LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 3:28 am**

These words are words which my wife does say regarding this topic!!, which she asked to post:

Hi.

First, I want to say my husband and I have a very close and special relationship with one another and with our Heavenly Father. He loves me more than anything (minus God) and would do anything for me, including being prepared to give of himself in whatever way the Lord sees fit.

His interest in the idea of polygamy and desire to be prepared SHOULD HE BE CALLED TO LIVE THIS LAW doesn't take away from his devotion to me or his responsibilities as husband and leader of our household. He supports and loves me very much and is striving hard to make a good and happy life for me and our future children. We are always on his mind.

When I was younger, I knew polygamy was practiced in the Celestial Kingdom and thought that I would deal with it then. That was when I was 15. I have grown since then in my understanding of life and of the gospel and now know that you must be prepared for anything in this life (or the next life) in order to avoid giving gifts grudgingly and in order to truly be happy. I know for myself, when I'm willing to give, I'm happier. People around me are happier. And most importantly, my Father in Heaven is happier.

I feel like, as I have read this thread and a past thread, that the conflict going on is due to a misunderstanding that ZL says you have to be polygamous to receive glory and exaltation. This isn't what he is saying at all. You can be glorified and receive exaltation simply by receiving your endowment, being sealed to your family, and enduring to the end and being faithful in all your trials. ZL is saying if you want more exaltation, more eternal increase, polygamy is something that grants that AS LONG AS YOU ARE CALLED OF GOD TO DO SO. If we are never called to practice the law of polygamy, then okay, at least we were prepared to do it.

The bottom line here is we should be prepared to do ANYTHING God asks of us. Whether it be visiting a ward member when prompted by the spirit, accepting a calling, or practicing polygamy or the Law of Consecration. The Lord asks things of us to test our faith.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 3:32 am**

reese wrote:Sorry but I fail to see how this is 'my jealousy'. And how the glory of God would be threatened or contradicted by this.

You are jealous of your husband's affections such that the idea of living the eternal and celestial standard of plural marriage causes you negative physical reactions. That is what I mean when I say "your jealousy".

You deny the glory of God by denying plural marriage because God lives and operates within an exaltation that contains plural marriage. Therefore, the glory of God contains plural marriage.

You said you are attracted to your husband because he hopes and prays that your family is not called to practice the higher law, and therefore he hopes and prays that your family is not called to receive the fullness of the glory of God. This is what I mean when I say that you want your husband to value your jealousy over the glory of God.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 3:41 am**

Please give this a rest everyone. We don't live the law. We only need to be prepared for what the church tells us that we need to be doing and polygamy is not it right now.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 5:06 am**

Okay, hate to return to Freud but here goes. In the Freudian family model a woman will feel jealosy if she feels insecure in her connection to her husband. The husband is her substitute father, the qualities she looked for in her husband in the first place were those she observed in her real dad, or are the idealized version of what she hoped for in the event that her fatehr was not there. If you have young children you can see that there are times they feel jealose of each other in relation to the parant's time. A good parent will be able to show equal love and attention to every one of his children so as they mature they see that dad is always there for them. So, since we are all emotional beings who are still the child ultimately, a husband could have several wives if he was able to show them all with 100% assurances that he loved them equally and would never forsake any of them. In this respect this is an evolution to a higher law and does indicate that a polygamist family would be a more emotionally secure family -- if the husband did have a strong connection and conviction to do what is right.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 7:14 am**

zionlist.com wrote:
reese wrote:Sorry but I fail to see how this is 'my jealousy'. And how the glory of God would be threatened or contradicted by this.
You are jealous of your husband's affections such that the idea of living the eternal and celestial standard of plural marriage causes you negative physical reactions. That is what I mean when I say "your jealousy".

You deny the glory of God by denying plural marriage because God lives and operates within an exaltation that contains plural marriage. Therefore, the glory of God contains plural marriage.

You said you are attracted to your husband because he hopes and prays that your family is not called to practice the higher law, and therefore he hopes and prays that your family is not called to receive the fullness of the glory of God. This is what I mean when I say that you want your husband to value your jealousy over the glory of God.

