If God ended polygamy in 1890, but members(leaders) didn't stop..

[Rachael]

I was thinking on the lines of. "If God commanded" the members to once again practice polygamy. How many would fall away?

I imagine a lot.

So?

More than enough could replace them and eventually far exceed their reproductive capabilities, which would cause the Church to expand big time.

No, because it only expands the reproductive capacity of men. Other polygamy threads have provided evidence that monogamous relationships produce more children

Anti polygamy argument #1: Polygamy decreases overall female reproduction.

Fact: This is all based on a study done on Utah polygamists in the 1800s. Two variables left out of practically all discussions:

a) Many men who were polygamists were arrested and spent a great deal of time in jail. As conjugal visits were not part of 19th Century jail norms then no reproduction for the wives.

b) Many of the men who were polygamists were often sent on missions that could last a year or more. Hard to impregnate a wife using the telegraph.

Anti polygamy argument #2: Monogamous relationships are more conducive to female reproduction.

Fact: Evolutionary psychology suggests that humans are designed as group creatures, not pairs. Size differential would also suggest the ideal family unit is one male and two or three females. Males are more fertile when exposed to more than one partner and males are also designed to be able to reproduce decades after a female cohort would no longer be able to do so. Economic advantages to polygamy aside one must consider that stress reduces female fertility. A home in which there are multiple mothers would see less stress and thus more fertility, plus built-in daycare with people who actually would care for the children. Also, women could work in shifts to have career and larger than one or two kids.

And BY said he didn't even recognize some of his wives on the street.... Yeah right. They had more kids by someone who didn't even recognize them
And your last paragraph... Every woman's dream. Maybe if we are just like cow herds or lion prides.
Probably the inspiration for the Lion House in SLC

[Rachael]

I've seen the show Paternity Court. I agree that multiple partners may increase male fertility. One show featured a guy that was a baby-daddy to 19 kids by 10 women. Now if those women would just cooperate, and join in supporting that man and rotate child care... Beautiful. New proclamation to the family

[Fiannan]

Maybe if we are just like cow herds or lion prides.

Lions eat cows, so better a lioness than a cow. Of course if you are going to use animal analogies it might be best to use more similar creatures like bonobo chimps. Of course the polyamorous qualities of that primate species might be a bit unconventional for many women today, then again maybe not. I have talked with more than a few younger women who have said that polygamy with benefits would be their ideal lifestyle. And this is trending as heterosexuality fades away in the population. And no, this is not some sort of male fantasy -- in bonobo family situations if there is a dispute between the dominant male and the females the females will pull together and all confront the male. Not too many males would want to be in that arrangement, although it seems part of human nature as well.

[Rachael]

If we are going to act like animals, its an appropriate analogy. I agree that lions are more dignified

[Fiannan]

If we are going to act like animals, its an appropriate analogy. I agree that lions are more dignified

Humans do not act like animals, at least most. Only chimps, dolphins and humans engage in intimate relations for recreation rather than solely for reproduction.

[Rachael]

Then most animal species have more morals than us. At least the "natural man". Or the polygamous off shoots

[Rachael]

I don't even...
Then who on earth is the Jehovah in the endowment?

So when Elohim mentions a Savior coming to the world to save them and the camera slowly zooms in on Jehovah as he smiles and shows emotion at the mention of the Savior, that's not indicating that Jehovah is that same Savior(Jesus)?

I'm incredibly confused

Could it possibly be the Savior from Michael's world?? Everything is patterned. Go read Joseph's, King Follet discourse. Also, I wouldn't put too much into the video itself as being a correct visual interpretation of anything.

The new videos are a reflection of what our current leaders believe, so unless you think our current leaders are changing the endowment and the identity of Jehovah, the video proves that Jehovah is Jesus. That's fine if it's your opinion, I don't care either way.

I don't see why the video would have a Savior from a previous world in it, one that has nothing to do with me. Believing that it wasn't Jesus that created the worlds and was the great Jehovah greatly reduces the mission of Jesus

it doesn't reduce the mission of Jesus at all..

like Slim said "could it be the savior from Michael's world?" if so then since Michael is our Father then it would mean a great deal to us.. also Elohim being the Father to Michael is a great important to us.. just as our earthly grandparents and great grand parents are to us now.

