LDS Freedom Forum

HeirofNumenor wrote:heartsongs, your friend will have her choice of exceedingly fine male spirits going into the Millennium....

Ben McClintock wrote:

SARAH Ward wrote:Polyandry has never been sanctioned by the Lord.

Mary the mother of Jesus as well as many of the wives of the Joseph Smith would probably disagree with you.

Eternally speaking, you are correct though

Fiannan wrote:

Ben McClintock wrote:

SARAH Ward wrote:Polyandry has never been sanctioned by the Lord.

Mary the mother of Jesus as well as many of the wives of the Joseph Smith would probably disagree with you.

Eternally speaking, you are correct though

God getting Mary pregnant was not some sort of wife swapping sort of thing. There are couples in the Church today in which the husband is sterile and opt for artificial insemination -- sperm from a male donor they do not know. That is not adultery or polyandry or even an act of sex in the conventional sense. It is merely the transfer of genetic material so that conception can take place.

So in a sense Jesus may have been this planet's first AI baby (artificial insemination, not artificial intelligence). Then again I was talking with a man last year, a professor, who is a leading expert on ancient Sumerian languages. Seems the ancients described artificial insemination and artificial wombs. Then I heard on some History Channel show that mentioned Noah may have been conceived and gestated in such a manner so Jesus would not be the first.

SpeedRacer wrote: For the original thread, if you want to know where there is support for and against, read the scriptures. For is all over the old testament, against is all over the old testament. Against is in the BofM, for is in the BofM. A bit of for is in the D&C. I think people don't want to rehash what has been said, so point you to what has been said. Ultimately you have to find out for yourself. Where did the Lord need to raise seed up unto himself via this command?

The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to "covet" is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor's spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor's house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: "Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another's husband and even end up married to him.

Fiannan wrote:Speedracer, if we define sexual intercourse in the strict Biblical sense as male/female sexual activity that can create life then there must be hundreds if not thousands of virgin births to lesbians in the USA each year; if of course they have never been with a man. Heck, treatment for female depression in the 19th Century involved quite an intimate act by midwives and doctors but not even that was defined as sex by people in those days. So there is no reason Jesus could not have been produced by a non-sexual act that resembled artificial insemination -- and Mary would still be a virgin.

Jesus was the first conceived by his Heavenly Father on earth but that does not necessarily mean that artificial insemination might not have been used in the days prior to the flood. Nobody knows what level of technology those people had considering that God chose to flood it out in a great cataclysm which would erase the signs of civilization when God could have just sent down a disease to erase humanity while giving Noah and his family immunity.

As for polygamy, I contend that either the Church must start encouraging older single women who are unmarried to turn to artificial insemination or there has to be a return to polygamy. With demographic and economic realities as they are the birth rate of our members is going to have a free fall that will not be offset by conversions. Don't believe me? Then why did President Monson go after young men for not settling down? Truth is that young active men have a lot of women to choose from and so why not get totally done with college, get a job and then hook up with a cute 19 year old prior to getting booted from the young adult program? As for the leftovers (that is actually a term used by many late 20s and early 30s single women nowadays) they can either marry a 60 year old divorced or widowed guy or get a half dozen cats. Sorry for being blunt but that is the way things are now.

Fiannan wrote:

The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to "covet" is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor's spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor's house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: "Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another's husband and even end up married to him.

Going to re-post this from the other polygamy thread.

The above quote is from Martha Nussbaum's article in the Philadelphia Inquirer "Polygamy? It's positively biblical."

On a side note, the Patriarchs regularly practiced what would be called "Incest" today. There's a lot of "rose colored glasses" viewing involved about what actually occurred in the Bible.

jdawg1012 wrote:

Fiannan wrote:Speedracer, if we define sexual intercourse in the strict Biblical sense as male/female sexual activity that can create life then there must be hundreds if not thousands of virgin births to lesbians in the USA each year; if of course they have never been with a man. Heck, treatment for female depression in the 19th Century involved quite an intimate act by midwives and doctors but not even that was defined as sex by people in those days. So there is no reason Jesus could not have been produced by a non-sexual act that resembled artificial insemination -- and Mary would still be a virgin.

Jesus was the first conceived by his Heavenly Father on earth but that does not necessarily mean that artificial insemination might not have been used in the days prior to the flood. Nobody knows what level of technology those people had considering that God chose to flood it out in a great cataclysm which would erase the signs of civilization when God could have just sent down a disease to erase humanity while giving Noah and his family immunity.

As for polygamy, I contend that either the Church must start encouraging older single women who are unmarried to turn to artificial insemination or there has to be a return to polygamy. With demographic and economic realities as they are the birth rate of our members is going to have a free fall that will not be offset by conversions. Don't believe me? Then why did President Monson go after young men for not settling down? Truth is that young active men have a lot of women to choose from and so why not get totally done with college, get a job and then hook up with a cute 19 year old prior to getting booted from the young adult program? As for the leftovers (that is actually a term used by many late 20s and early 30s single women nowadays) they can either marry a 60 year old divorced or widowed guy or get a half dozen cats. Sorry for being blunt but that is the way things are now.

I agree Fiannan, that there may have been (not just one, but many), advanced civilizations in our past. In fact, the higher the level of technology, the faster it degrades from the face of the Earth. The most rudimentary (say stone) seem to last the longest.