Wow is all I have to say about this post. No offense, but you do not have to think about your wife being with another man. It is extremely condisending for you to say this. Frankly her husband is in the right at this time. we are not supposed to live this law at this time. And the fact that you desire to live a law at this time that God has expressly said is now a SIN actually puts you in the wrong. It actually puts you in the place of commiting adultery in your heart. You are desiring another woman in your heart. And to say you desire it because you want to be just like God is a justification and a non answer. I don't see you expressing service and serving people like God does or many of the other characteristics of God.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 7:27 am**

Let's play a numbers game here:

According to "chances are, you're going to be exalted", john taylor stated that over half the population has died BEFORE the age of accountability. Mortality rates are further discussed in that book.

Futher research lead me to two other interesting numbers: worldwide there are currently 1.04 males born to every female. In other words, slightly more men are born than women.

Another intersting thing is that "Males have higher mortality than females at every age in most countries" http://www.pnas.org/content/105/13/5016.full . It further states "After 1970, excess male infant mortality declined in most countries to an average of 1.24 in 2000". If true, these two ideas combine to make this conclusion: More males than females currently die before the age of accountability.

Now if these numbers are representative of human history (and I'm inclined to think that male mortality has probably improved since the beginning), then we can form the following scenario.

Lets say that the world has had 1000 people on it throughout history. Roughly 510 of those will have been male and 490 female. Now for simplicity, lets say that 50% of each have died before the age of accountabilty:
That means there 240 females and 255 males have fallen into this category, but in truth it's likely that the true figure has even more males.

Now, we are to suppose that such people who die before the age of accountability are the cream of the crop, the tip of the top. They were so faithful that the father deems that they don't even need to be tested, and they will go on to their exaltation. Whereas for you and I, every trial we go through is the necessary cirriculum for our salvation. Can we suppose that even Joseph Smith was more righteous than them? I think not. Therefore, I would suppose that they go on to fullness of exaltation.

To you, that means that they are polygamous. Now consider: If all of those 255 exalted males are polygamous to the amount of two wives, then there would have to be 510 exalted females by their side. But there weren't that many females even born throughout all history!!!! Those alone have taken all the females throughout history and there are NONE left for you or I. Not a single male who has lived past the age of accountability can be exalted, and every last female ever created must be exalted, even to come CLOSE!

Now if they have 3, 4 or more? It just can't work with the observed gender ratios.

Nor can we assume that 7 women will be exalted to every 1 man because the death before the age of accountability ALREADY precludes that ratio by a huge amount!

Therefore, I do not believe in widespread polygamy among fully exhalted beings.

Maybe sometime I'll give you my reading of d&c 132 and respond specifically to the prophet statements you have given. Suffice it to say that I have reconciled my beliefs to the statements I've seen in a way that I don't consider to be sloppy or escapist.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 7:33 am**

Nan wrote:
zionlist.com wrote:
reese wrote:Sorry but I fail to see how this is 'my jealousy'. And how the glory of God would be threatened or contradicted by this.
You are jealous of your husband's affections such that the idea of living the eternal and celestial standard of plural marriage causes you negative physical reactions. That is what I mean when I say "your jealousy".

You deny the glory of God by denying plural marriage because God lives and operates within an exaltation that contains plural marriage. Therefore, the glory of God contains plural marriage.

You said you are attracted to your husband because he hopes and prays that your family is not called to practice the higher law, and therefore he hopes and prays that your family is not called to receive the fullness of the glory of God. This is what I mean when I say that you want your husband to value your jealousy over the glory of God.
Wow is all I have to say about this post. No offense, but you do not have to think about your wife being with another man. It is extremely condisending for you to say this. Frankly her husband is in the right at this time. we are not supposed to live this law at this time. And the fact that you desire to live a law at this time that God has expressly said is now a SIN actually puts you in the wrong. It actually puts you in the place of commiting adultery in your heart. You are desiring another woman in your heart. And to say you desire it because you want to be just like God is a justification and a non answer. I don't see you expressing service and serving people like God does or many of the other characteristics of God.

lol dude. Do you just see me not extending service on this forum? I do; my responses here were specifically requested.

I understand that it's difficult for some people to accept. I don't want to push it too far, either, as the Lord has not seen fit to push this issue generally, and there's a reason why our people are not qualified to live the law. I don't want to press it. The discussion just keeps going.

