LDS Freedom Forum

SkyBird wrote: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!

It's unfortunatenthat we don't recognize that Jesus was born to married parents. A Mother and a Father as Husband and Wife. Somehow people seem to think they weren't married? That's contrary to the Gospel. Always has been.

According to LDS doctrine- "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." Also- "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony" -the proclamation to the world

The above is true, and it applies to our Savior as well. He was born of a Father in Heaven and his Mother, Mary. They must have been married. I don't think it was a "passion of flesh".

shadow wrote:The above is true, and it applies to our Savior as well. He was born of a Father in Heaven and his Mother, Mary. They must have been married. I don't think it was a "passion of flesh".

A little passion helps get the motor running. Otherwise it just becomes sterile duty.

ajax wrote:

shadow wrote:The above is true, and it applies to our Savior as well. He was born of a Father in Heaven and his Mother, Mary. They must have been married. I don't think it was a "passion of flesh".

A little passion helps get the motor running. Otherwise it just becomes sterile duty.

Probably her favorite MBD helps keep the passion motor running too...

shadow wrote:

SkyBird wrote: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!

It's unfortunatenthat we don't recognize that Jesus was born to married parents. A Mother and a Father as Husband and Wife. Somehow people seem to think they weren't married? That's contrary to the Gospel. Always has been.

According to LDS doctrine- "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." Also- "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony" -the proclamation to the world

The above is true, and it applies to our Savior as well. He was born of a Father in Heaven and his Mother, Mary. They must have been married. I don't think it was a "passion of flesh".

That God and Mary were married is pure speculation. And not particularly good speculation. Using your loose logic, I could just as convincingly speculate that God is an atheist. I mean, if there is nobody above God, then He, being omniscient, can't believe in a higher power, right?

There. Now we have two dumb arguments out there, based on nothing, that we can argue about.

Also, you kind of shoot down your own pro-polygamy argument with the "lawfully wedded as husband and wife" bit. None of the early Mormon polygamous marriages were lawful.

shadow wrote:

SkyBird wrote: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!

It's unfortunate that we don't recognize that Jesus was born to married parents. A Mother and a Father as Husband and Wife. Somehow people seem to think they weren't married? That's contrary to the Gospel. Always has been.

According to LDS doctrine- "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." Also- "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony" -the proclamation to the world

The above is true, and it applies to our Savior as well. He was born of a Father in Heaven and his Mother, Mary. They must have been married. I don't think it was a "passion of flesh".

Shadow, God and Mary weren't bound to these words. These are modern PSR words, and they only apply from the date of the Proclamation until more-modern PSRs change the Proclamation to condone gay marriage.

If all the truth in the universe were represented by the Lake Superior, the modern LDS church can lay claim to about 100 gallons of water. I wouldn't imagine trying to limit God's activities by pronouncements from the COB.

Obrien wrote:

ajax wrote:

shadow wrote:The above is true, and it applies to our Savior as well. He was born of a Father in Heaven and his Mother, Mary. They must have been married. I don't think it was a "passion of flesh".

A little passion helps get the motor running. Otherwise it just becomes sterile duty.

Probably her favorite MBD helps keep the passion motor running too...

Spirits

That's right, prior to the proclamation in 1995 it was OK to sleep around. I forgot about that.

shadow wrote:That's right, prior to the proclamation in 1995 it was OK to sleep around. I forgot about that.

I love you, brother Shadow. You accuse God of sleeping around with Mary based on the 1995 Proclamation...
That's rich.

Come on Pink Death - without refrigeration and pasteurization, how do you suppose anyone drank alcohol free anything back then? Certainly Mary had wine, and I'm sure she LOVED the stuff Jesus made for her.

Obrien wrote:

shadow wrote:That's right, prior to the proclamation in 1995 it was OK to sleep around. I forgot about that.

I love you, brother Shadow. You accuse God of sleeping around with Mary based on the 1995 Proclamation...
That's rich.

Nice projection.

Fiannan wrote:

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

In regards to polygamy, prove it.

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

No the id is what is associated with "lust" not the ego. And could you please define your terms?

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.

So the Torah, Bible and Koran are just plain forgeries in regards to polygamy? Well, tell me, was it more likely that pro-polygamy sections of the Bible got watered down or removed by the Romans who created Christianity, and later by the Brits who gave us the Protestant Bible, or would it be actually more likely the parts that promoted polygamy got taken out?

As for "conscience" again, please define this concept and try to separate it between what God gives us as a basic foundational concept at birth and what society tells us we should feel guilty about because we have violated a social norm.

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!

So if I agree with you I agree with God but if I don't agree with you I am a slave of the flesh? Even people I have known with psychopathic diagnosis are not quite arrogant enough to make such claims.

Take the "test" Fiannan... Shadow ... it works!

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

The source and claims I make for this truth comes from D&C 121: 45-46...

Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 121:45 - 46)

Yes Skybird and polygamy is part of God's plan. Get over it.

Tribunal wrote:

Ben McClintock wrote:Read "the Seer" by Orson Pratt

Ben that's totally funny that you would recommend that book. Just after I got to work this morning a co-worker asked if I had ever read The Seer. Will that book answer my questions? Even the social questions?

Orson Pratt totally discounted this book ( that he wrote ) and told everyone in the church NOT to read it. He was living in Washington DC at the time of writing "The Seer", and his intention was to defend polygamy. When Brigham Young saw it, he called Elder Pratt in with other apostles present, and told him that this book, which is a compilation of essays, was really full of errors, and these were pointed out to him. Immediately, and I do mean IMMEDIATELY, Elder Pratt very publicly lssued a retraction, most emphatically telling church members not to read "The Seer".