Bishop Heber Bennion in 1920 (Supplement to Gospel Problems, p. 8-9): "Elohim may signify the Father or Grandfather, or Great Grandfather - God or the Council of Gods, and Jehovah may be applied to any of them in the capacity or relationship of a son ..."

again .. Jehovah as a Title .. if we think of it as a title then it makes sense and doesnt hurt your brain.

“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346. Italics in original).

"Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all," (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474). "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 5).

The Gods had bodies of flesh and bone.. the Jehovah mentioned could not be Jesus... Jesus had not yet received his body..

Twas not always so... until later
Lectures on Faith from wiki but by all means check elsewhere.

"...Other commentators have theorized that the lectures represented official church doctrine in 1835, but that by 1897 or 1921, when the work was decanonized by the major Latter Day Saint denominations, the doctrine concerning the Godhead had changed, and the lectures were no longer generally consistent accepted doctrines. For instance, in Lecture 5, paragraph 2, it defines the Father as a "personage of spirit, glory and power," whereas in section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 22 states that "the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." In addition, the Father and Son are said to possess the same mind, "which mind is the Holy Spirit" (Lecture 5, paragraph 2). The Holy Spirit is not a personage, as defined at the beginning of paragraph 2: "There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things .... They are the Father and Son." This could cause confusion when compared with section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants: "The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit." Section 130 was added in the 1876 edition and hence co-existed with the Lectures on Faith."

[Fiannan]

Then most animal species have more morals than us. At least the "natural man". Or the polygamous off shoots

I have always thought the "natural man" was a reference to a somewhat Hobbesian view of mankind as brutish and selfish. Yes, that is a bad thing. Of course many members see it only in the context of a sexual thing, but then do we want people to go all "unnatural?" Polygamy can involve intimacy of course but ultimately it is to build a small sense of the united order, bring forth righteous, healthy offspring, and allow for a stronger family than monogamy can provide.

[Rachael]

When birth ratios of male and female change... Or what about many bird species? Many are mated for life. It wouldnt work in a herd or pride to propogate most birds. I successfully raised a fledgling bluejay. Hard work! Human babies are too. Unless a man is a helluva provider monogamy seems best for humans since you brought up evolutionary psychology.

[Rachael]

Then most animal species have more morals than us. At least the "natural man". Or the polygamous off shoots

I have always thought the "natural man" was a reference to a somewhat Hobbesian view of mankind as brutish and selfish. Yes, that is a bad thing. Of course many members see it only in the context of a sexual thing, but then do we want people to go all "unnatural?" Polygamy can involve intimacy of course but ultimately it is to build a small sense of the united order, bring forth righteous, healthy offspring, and allow for a stronger family than monogamy can provide.

You've never read Sacred Loneliness, or maybe No Man Knows My History, or maybe you are a tad calloused and misogynistic like BY who said no one cares less about the society of women than he did?

[freedomforall]

Then most animal species have more morals than us. At least the "natural man". Or the polygamous off shoots

I have always thought the "natural man" was a reference to a somewhat Hobbesian view of mankind as brutish and selfish. Yes, that is a bad thing. Of course many members see it only in the context of a sexual thing, but then do we want people to go all "unnatural?" Polygamy can involve intimacy of course but ultimately it is to build a small sense of the united order, bring forth righteous, healthy offspring, and allow for a stronger family than monogamy can provide.

You've never read Sacred Loneliness, or maybe No Man Knows My History, or maybe you are a tad calloused and misogynistic like BY who said no one cares less about the society of women than he did?

Since many people cared less for the society of women, does this mean that BY cared even less than they? :-\

[sandman45]

But Joseph, how can Michael, give dominion and glory to Jesus Christ, unless he had it first? It's impossible to give something you don't first have possession of.

The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others. He will have to give an account of his stewardship, and they to him. TPJS

.

Thanks for clearing that up, Joseph.

Clear as mud since someone had to give those keys to Adam. Maybe Jesus let Adam borrow them and Adam gives them back later.

How could Jesus give the keys to Adam? doesn't make sense since Jesus didn't have a body and therefore could not pass on keys and priesthood authority by the 'laying on of hands'..