I just have an extreme annoyance with the tendency toward demonization of polygamy, especially when it's such a large part of our early history. Many church members try to do what is trying to be done here, which is the reconciliation of the doctrines of men with the doctrines of God, and that's not how it goes.

And anyway, it's no sin in my heart. I don't desire nor do I lust after any other woman specifically. I don't think one can really "lust after" the idea of women generally. And in any case, there is no lust.

People misinterpret my insistence that polygamy is eternal law as some kind fervor for its restoration or principles. I will be happy to receive on the Lord's command because it will help my family progress. Until it is commanded again, I am very, very happy with my single marriage. I don't seek any additional wives for the time being, and I have no specific women designated, and I have no lust for plural marriage as a principle or for certain women in particular.

Anyway, I don't see how anything I said is "extremely condescending" or rude or anything like that. It's only the truth, and it comes up because these people fervently insist that they are correct in their jealousy, and that they will never accept plural marriage, and that they are attracted to their partners specifically _because_ that partner has no sympathy or respect for the celestial law of plural marriage. These are heretical positions and ought to be corrected. I apologize if I was overly harsh, but I don't see how I was, as I just answered her questions.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 8:49 am**

zionlist.com wrote:
Nan wrote:
zionlist.com wrote:[

You are jealous of your husband's affections such that the idea of living the eternal and celestial standard of plural marriage causes you negative physical reactions. That is what I mean when I say "your jealousy".

You deny the glory of God by denying plural marriage because God lives and operates within an exaltation that contains plural marriage. Therefore, the glory of God contains plural marriage.

You said you are attracted to your husband because he hopes and prays that your family is not called to practice the higher law, and therefore he hopes and prays that your family is not called to receive the fullness of the glory of God. This is what I mean when I say that you want your husband to value your jealousy over the glory of God.
Wow is all I have to say about this post. No offense, but you do not have to think about your wife being with another man. It is extremely condisending for you to say this. Frankly her husband is in the right at this time. we are not supposed to live this law at this time. And the fact that you desire to live a law at this time that God has expressly said is now a SIN actually puts you in the wrong. It actually puts you in the place of commiting adultery in your heart. You are desiring another woman in your heart. And to say you desire it because you want to be just like God is a justification and a non answer. I don't see you expressing service and serving people like God does or many of the other characteristics of God.
lol dude. Do you just see me not extending service on this forum? I do; my responses here were specifically requested.

I understand that it's difficult for some people to accept. I don't want to push it too far, either, as the Lord has not seen fit to push this issue generally, and there's a reason why our people are not qualified to live the law. I don't want to press it. The discussion just keeps going.

I just have an extreme annoyance with the tendency toward demonization of polygamy, especially when it's such a large part of our early history. Many church members try to do what is trying to be done here, which is the reconciliation of the doctrines of men with the doctrines of God, and that's not how it goes.

And anyway, it's no sin in my heart. I don't desire nor do I lust after any other woman specifically. I don't think one can really "lust after" the idea of women generally. And in any case, there is no lust.

People misinterpret my insistence that polygamy is eternal law as some kind fervor for its restoration or principles. I will be happy to receive on the Lord's command because it will help my family progress. Until it is commanded again, I am very, very happy with my single marriage. I don't seek any additional wives for the time being, and I have no specific women designated, and I have no lust for plural marriage as a principle or for certain women in particular.

Anyway, I don't see how anything I said is "extremely condescending" or rude or anything like that. It's only the truth, and it comes up because these people fervently insist that they are correct in their jealousy, and that they will never accept plural marriage, and that they are attracted to their partners specifically _because_ that partner has no sympathy or respect for the celestial law of plural marriage. These are heretical positions and ought to be corrected. I apologize if I was overly harsh, but I don't see how I was, as I just answered her questions.