Orson Pratt is my most admired General Authority, and his above actions are one of the reasons. He is a genuinely brilliant man who used his spiritual gifts to bring clarity to most if not all of our church doctrines to day. There are many other things he wrote that are so worth reading, but unfortunately, " The Seer" in not one of them, and he is the first to admit that. Some things in it are true, but most are not.

Fiannan wrote:Yes Skybird and polygamy is part of God's plan. Get over it.

No it isn't... it will never be a Celestial doctrine! I will always stand up for what is "true" from the point of "godliness"... the inward development of character! It over-rides all physical "forms and structures," "principalities and powers" and "Polygamy" is a "form" of idolatry and formalism! (Get over it! Fiannan!) move forward, upward!

According to the Old Testament, things or places were holy that were set apart for a sacred purpose; the opposite of holy is therefore common or profane (1 Sam. 21:5; Ezek. 22:26; 42:20; 44:23; 48:13–15). Similarly a holy person meant one who held a sacred office. The Israelites were a holy people because they stood in a special relationship to Jehovah. Under the guidance of the Prophets it was seen that what distinguished Jehovah from the gods of the heathen was His personal character. The word holy therefore came to refer to moral character (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 21:8; Isa. 6:3–8). Israel must be holy in character because the God of Israel was holy (Jer. 7:4–7; see also Matt. 5:48). The Law of Holiness (Lev. 17–26) shows how the attempt was made by means of ceremonial observances to secure this holiness of character. The attempt failed because the later Jews observed the letter and neglected the spirit; they attached more importance to the ceremonial than to the moral; and the result was a lapse into formalism. But in the writings of the Prophets it is clearly laid down that the value of worship in the eyes of God depends upon the personal character of the worshipper.

passionflower wrote:

Tribunal wrote:

Ben McClintock wrote:Read "the Seer" by Orson Pratt

Ben that's totally funny that you would recommend that book. Just after I got to work this morning a co-worker asked if I had ever read The Seer. Will that book answer my questions? Even the social questions?

Orson Pratt totally discounted this book ( that he wrote ) and told everyone in the church NOT to read it. He was living in Washington DC at the time of writing "The Seer", and his intention was to defend polygamy. When Brigham Young saw it, he called Elder Pratt in with other apostles present, and told him that this book, which is a compilation of essays, was really full of errors, and these were pointed out to him. Immediately, and I do mean IMMEDIATELY, Elder Pratt very publicly lssued a retraction, most emphatically telling church members not to read "The Seer".

Orson Pratt is my most admired General Authority, and his above actions are one of the reasons. He is a genuinely brilliant man who used his spiritual gifts to bring clarity to most if not all of our church doctrines to day. There are many other things he wrote that are so worth reading, but unfortunately, " The Seer" in not one of them, and he is the first to admit that. Some things in it are true, but most are not.

When I read the "historical commentary" of the book, "The Seer" ... I was under the impression it took awhile for Pratt to retract... and that it was mainly over his view of the "Godhead."

"Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and truth is the God that dwells in them" (The Seer, pg. 24).

"The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God" (The Seer, pg. 24).

"all Godlike attributes... the fulness of all truth...it is the fulness of wisdom, knowledge, truth, goodness, love, and such like qualities where you find God" (The Seer, pg. 24).

"When we worship the Father, we do not merely worship His person, but we worship the truth which dwells in His person...when we worship the Son, ... we worship the truth which resides in Him... It is truth, light, and love that we worship and adore..." (The Seer, pg. 24).

"Therefore, in all our future statements and reasoning's, when we speak of a plurality of Gods, let it be distinctly understood, that we have reference alone to a plurality of temples wherein the same truth or God dwells" (The Seer, pg. 24).

"In the 22nd paragraph of this article we showed that there could not possible be but one God so far as the attributes are concerned, but so far as it regards persons, that there were an immense number of Gods" (The Seer, pg. 117).

It was comments like this that got Orson Pratt in trouble. ... I personally find these truths self-evident.

Many Catholics believed that sex was a necessary evil and influenced modern Christianity in ways that made it quite a bit different than its alleged root -- Judaism.

Jews hold sex in very high regard while the Catholics saw it icky to be with one woman, much less several.

If a person who had never, ever read the Bible were to read it for the first time and be asked what its message was about polygamy he would reply that polygamy appears to be the original traditional family value.

Of course if people want to do spiritual gymnastics to obscure that fact then all I say is...whatever.

If a person who never, ever read the Bible were to read it for the first time and asked about their general impression, he would reply "that Old Testament is whack! I can't believe anyone takes it literally."

Fiannan wrote:Many Catholics believed that sex was a necessary evil and influenced modern Christianity in ways that made it quite a bit different than its alleged root -- Judaism.

Jews hold sex in very high regard while the Catholics saw it icky to be with one woman, much less several.

If a person who had never, ever read the Bible were to read it for the first time and be asked what its message was about polygamy he would reply that polygamy appears to be the original traditional family value.

Of course if people want to do spiritual gymnastics to obscure that fact then all I say is...whatever.

=))

Fiannan... I respect what you have to say... as well as other who oppose my thinking... but that is okay... thank goodness we all have our own mind:) and have the ability to "change."

http://butdoesitfloat.com/We-see-what-w ... -sometimes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;