own children together, and not yours. You council with your wives about your children you have together. And your wives council with other husbands about their children together.

As far as limiting children so you have time for them, the idea is to not run faster than you have strength. Don't be zealous about reaching a goal at the expense of the people involved. There's no doubt that in large families, it is harder to nurture each child. I don't advocate necessarily limiting your family, but I also see wisdom in limiting your family number for valid reasons as well. The Lord even told the Smith household to limit their "family" in the sense that not everyone needs to be brought in under the sun, so that resources can be reserved for the few. There has to be some wisdom. My MIL's mother died in child-birth with her tenth, and left 10 children to fend for themselves, and most of them had a hard time dealing with life. So you know, who's to say what is wise, what is God's will, and what is not. I know that I distinctively heard a voice say "it is finished" after I had my last child at 37. I probably could have had another if I wanted to, but I felt it was time to stop, and the Lord sent another assignment soon after that child was born. So anyway, that's my answer. More isn't necessarily better. We've just read too much of those early brethren's sermons to think there's any other option than to "have as many as possible."

I'm glad you had a vision of lots of angelic helpers. Sounds really neat.

[diligently seeking]

Eternal life / being Sealed up “a greater portion of his word essential mysteries revealed —- Fullness of the gospel. And, a clear understanding with out wiggle room on his unchanging view on polygamy in this telestial experience .

You will have to rewrite that because I cannot figure out what you're trying to say. If you're typing on your phone I'd suggest waiting until you're on a computer to respond. Sorry, mate.

Chuckle, you are smart fella. Show some charity. I think you can make sense of it. Or you can choose to let my lack writing skills sift you? Read your message before the confusing post of mine for more clear context.

I was going for charity before. I actually don't understand what you were trying to say. You are missing some key sentence components that make it impossible for me to know what you are trying to say for sure. I am not trying to be rude.

Eternal life / being Sealed up—a greater portion of his word = essential mysteries revealed —- “Fullness of the gospel” which is also apart of the fullness found in the BoM. And, a clear understanding with out wiggle room on the Lords unchanging view on polygamy in this mortal experience —is found in the BoM, too.

Understand above expressions in context with your post on what you explained to me the “BoM fullness of gospel represents. Thanks for continued charity toward me and your willingness to not be rude.

[Sarah]

No need for charity for men. Hmm, that is a problem. There are a lot of single men out there. Maybe they could use some help. Maybe if you helped them out to earn a living, or shared your wealth, they could attract a wife. Some men will never attract a wife because of disability. Wouldn't it be nice if we gave these men a chance to have a companion or children?

Even if the women outnumbered men, you could still provide your wives with additional companions if they were free to be with other married men who were your peers, while you were with other wives. Why restrict them from being sealed to whomever they want to be sealed to. There will always be men and women who want some alone time (like me). So for those who want to be with someone, let them be free to be with whichever husband they choose. And there are a lot of dead soldiers up in heaven who never married I bet, who need saving. A lot of single Chinese guys as well? Care to help them out?

Do you really think there will be at least twice as many women in the CK? To me this is saying God designed men to fail and women to succeed, which seems like a ridiculous idea. Christ has died to save these men if they repent, and most of them will.

Many if not most married people in the church will not be exalted. Many elders will wake up in the resurrection and be bitterly disappointed. Joseph Smith said this himself. Furthermore, the heathen are not exalted without knowledge and the ordinances and they are blinded by the traditions of their fathers. If so few of the church will be exalted and retain their wives, why would the many dead heathen be a concern for exaltation? They will be saved by Christ for the knew no law, but they will not be exalted without knowledge. All the dead soldiers and Chinese men you speak of are not going on to marriage hereafter for they neither marry nor are given in marriage hereafter. This is basic stuff.