The problem with you zionlist is that you are rude. Maybe thats why you turn off most people on this forum (see your previous post about stupid people). You remind me of the holyier than thou Nephites that Jacob was commanded to correct. You know the ones who were interested in polygamy, after all they were just following after the venerable leaders of their past in Jerusalem. You know the ones, the Lord had to tell them to knock it off because they should not be seeking it. He would command them to do it for his own purpose, then and only then should they be thinking about it.
I'm glad that you and your wife are happily awaiting you future polygamous relationships, I hope your not dissapointed. I don't really care wether you are bothered by my relationship with my husband or not. It is good between me, him and the Lord, and that is ALL that matters to me. Maybe if you did not act like your opinion was eqivilant to the Lords you wouldn't be so offensive.
Your responses were not specifically requested, and they definitley don't count as service.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 8:51 am**

ConDef wrote:Please give this a rest everyone. We don't live the law. We only need to be prepared for what the church tells us that we need to be doing and polygamy is not it right now.

AGREED this is definitly getting old. I'll stop.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 9:24 am**

reese wrote:The problem with you zionlist is that you are rude. Maybe thats why you turn off most people on this forum (see your previous post about stupid people). You remind me of the holyier than thou Nephites that Jacob was commanded to correct. You know the ones who were interested in polygamy, after all they were just following after the venerable leaders of their past in Jerusalem. You know the ones, the Lord had to tell them to knock it off because they should not be seeking it. He would command them to do it for his own purpose, then and only then should they be thinking about it.
I'm glad that you and your wife are happily awaiting you future polygamous relationships, I hope your not dissapointed. I don't really care wether you are bothered by my relationship with my husband or not. It is good between me, him and the Lord, and that is ALL that matters to me. Maybe if you did not act like your opinion was eqivilant to the Lords you wouldn't be so offensive.

I suppose my discussion is so matter-of-fact about this because I feel that the issue is cut and dry. It's not speculative, and it's not unknown. Our doctrine is clear about these truths. As such, when I preach thusly, I preach like my opinion is equivalent to the Lord's because I feel that my opinion on this matter is the Lord's opinion.

I don't see why you think I'm rude. I'd like examples. You gave these personal anecdotes as if they were some kind of proof that men who believe the law of the Lord are undesirable, or as if they were proof that polygamy is wretched and awful. I merely contested the points which you brought up. Unlike you, and unlike others, I have not delved into unrelated areas of your life or made any accusation regarding overall worthiness. My posts have remained on-topic. They have been in response to subjects and anecdotes which you brought before the forum.

And again, like almost everyone else here, you're confusing the issue. The Nephites addressed in Jacob 2 were disobeying the law of the Lord and taking plural wives without authorization; furthermore, they were taking concubines, and they were disregarding the feelings of their women in the matter. This behavior reduces women to property, which they surely are not, and which attitude surely is wicked. That is not what a real marriage is made of.

No one here is taking plural wives. No one here is miserable without it. We are all content with the relationships to which the Lord has called us now; we merely work to be ready to receive all revealed truth and celestial law in the day wherein the Lord will command it.

Whether your romantic comedies have indoctrinated you to believe in the glory of celestial plural marriage or not, it is nonetheless revealed truth. The Lord will hold all of us responsible for what we do with that truth.

Your responses were not specifically requested, and they definitley don't count as service.

They were specifically requested. Not by you, though. When you post in a public forum, you offer your post for scrutiny to the whole community.

I don't understand where people on this forum get off on attacking personal worthiness so often. It happens left and right here. Let's leave the subject aside; the subject of plural marriage has nothing to do with my general alms, there is no implication of any patriarchal delinquency in my posts, and there is no other indication of any kind of personal unworthiness. There are several disavowals of such accusations made by persons, supposed fellow Saints, who'd rather engage in ad hominem attacks and pettiness than actual discussion of the substance of the issue.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 9:29 am**

reese wrote:Why on earth are you two up so late? My excuse is a herniated disk in my lower back....can't sleep!

I was asleep, but I was awaken and told to turn on the computer and comment on this thread.