Maybe Adam's Father gives him the keys.. and then Adam then gives those keys to his Son, Christ? this makes more sense and follows and fits the eternal pattern and patriarchal order.

so yes.. Thanks Joseph for clearing it up.. clear as day.

[sandman45]

You've never read Sacred Loneliness, or maybe No Man Knows My History

are those feminist/communist books?

[Rachael]

But Joseph, how can Michael, give dominion and glory to Jesus Christ, unless he had it first? It's impossible to give something you don't first have possession of.

The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first guy given to him, and by him to others. He will have to give an account of his stewardship, and they to him. TPJS

.

Thanks for clearing that up, Joseph.

Clear as mud since someone had to give those keys to Adam. Maybe Jesus let Adam borrow them and Adam gives them back later.

How could Jesus give the keys to Adam? doesn't make sense since Jesus didn't have a body and therefore could not pass on keys and priesthood authority by the 'laying on of hands'..

Maybe Adam's Father gives him the keys.. and then Adam then gives those keys to his Son, Christ? this makes more sense and follows and fits the eternal pattern and patriarchal order.

so yes.. Thanks Joseph for clearing it up.. clear as day.

I don't recall if Aaron had gotten the Levitical priesthood by laying on of hands... Will look that up later. But if God can say let there be light, and there is light, He can probably give PH authority by just saying so

[Rachael]

You've never read Sacred Loneliness, or maybe No Man Knows My History

are those feminist/communist books?

No and no

[Rachael]

But the united order has communistic characteristics, but more benevolent since it is voluntary rather than being compulsory

[freedomforall]

But the united order has communistic characteristics, but more benevolent since it is voluntary rather than being compulsory

And the notion that Michael is God the Father, the Father of Jehovah, promoted on this site seems compulsory as well. There is no let up on the matter, against all teachings of current prophets that have clearly denounced this uncanonized doctrine, of which, by the way, has never been in canon, only opinion that has been propagated and more recently proven incorrect.

[Rachael]

But Joseph, how can Michael, give dominion and glory to Jesus Christ, unless he had it first? It's impossible to give something you don't first have possession of.

The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others. He will have to give an account of his stewardship, and they to him. TPJS

.

Thanks for clearing that up, Joseph.

Clear as mud since someone had to give those keys to Adam. Maybe Jesus let Adam borrow them and Adam gives them back later.

How could Jesus give the keys to Adam? doesn't make sense since Jesus didn't have a body and therefore could not pass on keys and priesthood authority by the 'laying on of hands'..

Maybe Adam's Father gives him the keys.. and then Adam then gives those keys to his Son, Christ? this makes more sense and follows and fits the eternal pattern and patriarchal order.

so yes.. Thanks Joseph for clearing it up.. clear as day.

Another thought. Adam was at the mount of transfiguration? If he was, he didn't have a body either since the resurrection hadn't happened yet. Moses and Elijah were taken up/translated.

And I thought the "Father" was supposed to be Adam (according to your premise). It must be grandpa God you are talking about.... Except Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:...
And Jesus said great are the words of Isaiah, not BY, or JSs King Follett Sermon

[freedomforall]

Romans 5:12 says they sinned!

transgression = evildoing, actus reus
sin = evildoing, transgression, an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of

so... what do you say about all the quotes from Lehi, Nephi, Joseph, Brigham, Bruce, JFS etc about how our first parents did NOT sin? But let's ignore Spencer Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith and others. What about them? Sin = transgression of God's laws. They sinned, period. Not to mention all the sins committed during the next 900+ years after they left the garden. After all, they were mortal! Good grief.

- Are you disregarding their comments on the topic since they dont agree with what you personally believe?

- Are you just picking and choosing from the Doctrine like its a buffet....instead of trying to accept and learn all of it like you should when your parents tell you broccoli is good for you..?

don't reject pieces of doctrine that you do not personally and fully understand..As if you do? :)) :)) :))

I suppose two out of every five thousand people believing this nonsense is truly convincing.

[Fiannan]

Then most animal species have more morals than us. At least the "natural man". Or the polygamous off shoots

I have always thought the "natural man" was a reference to a somewhat Hobbesian view of mankind as brutish and selfish. Yes, that is a bad thing. Of course many members see it only in the context of a sexual thing, but then do we want people to go all "unnatural?" Polygamy can involve intimacy of course but ultimately it is to build a small sense of the united order, bring forth righteous, healthy offspring, and allow for a stronger family than monogamy can provide.

You've never read Sacred Loneliness, or maybe No Man Knows My History, or maybe you are a tad calloused and misogynistic like BY who said no one cares less about the society of women than he did?

You interpret that to say that Brigham Young did not care about women, or their society? By society maybe he was referring to what I was referring to when I was discussing bonobo chimps. The females form their own social group in that species and if their male causes trouble they all gang up on him. I have heard that women in 19th Century Utah did the same thing when the hubby was out of line.

[Fiannan]

When birth ratios of male and female change... Or what about many bird species? Many are mated for life. It wouldnt work in a herd or pride to propogate most birds. I successfully raised a fledgling bluejay. Hard work! Human babies are too. Unless a man is a helluva provider monogamy seems best for humans since you brought up evolutionary psychology.

Why compare humans to birds? We are not very similar to birds in our DNA. We are closer to animals such as pigs and chimps. I am not sure the mating practices of pigs but bonobo chimps live in small, polyamorous, family groups. Females are close to each other, very close, and they care for each others offspring if need be.

And I believe you are interpreting family in the 1950s "nuclear family" construct which only lasted a very short time in human history due to a very prosperous economic period. Before that people tended to live in extended families and before that polygamy was quite common. However, instead of going back in time too far let us consider Mormon polygamy in the 19th century. Women were not necessarily stay-at-home-moms. They all chipped in on the farm, an economic enterprise if there ever was one, some brought in extra money by opening up shops, working as midwives and even some as doctors. Polygamy therefore would fit in better in today's declining America in that you could have one man and three women who all shared in bringing in income as well as nurturing the kids. Today's monogamy is creating a dying nation and dying culture if for no other reason than the fact that incomes are shrinking and home prices are too high. By the time a couple can afford that home in the suburbs the wife is practically out of her childbearing years. Polygamy would solve that.

[Rachael]

I am not a bonobo chimp, I don't like apes in general, I don't believe I evolved from them. I can understand how their sexual behavior has appeal to some

Mexicans pool resources and do OK here without polygamy. I'd rather share a vehicle or home than a spouse

[Fiannan]

I am not a bonobo chimp, I don't like apes in general, I don't believe I evolved from them. I can understand how their sexual behavior has appeal to some

Mexicans pool resources and do OK here without polygamy. I'd rather share a vehicle or home than a spouse

My point is that one can get more from comparing humans to higher mammals than to birds.

Also, there is strength in numbers and while large families are great polygamy has both the potential to create even larger family units as well as allow women who might not find domestic life their ideal but would like to have children the opportunity to do so.

[slimjamm]

Romans 5:12 says they sinned!

transgression = evildoing, actus reus
sin = evildoing, transgression, an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of

so... what do you say about all the quotes from Lehi, Nephi, Joseph, Brigham, Bruce, JFS etc about how our first parents did NOT sin? But let's ignore Spencer Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith and others. What about them? Sin = transgression of God's laws. They sinned, period. Not to mention all the sins committed during the next 900+ years after they left the garden. After all, they were mortal! Good grief.

- Are you disregarding their comments on the topic since they dont agree with what you personally believe?

- Are you just picking and choosing from the Doctrine like its a buffet....instead of trying to accept and learn all of it like you should when your parents tell you broccoli is good for you..?

don't reject pieces of doctrine that you do not personally and fully understand..As if you do? :)) :)) :))

I suppose two out of every five thousand people believing this nonsense is truly convincing.

Of course it's all nonsense to you. You are exactly those spoken of in Doctrine and Covenants 45:28-30.

[Mindfields]

I was thinking on the lines of. "If God commanded" the members to once again practice polygamy. How many would fall away?

As many as chose to practice polygamy being that God never commanded anyone to practice it. But He has referred to polygamy as an abomination, a grosser crime, whoredom etc.