Men and women will not be judged equally by God. Judgement will be upon his sons but mercy upon his daughters. The man is made the head and becomes as the servant given talents; when he is unworthy his headship is taken from him and the body is saved through another. I must have explained this at least a dozen times on this forum. This is why there will be polygyny in heaven.

Right, you've explained the concept dozens of times and I've pointed out the the Lord expects you to cast your talents into the storehouse that all may be made equal. You don't horde your talents to yourself. They belong to the Lord, and he is able to give to whomever he wants to give them to.

I agree, that a large portion of people will not qualify for eternal blessings initially, but we have a thousand years to get them up to speed while they repent of their sins. There are also lots of women who appear to be more righteous, but they can be just as self centered as any man. I think your assumption about the CK is wrong when it comes to numbers of each gender. Like I said, you believe that God gave men more weaknesses that cause him to fail eternally. I guess that would have to mean that the "greater intelligence" fell on woman's side

He gave men weightier responsibilities as the head, not greater weaknesses as his sons.

Women also have a weighty responsibility, that of bearing and nurturing children. I don't know that your job is more weightier than mine. What if I'm a bad mom, which I am all the time (there's lots of bad moms out there). Is the Lord more forgiving with his daughters than with his sons who are bad fathers and husbands?

[Alexander]

Don’t even bother trying to share precious pearls about the Principle on here, Baurak Ale. Too many swine who are likely to tread all over them, then turn and rend you.

Yeah, I don't know why I even bother trying to share the precious pearl about the principle of Celestial Homosexuality. Too many swine. It's the highest law, even above polygamy. Too many here aren't ready for a higher doctrine like it, as they just fly apart like glass. It’s only given to the highest most trustworthy people.

[NeveR]

Don’t even bother trying to share precious pearls about the Principle on here, Baurak Ale. Too many swine who are likely to tread all over them, then turn and rend you.

Yeah, I don't know why I even bother trying to share the precious pearl about the principle of Celestial Homosexuality. Too many swine. It's the highest law, even above polygamy. Too many here aren't ready for a higher doctrine like it, as they just fly apart like glass. It’s only given to the highest most trustworthy people.

Don't forget the most precious Pearl of all - the principle of Celestial Self-indulgence where you just find a spurious or queasy scriptural basis for any vice you fancy and then when people point out your obvious hypocrisy just tell them you know God better than they do.

It works for any occasion. Including browbeating your wife into accepting your contorted justification for asking that girl down the street to have sex with you("I don't know what to tell ya honey, I saw her sunbathing in her bikini and next thing I know God is saying to me she's my spiritual wife!! You don't want me to IGNORE GOD, do you?" )

[Baurak Ale]

Don’t even bother trying to share precious pearls about the Principle on here, Baurak Ale. Too many swine who are likely to tread all over them, then turn and rend you.

Yeah, I don't know why I even bother trying to share the precious pearl about the principle of Celestial Homosexuality. Too many swine. It's the highest law, even above polygamy. Too many here aren't ready for a higher doctrine like it, as they just fly apart like glass. It’s only given to the highest most trustworthy people.

Don't forget the most precious Pearl of all - the principle of Celestial Self-indulgence where you just find a spurious or queasy scriptural basis for any vice you fancy and then when people point out your obvious hypocrisy just tell them you know God better than they do.

It works for any occasion. Including browbeating your wife into accepting your contorted justification for asking that girl down the street to have sex with you("I don't know what to tell ya honey, I saw her sunbathing in her bikini and next thing I know God is saying to me she's my spiritual wife!! You don't want me to IGNORE GOD, do you?" )

Whether you agree with a thing or not, mocking what someone considers sacred is not advised. Like Gamaliel advised the Sanhedrin, if it is not of God it will come to naught, but if it is then you don’t want to be found fighting against God. The levity so easily expressed here makes me ill.

I’m sad but not surprised that people are quick to divide virtue from plural marriage. God bless us all with eyes to see according to his will.