Actually, I am sick, and between the Excedrin and the chocolate coated almonds someone left on my desk, I couldn't sleep.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 9:38 am**

Umm you actually attacked personal worthiness of anyone that doesn't want to live polygamy. And insinuated that if you don't want to live it you are not as good as people who do want to live it. And can't be as exalted. Since it is a commandment to NOT live it, I am supposed to not want to live it.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 9:45 am**

Polygamy wasn't that BIG in our church history in that it wasn't practiced by many on a scale of percentages. It's BIG because it's different. Another thing to consider is that many of the wives in a polygamist relationship were already sealed to a prior husband who passed away. The polygamist husband does not keep those wives in eternity. Lets also not forget repentance. The atonement is eternal. I highly doubt there will be wife taking/giving that some suppose. If a husband dies and isn't worthy of a celestial glory but his wife is, my guess is that the wife will work with her husband until he is worthy. Same goes with couples married outside the church. That's why we do Temple work (sealings) for the dead. Those women are unavailable. The scripture quoted from Isaiah that says 7 women will cling unto one man doesn't suggest that those women will be sealed to that man. I interpret it to mean that those women will be widows and need help in this life. They are still married to their husbands. You won't be sealed to them necessarily even if you marry them (I say you in a general term).

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 9:54 am**

ConDef wrote:Please give this a rest everyone. We don't live the law. We only need to be prepared for what the church tells us that we need to be doing and polygamy is not it right now.

There's always an 'element' within the Church that cannot give it a rest. I would say "obsessed" but maybe "preoccupied" is a softer gentler word for it.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 10:00 am**

Umm you actually attacked personal worthiness of anyone that doesn't want to live polygamy. And insinuated that if you don't want to live it you are not as good as people who do want to live it. And can't be as exalted. Since it is a commandment to NOT live it, I am supposed to not want to live it.

You must include quotes when you're providing examples or references. Just saying that I said something doesn't help your case at all.

Any such expressions were unintentional. While I may believe that enlightened persons will prepare to receive all revealed law, I don't recall any attacks on personal worthiness. Please note that personal worthiness is personal and not general. I didn't reply to any post to tell the poster that because he/she believes one way, he/she must not really be taking care of his/her family. Several posters have said that to me.

I didn't accuse a person of a sin. It is not my place to judge sin from cleanliness on a personal level. I can only judge between truth and error generally. One may err without committing sin.

If you enter into single celestial marriage, you will obtain an exaltation compatible with the portion of the law which you practiced. If you enter into a plural celestial marriage, which is the fulness of the new and everlasting covenant, likewise. Those who live the greater law will receive the greater exaltation. I don't know what to tell you if that upsets you, because it is absolute light and truth. It has been espoused by prophets over and over again. There are quotes throughout this thread and throughout the other thread. This quote is particularly relevant:

Joseph F. Smith wrote:The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.

I don't know what else you want. If you're offended at that idea, well, I don't know what you want me to do. I didn't make it up. If you have a problem with it, you have to take that up with the Lord, who established and decreed the law.

I have repeatedly stated that plural marriage is absolutely NOT to be practiced unless the Lord commands, authorizes, solemnizes, and ordains it unto the persons considered. As such, yes, you should NOT want to live it until the Lord commands that you live it, because your foremost desire should be adhering to the word of God. Preparing to receive the higher law is not the same thing as wanting to live the higher law now.

It's also important that we distinguish between times here. We should not want to live plural marriage right now when it is an abomination before the Lord. It is an abomination now because the Lord has commanded that we not live it, not because of any inherent or intrinsically evil thing about it.

We should want to live plural marriage one day when the Lord determines that it would be appropriate to do so. We should want this because we know that it represents a fullness of the law and because we know that it is a celestial law with celestial ramifications, the practice of which entitles us to a richer and greater exaltation than that of those found in single marriage exaltations.

I really don't see how some of you guys aren't getting this, or why I have to repeat this so many times. Please don't make me go through and highlight the many times I've repeated these things, as I had to do in the medical thread to get the guy to believe that he wasn't paying attention to my posts. Just pay attention as you read and you shouldn't have a problem; perhaps it'd help to take notes, or something, too, so that you don't make embarrassing errors like this.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 10:15 am**

zionlist.com wrote:
Umm you actually attacked personal worthiness of anyone that doesn't want to live polygamy. And insinuated that if you don't want to live it you are not as good as people who do want to live it. And can't be as exalted. Since it is a commandment to NOT live it, I am supposed to not want to live it.
You must include quotes when you're providing examples or references. Just saying that I said something doesn't help your case at all.

Any such expressions were unintentional. While I may believe that enlightened persons will prepare to receive all revealed law, I don't recall any attacks on personal worthiness. Please note that personal worthiness is personal and not general. I didn't reply to any post to tell the poster that because he/she believes one way, he/she must not really be taking care of his/her family. Several posters have said that to me.