Aside from that, you're totally correct about the young marriages. I know of several young men and women who are not getting married, and even more who choose to delay having children for very long periods. I personally disagree with both, but generally only speak of the blessings of marriage and children, rather brow beat them (not that you were).

The fact is that many of the most worthy young men (aside from the juvenile ones), today are tired of the way that most girls are domineering (the goal of the feminist movement).

Many of the Most worthy young women are tired of men that want them to work to put them through college, and thereafter choose to play video games, instead of attend their patriarchal duties.

Both are unfortunate, but with reference to your comment, I have met very few women in the 25-35 year old range who are willing to give up their careers once married. They'd rather higher a sitter/pre-school/nursery, and leave their divine duties to someone else. So when they refuse to execute their divine roles, it's no wonder they can't find a male with superior qualities. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Fiannan wrote:And all your observations prove my point that reproduction in the LDS Church is going to face a real downturn in childbearing which will then cripple our missionary program. I think one of the reasons we lowered the age for missionary service was to beef up our declining per-capita missionary numbers, oh and also to retain youth from inactivity.

So here is what many young women face as a future - polygamy (if reinstated), fighting tooth and nail and getting a man (maybe one twice her age but that is the way it is), being single and getting to love cats or taking a break from Church and using a sperm bank to get a couple of kids and then come back...usually no questions asked in such cases.

Ben McClintock wrote:Another reason why these principles in this article http://www.mormonchronicle.com/happy-is ... and-woman/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; are so important http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55519 ... s.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jdawg1012 wrote:

Ben McClintock wrote:Another reason why these principles in this article http://www.mormonchronicle.com/happy-is ... and-woman/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; are so important http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55519 ... s.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Years ago when I was attending Institute, in one class about the family, there was an at length discussion about the use of birth control and the statements of the prophets condemning its use. I never forgot it, and have often wondered about people who use it, with no regard to the greater implications. I remember as a kid, learning about a female mentor using birth control. I was only ten or so at the time, but I remember crying at the thought of her not being able to have children. As an adult, I understand rationally why many people choose do so (use birth control), but the emotion I first felt is still there. It's just incredibly sad.

I have been told since I was young that reproduction was going to take a huge downturn in the last days.

Richard StoutApril 28, 2011 at 11:42 AM
Jacob 2:30 is not a loophole for polygamy—far from it. While I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon, I do believe in grammar. Note that the verse begins with “For.” This is a conjunction that means “because.” It is “The word by which a reason is introduced of something before advanced” (Webster’s 1828 dictionary).

However, “Because” won’t fit the Mormon apologists’ interpretation—v. 30 doesn’t answer why the Nephites must obey God’s commandment to stop polygamy (expressed in the previous verse). Mormons must pretend “For” means “but” or “however” or “nevertheless” in order to completely switch horses in the middle of the stream, so to speak.

So what does v. 30 really mean? Let’s break it down:
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me.” V. 25 has already said God “led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.” That’s the SEED referred to later in v. 30. A companion verse is 1 Nephi 7:12--“. . . [Lehi’s] sons should take daughters to wife, that they might RAISE UP SEED UNTO THE LORD in the land of promise.”

“. . . I will command my people.” This clause does not mean or say, “I will command my people to commit polygamy” as Mormon apologists try to influence people into believing. It refers back to the previous verse regarding the people keeping Gods commandments AGAINST polygamy. “Command” here simply means “govern” or “rule.” It’s similar to a general saying, “I will command the army.” Obviously, if the people disobey His COMMANDments, then God is not in command of the people, and their seed will not be righteous.

“. . . otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” Mormons would claim “things” here refers to God’s commandments, but these “things” were identified already in v. 23--“for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the THINGS which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.”

Putting it all together in a paraphrase, Jacob 30 actually means: “Because if I will raise up a righteous branch here in the Promised Land, I will govern my people; otherwise they shall listen to the things written about David and Solomon and continue committing whoredoms.”

jbalm wrote:Ether 10:5 should help get rid of any ambiguity that people see in Jacob.

"And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings."

jbalm wrote:All I did was quote a verse from the most correct book on earth. I didn't say JS didn't teach or practice polygamy. I certainly didn't say JS was right on most everything else.

However, I did get my degrees from the "school of false doctrine and other philosophies of men" (BYU), so you got me there.

Are you sure that you are responding to my post?

Both Polyandry and Polygamy are "passions of the flesh" ... "lusts of the flesh."

With scripture you can prove anything you want because "ego" serves the "flesh" and its lusts.

Histories of the church and elsewhere have been "doctored" to establish that the "polygamy" concept is okay or the "will of the Lord." If men would listen to their conscience they wouldn't need a "law giver" and they would know the truth that "one man with one wife" is how the plan of salvation started in the "Garden of Eden" and was corrupted later when some of Adams posterity got lulled away into false security and served their "ego's" and lustful desires.

Go do your home work and you will find out you "can buy into any belief system you want" in this telestial world. If you want to know "God's thoughts" on the subject you will need to clothe your thoughts, words and deeds in His divine attributes, character and perfections of godliness... starting with the attribute of virtue... and immerse yourself into them completely! You will then know and won't wonder what is right!

jbalm wrote:Ether 10:5 should help get rid of any ambiguity that people see in Jacob.

"And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings."