LDS Freedom Forum

tdj wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 1:33 pm

The Airbender wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 11:52 am

tdj wrote: ↑May 31st, 2019, 8:28 pm

The Airbender wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 11:42 pm

There is only one way to create a human body... right?

If that's so, then what does it say about him if Mary never even knew it happened??

You believe Mary didn't know it happened?

When the angel came to her to tell her what happened, the text led me to believe she was incredulous. She even went so far as to ask how it could have happened, since she had never known a man. Even a young girl that naive, would have put two and two together after an encounter.

5tev3 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 1:29 pm

NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 11:15 pm

Chip wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 10:45 pm

NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 9:19 pm

If they are aware of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament... Yes, they would.

I think that would be an unreasonable quantum leap for anyone to make, and extremely speculative. You'd need to be approaching the matter with a polygamy agenda.

On the other hand, Brigham Young could read polygamy into everything. According to him, even Mary had to have sex with Heavenly Father, despite ALL the scriptural basis of Jesus being born of a virgin. Do we ever just call a spade a spade in Mormonism? How much stuff like this are we obliged to swallow, as members of the Church?

No quantum leaping involved...no agenda needed

Jacob was preaching to an old testament people who had the Brass Plates,they were well aware of the Patriarchal practices of polygamy. Think Abraham, Isaac , Jacob.... This is no leap.

Abraham and Sarah actually used a surrogate concubine, Isaac only had one wife, and Jacob was tricked into marrying a woman he didn't want to marry and his two wives forced their handmaids upon him as surrogate concubines to battle for his affection by bearing him, children.

None of these situations equates with what is termed "polygamy" and how it was practiced among the saints. Jacob didn't even include them in his preaching because they were using the examples of David and Solomon specifically to justify their lust for sex.

They were not trying to righteously live the lives of the patriarchs. They were filthy-minded individuals looking for a way to satisfy their lusts upon the women, and perhaps young girls ("...because of their tenderness") among their people.

I do agree with Chip. I think most people read Jacob 2:30 as a loophole for "polygamy" only because they have been taught it that way. It is also fair to note that the church in Brigham's day and beyond did seem to want to read polygamy into many other things. You cannot underestimate how important the doctrine of polygamy was to those early saints, they stood by it firmly and would interpret scriptures in the light of that doctrine. They believed that they had a kind of revelatory authority to do so.

You don't hear most of those teachings today.

Also, I hear a lot of people talking about polygamy, but the Book of Mormon speaks of "many wives AND concubines" and some of the patriarchs did use concubines. So if we are ok with having many wives, how about concubines? Why don't we ever talk about them because they go hand in hand with the practice of having many wives?

A concubine would be a woman who may or may not be a wife but are in some cases servants, or slaves used primarily for sexual purposes.

Fiannan wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 11:07 am

Why would a virgin have IVF?

Wendy Nelson got married at the age of 56. She was not married before that. I would assume there are quite a few never-married religious women who are virgins and in their 30s.

Technically a woman who has only been involved with other women is a virgin.

There are also some a-sexual women who do not want any sexual relationships.

Any of these types of women can, and do, opt for IVF or artificial insemination every day. So yes, thousands and thousands of women have given birth without ever having been with a man sexually. This is a pre-flood technology to be sure, and was not discovered again until late in the 19th Century, long after Brigham Young was dead.

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 pm

Fiannan wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 11:07 am

Why would a virgin have IVF?

Wendy Nelson got married at the age of 56. She was not married before that. I would assume there are quite a few never-married religious women who are virgins and in their 30s.

Technically a woman who has only been involved with other women is a virgin.

There are also some a-sexual women who do not want any sexual relationships.

Any of these types of women can, and do, opt for IVF or artificial insemination every day. So yes, thousands and thousands of women have given birth without ever having been with a man sexually. This is a pre-flood technology to be sure, and was not discovered again until late in the 19th Century, long after Brigham Young was dead.

Brigham Young would be proud of you!

The Airbender wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 11:42 pm
There is only one way to create a human body... right?

Hie'ing to Kolob wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2019, 7:35 am

The Airbender wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 11:42 pm
There is only one way to create a human body... right?

I cant tell if you are sarcastic here, but this is the problem with Brigham Young style theology. In this paradigm, God is Adam, the first man. Quite literally God the Father in the flesh having sex with Eve. I guess, Eve could be one of his previous wives. Except for that whole Genesis thing, a rib being taken from Adam to form Eve. Anyway, I think the notion that God can only create through sexual intercourse, sometimes direct with humans, really isn't theology you need to embrace. Better to seperate from those claiming this than, find ways to justify those who taught it.

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 10:58 am So we’re supposed to use the full name of the church?

The corporation of the president of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 2:23 pm

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 10:58 am So we’re supposed to use the full name of the church?

The corporation of the president of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Actually it's The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But you were close enough.

The non-hyphenated ones are the Strangites.

Joel wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 11:00 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 9:24 pm I just read that the Mormon and Gay website is going to be renamed Same-Sex Attraction, with no mention of the Church, and avoiding the word "gay".