I didn't accuse a person of a sin. It is not my place to judge sin from cleanliness on a personal level. I can only judge between truth and error generally. One may err without committing sin.

If you enter into single celestial marriage, you will obtain an exaltation compatible with the portion of the law which you practiced. If you enter into a plural celestial marriage, which is the fulness of the new and everlasting covenant, likewise. Those who live the greater law will receive the greater exaltation. I don't know what to tell you if that upsets you, because it is absolute light and truth. It has been espoused by prophets over and over again. There are quotes throughout this thread and throughout the other thread. This quote is particularly relevant:
Joseph F. Smith wrote:The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.
I don't know what else you want. If you're offended at that idea, well, I don't know what you want me to do. I didn't make it up. If you have a problem with it, you have to take that up with the Lord, who established and decreed the law.

I have repeatedly stated that plural marriage is absolutely NOT to be practiced unless the Lord commands, authorizes, solemnizes, and ordains it unto the persons considered. As such, yes, you should NOT want to live it until the Lord commands that you live it, because your foremost desire should be adhering to the word of God. Preparing to receive the higher law is not the same thing as wanting to live the higher law now.

It's also important that we distinguish between times here. We should not want to live plural marriage right now when it is an abomination before the Lord. It is an abomination now because the Lord has commanded that we not live it, not because of any inherent or intrinsically evil thing about it.

We should want to live plural marriage one day when the Lord determines that it would be appropriate to do so. We should want this because we know that it represents a fullness of the law and because we know that it is a celestial law with celestial ramifications, the practice of which entitles us to a richer and greater exaltation than that of those found in single marriage exaltations.

I really don't see how some of you guys aren't getting this, or why I have to repeat this so many times. Please don't make me go through and highlight the many times I've repeated these things, as I had to do in the medical thread to get the guy to believe that he wasn't paying attention to my posts. Just pay attention as you read and you shouldn't have a problem; perhaps it'd help to take notes, or something, too, so that you don't make embarrassing errors like this.

Wow, you just don't have any room for improvement do you.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 10:21 am**

Somebody mentioned that failing to live the law when asked by their husband would deny both the husband and other wife/wives blessings. You fail to acknowledge the blessings that would also be lost to all parties. Monogamy is glorious! Absolute fidelity is glorious. Being and remaining one is exalting. Violating that to rut and have as many kids as is possible is a very ironic desire given that none of us seem to be cranking them out now! Seems to me you would be giving up more than you gain.

If you are really preparing for polygamy are you adding a spare bedroom for the new wife/wives and a few more for their children? Are you preparing to live all of the other laws equally? Bought any land in Missouri? Bred any unblemished lambs? Consecrated much? How so?

Zionlist's wife was clear that he desires and seeks for this blessing. Polygamy is about children. You mean to tell me you don't even have any Zionlist? I hope for your sake you're not using BC! That would be the ultimate hypocritical irony here! Sounds like a gospel hobby to me. Maybe ought to read the parable of talents...

No more from me. This is clearly not the same religion as mine.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 10:27 am**

zionlist.com wrote:
reese wrote:The problem with you zionlist is that you are rude. Maybe thats why you turn off most people on this forum (see your previous post about stupid people). You remind me of the holyier than thou Nephites that Jacob was commanded to correct. You know the ones who were interested in polygamy, after all they were just following after the venerable leaders of their past in Jerusalem. You know the ones, the Lord had to tell them to knock it off because they should not be seeking it. He would command them to do it for his own purpose, then and only then should they be thinking about it.
I'm glad that you and your wife are happily awaiting you future polygamous relationships, I hope your not dissapointed. I don't really care wether you are bothered by my relationship with my husband or not. It is good between me, him and the Lord, and that is ALL that matters to me. Maybe if you did not act like your opinion was eqivilant to the Lords you wouldn't be so offensive.
I suppose my discussion is so matter-of-fact about this because I feel that the issue is cut and dry. Its obviously not cut and dry with the Lord, or we would not be having this disscussion. There are some things that are cut and dry with the Lord, like if you don't pay your tithing you can't get a temple recomend, if you are unwilling to participate in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage(monogamy, not polygamy), you can't be exalted. If you don't repent of all your sins you will suffer as the Savior did, etc. Those are pretty cut and dry, people just can't argue with these things. Plural marriage is one of the least cut and dry principles in this church. Even the scriptures are not cut and dry on this subject.