[Luke]

Don’t even bother trying to share precious pearls about the Principle on here, Baurak Ale. Too many swine who are likely to tread all over them, then turn and rend you.

Yeah, I don't know why I even bother trying to share the precious pearl about the principle of Celestial Homosexuality. Too many swine. It's the highest law, even above polygamy. Too many here aren't ready for a higher doctrine like it, as they just fly apart like glass. It’s only given to the highest most trustworthy people.

Don't forget the most precious Pearl of all - the principle of Celestial Self-indulgence where you just find a spurious or queasy scriptural basis for any vice you fancy and then when people point out your obvious hypocrisy just tell them you know God better than they do.

It works for any occasion. Including browbeating your wife into accepting your contorted justification for asking that girl down the street to have sex with you("I don't know what to tell ya honey, I saw her sunbathing in her bikini and next thing I know God is saying to me she's my spiritual wife!! You don't want me to IGNORE GOD, do you?" )

Whether you agree with a thing or not, mocking what someone considers sacred is not advised. Like Gamaliel advised the Sanhedrin, if it is not of God it will come to naught, but if it is then you don’t want to be found fighting against God. The levity so easily expressed here makes me ill.

I’m sad but not surprised that people are quick to divide virtue from plural marriage. God bless us all with eyes to see according to his will.

Yep it’s absolutely beyond disgusting.

[Sirius]

Yeah, I don't know why I even bother trying to share the precious pearl about the principle of Celestial Homosexuality. Too many swine. It's the highest law, even above polygamy. Too many here aren't ready for a higher doctrine like it, as they just fly apart like glass. It’s only given to the highest most trustworthy people.

Don't forget the most precious Pearl of all - the principle of Celestial Self-indulgence where you just find a spurious or queasy scriptural basis for any vice you fancy and then when people point out your obvious hypocrisy just tell them you know God better than they do.

It works for any occasion. Including browbeating your wife into accepting your contorted justification for asking that girl down the street to have sex with you("I don't know what to tell ya honey, I saw her sunbathing in her bikini and next thing I know God is saying to me she's my spiritual wife!! You don't want me to IGNORE GOD, do you?" )

Whether you agree with a thing or not, mocking what someone considers sacred is not advised. Like Gamaliel advised the Sanhedrin, if it is not of God it will come to naught, but if it is then you don’t want to be found fighting against God. The levity so easily expressed here makes me ill.

I’m sad but not surprised that people are quick to divide virtue from plural marriage. God bless us all with eyes to see according to his will.

Yep it’s absolutely beyond disgusting.

Fools mock. And there's definitely not a shortage.

[pancake]

Don't forget the most precious Pearl of all - the principle of Celestial Self-indulgence where you just find a spurious or queasy scriptural basis for any vice you fancy and then when people point out your obvious hypocrisy just tell them you know God better than they do.

It works for any occasion. Including browbeating your wife into accepting your contorted justification for asking that girl down the street to have sex with you("I don't know what to tell ya honey, I saw her sunbathing in her bikini and next thing I know God is saying to me she's my spiritual wife!! You don't want me to IGNORE GOD, do you?" )

Whether you agree with a thing or not, mocking what someone considers sacred is not advised. Like Gamaliel advised the Sanhedrin, if it is not of God it will come to naught, but if it is then you don’t want to be found fighting against God. The levity so easily expressed here makes me ill.

I’m sad but not surprised that people are quick to divide virtue from plural marriage. God bless us all with eyes to see according to his will.

Yep it’s absolutely beyond disgusting.

Fools mock. And there's definitely not a shortage.

This humble woman loves all her brothers and sisters, regardless of their beliefs as to the plurality of wives. Her journey began as a fervent believer in the truthfulness of the doctrine. You are right that we should not mock you, we should love you. If you truly believe these things can you not teach us (hopefully with love in your heart) the answers to the problems she addresses in her videos:

[edavid]

oof
https://youtu.be/pJysVcD1FRM