As such, when I preach thusly, I preach like my opinion is equivalent to the Lord's because I feel that my opinion on this matter is the Lord's opinion. I wonder if the Lord feels the same way?

.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 10:53 am**

BlueSky wrote:There's always an 'element' within the Church that cannot give it a rest. I would say "obsessed" but maybe "preoccupied" is a softer gentler word for it.

I find this comment interesting. Except for a few emotional or rude responses, I think this discussion has been enjoyable. I certainly wouldn't say that people participating in this discussion are obsessed or preoccupied with polygamy. Just because someone defends their ideas or positions does not somehow make them a crazed zealot.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 10:59 am**

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:Somebody mentioned that failing to live the law when asked by their husband would deny both the husband and other wife/wives blessings. You fail to acknowledge the blessings that would also be lost to all parties. Monogamy is glorious! Absolute fidelity is glorious. Being and remaining one is exalting. Violating that to rut and have as many kids as is possible is a very ironic desire given that none of us seem to be cranking them out now! Seems to me you would be giving up more than you gain.

I don't agree swiss that blessings would be lost. The Lord doesn't require us to choose between blessings. He has promised that the faithful will inherit ALL. The plan of salvation isn't like playing a game show. We don't have to choose what's behind doors 1,2 or 3. Our Heavenly Father will give us all he has if we are willing to receive it.

Your comment about rutting shows you are not considering the spiritual implications of this law, but merely want to equate it with horny "natural men". I wonder if you would describe Joseph Smith or Brigham young as nothing more than rutting men who were attempting to impregnate as many women as possible.

Remember the scriptures warn us to be careful of calling good evil and evil good.

Edit: Also, if the Godhead can be one, or all of Zion can be one, why can't a man and multiple wives be one? Your emotion is confusing the sound reasoning that I have come to expect from your posts.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 11:17 am**

zionlist.com wrote:This quote is particularly relevant:
Joseph F. Smith wrote:
The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.

I think he was speaking to people to whom polygamy was commended/commanded. You see, if I lived back then and never entered polygamy I would figure that I was somehow lacking...otherwise the Lord would have me enter it.

To me it's like, when israel was under kings, a prophet may have said regarding respecting religious leaders: respecting a prophet is a fulfillment of the law of respecting leaders in part-and is good so far as it goes.... but you've got to respect the king too to get the full blessings of this observance!"

Well, such a statement, if it existed, has zero application to me because we have no god-annointed political leaders; and furthermore, that statement has no meaning that the lord actually wants us to have god-annointed political leaders.

To me, that's a pretty good comparison. Because I'm convinced that the lord feels similar about the two subjects. We know from the BOM that he prefers that the power be in the people. We also know that he prefers monogamy. However, when under his direction these things are contradicted, we should strive to "respect the king" or have the marriage arrangement which god deems necessary at the time. What's so hard to understand about this?

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 11:25 am**

I have had weak moments on other subjects in which I have attacked the messenger instead of the message. I am trying my best to repent of this and stay focused on the subject. I invite everyone to do the same so we do not invite contention.
I agree with most of what has been said in favor of the law of polygamy. There are some statements which I would disagree with though. ZL makes some valid points and I do not see him as desiring polygamy for his family unless commanded to do so. I am in the same realm. I have no desire for polygamy unless I am commanded. I know it is a difficult subject to discuss, especially for women. My wife's tender heart is burdened at times with this law as she studies D&C. I avoid discussing it like the plague in her presence.
But I have a firm testimony of it. I do not want to live it at this time because we are commanded not to live it. The scriptures plainly testify of it as a higher Celestial law. I want to live the highest law I am worthy of living. To me that means I will someday be living that law.
A misconception I see voiced many times is that we men want to live the law because of the intimate relations. That may be so for some, but not all. I am past that point in my life where intimacy is dominating my life. Many things in my life are just as important to me, such as the happiness and well being of my precious wife.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 11:37 am**

braingrunt wrote: To me it's like, when israel was under kings, a prophet may have said regarding respecting religious leaders: respecting a prophet is a fulfillment of the law of respecting leaders in part-and is good so far as it goes.... but you've got to respect the king too to get the full blessings of this observance!"

Well, such a statement, if it existed, has zero application to me because we have no god-annointed political leaders; and furthermore, that statement has no meaning that the lord actually wants us to have god-annointed political leaders.

To me, that's a pretty good comparison. Because I'm convinced that the lord feels similar about the two subjects. We know from the BOM that he prefers that the power be in the people. We also know that he prefers monogamy. However, when under his direction these things are contradicted, we should strive to "respect the king" or have the marriage arrangement which god deems necessary at the time. What's so hard to understand about this?

I think we have been too preoccupied in this thread with time frame and circumstance when discussing polygamy. Time does not exist to God. He is beyond time or circumstance.

Bottom line is that polygamy is either an eternal law of God, or it is not. We know that polygamy has been instituted by God's command in the past, so I feel safe in saying that it is an eternal law.

The second idea to consider is whether polygamy is a higher law, or a lower law than monogamy. God doesn't break laws of the universe, but sometimes a higher law is allowed to govern. Just like when Jesus walked on water, he wasn't breaking the laws of the universe, but was operating within the bounds of a higher law that we don't yet understand. The same happened when Moses parted the Red Sea and with countless other miracles.

So is polygamy a higher law than monogamy, or is is a lower law akin to the law of Moses? It seems from my study that it is a higher law. I am certainly willing to entertain the idea that I am in error, but for now I believe it is the higher law.

So why do people choose to denigrate the law? Some on this thread have cleverly avoided vilifying polygamy, but instead choose to attack those who believe it is one of God's revealed laws. Why? If a correction needs to be made, make it, but please avoid lashing out at those who are sincerely seeking truth.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 12:17 pm**

Polygamy is an eternal law. It exists and it's true. I won't argue that. The question is because it exists, does it have to be practiced? Obviously it doesn't. Should I specifically prepare for it? I say no. Are those that don't practice it short changed? I don't think so. Exaltation is exaltation with one spouse or many. It's the same. I don't think polygamy is a higher law nor a lower law. It is what it is.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 12:24 pm**

patriotsaint wrote: So why do people choose do denigrate the law? Some on this thread have cleverly avoided vilifying polygamy, but instead choose to attack those who believe it is one of God's revealed laws. Why? If a correction needs to be made, make it, but please avoid lashing out at those who are sincerely seeking truth.

I hope I am not guilty of this, I want to give it it's proper place as a tool the Lord uses when necessary AND HIS USE OF IT IS NOT TO BE RIDICULED OR QUESTIONED! I also hope I'm not guilty of running anybody down. If so I apologize.

zionlist.com wrote:And again, like almost everyone else here, you're confusing the issue. The Nephites addressed in Jacob 2 were disobeying the law of the Lord and taking plural wives without authorization; furthermore, they were taking concubines, and they were disregarding the feelings of their women in the matter. This behavior reduces women to property, which they surely are not, and which attitude surely is wicked. That is not what a real marriage is made of.

I believe this scripture is immensely applicable at all times, because it talks about both situations: that polygamy will sometimes exist and other times it won't. You see, it's covering the bases on the Lord's policy. Some other statements are specific to one implementation or the other, such as I believe the JFS quote was only applicable to those under the law.

The people's abuses definitely influenced Jacob 2, but consider:
-the law of moses which made provisions for polygamy.
-however, the lord gave lehi the higher law to bind on his posterity. we still live by this law today: no polygamy unless asked for. Why not say: polygamy unless forbidden?
-the book of mormon will teach a man to get closer to god than any other book. Only things which the lord really, really wants us to know got put in that book. He wants us to know this about polygamy.
-animal sacrifices will be part of the restitution of all things yet we know that it is not the higher law. Likewise polygamy was and perhaps again will be part of that restitution. When in effect, it MUST BE DONE. But it doesn't make it the higher law: except insofar as this--the higher law is that you do what god says at every given moment. So when he says to do polygamy and you obey, you are living the higher law in that you are disregarding his default counsel in favor of his current dictates.

LDS Freedom Forum

Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy