Polygamy best tactic to destroy a family

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

You say now:

Polygamy is an alternative sexual lifestyle. Communism is a socio-economic construct. Apples - Oranges comparison .

You said before:

I didn't say communism wasn't bad for society or for families, just that polygamy is much worse.

Oh no you caught me!!!

I dont view communism as inherently immoral or evil. It becomes those things not because the socioeconomic structure is "evil" but because system provides for opportunity for evil in people to thrive at a greater rate than other systems. I believe a truly righteous people could thrive under communism.

Yes, our experience with communism in the last hundred years has been (in my opinion) catastrophically bad. Nazism falls into that category as well.

The apples to oranges comment is justified. For example, is a potato worse than murder? Um no, murder is worse than a potato, because murder is immoral and a potato is a tuber minding it's own business.

Now let's say that the Church decides to condemn potatoes by adding them as a violation under the word of wisdom. Potatos are the favorite tuber of Anti-Mormon bloggers, and even suggest that this tuber is the cause of widespread masturbation. The Church has now made the potato a morality issue with inappropriate viewing or touching of potatoes a top concern for the brethren... Is the potato now "worse" than murder? Probably not, but it's possible now that some apologists at FAIRmormon could compare potato to murder.

[mtm411]

Best. comment. ever.

Except that now we will get more communism memes.

You say now:

Polygamy is an alternative sexual lifestyle. Communism is a socio-economic construct. Apples - Oranges comparison .

You said before:

I didn't say communism wasn't bad for society or for families, just that polygamy is much worse.

Oh no you caught me!!!

I dont view communism as inherently immoral or evil. It becomes those things not because the socioeconomic structure is "evil" but because system provides for opportunity for evil in people to thrive at a greater rate than other systems. I believe a truly righteous people could thrive under communism.

Yes, our experience with communism in the last hundred years has been (in my opinion) catastrophically bad. Nazism falls into that category as well.

The apples to oranges comment is justified. For example, is a potato worse than murder? Um no, murder is worse than a potato, because murder is immoral and a potato is a tuber minding it's own business.

[nightlight]

I am not sure why they wait until the woman has died to seal her husband and kids to her, but they will eventually. I see no reason why she couldn't have both. If Russel M Nelson can have both spouses, so will she.

I understand your point to be how things should be, not the current church position.

In the Church's defense, the whole things breaks down and becomes somewhat meaningless unless there is some order that prevents everyone being sealed to eachother. It's super easy if you aren't in that situation to shrug and say, "God will make it ok." A bit different if you are a TBM that can't be sealed to your TBM spouse or children. You are hanging on, I guess to see who (hopefully more than 1) gets assigned to you in the hereafter...

Maybe Jesus was right when the Sadducees asked him a super complicated question about who's wife it is if her husbands die and she is remarried multiple times...

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

You don't believe you will be husband to your wife in the next world?

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

I am not sure why they wait until the woman has died to seal her husband and kids to her, but they will eventually. I see no reason why she couldn't have both. If Russel M Nelson can have both spouses, so will she.

I understand your point to be how things should be, not the current church position.

In the Church's defense, the whole things breaks down and becomes somewhat meaningless unless there is some order that prevents everyone being sealed to eachother. It's super easy if you aren't in that situation to shrug and say, "God will make it ok." A bit different if you are a TBM that can't be sealed to your TBM spouse or children. You are hanging on, I guess to see who (hopefully more than 1) gets assigned to you in the hereafter...

Maybe Jesus was right when the Sadducees asked him a super complicated question about who's wife it is if her husbands die and she is remarried multiple times...

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

You don't believe you will be husband to your wife in the next world?

That aspect of the Church has always resonated with me. It seems logical that God wouldn't seek to destroy the institution of the family in the hereafter.

If we awoke tomorrow to find that the government and the Church both have decided that all marriages are now officially invalidated and all records of marriages destroyed, how would that change your relationship? Would you start sleeping around, move out, or abandon your children? Probably not.

I'm not claiming to know the answer but I'm suggesting that starting from the position that unsealed people abondon their relationships in the next life, may be misguided.

[nightlight]

I am not sure why they wait until the woman has died to seal her husband and kids to her, but they will eventually. I see no reason why she couldn't have both. If Russel M Nelson can have both spouses, so will she.

I understand your point to be how things should be, not the current church position.

In the Church's defense, the whole things breaks down and becomes somewhat meaningless unless there is some order that prevents everyone being sealed to eachother. It's super easy if you aren't in that situation to shrug and say, "God will make it ok." A bit different if you are a TBM that can't be sealed to your TBM spouse or children. You are hanging on, I guess to see who (hopefully more than 1) gets assigned to you in the hereafter...

Maybe Jesus was right when the Sadducees asked him a super complicated question about who's wife it is if her husbands die and she is remarried multiple times...

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

You don't believe you will be husband to your wife in the next world?

That aspect of the Church has always resonated with me. It seems logical that God wouldn't seek to destroy the institution of the family in the hereafter.

If we awoke tomorrow to find that the government and the Church both have decided that all marriages are now officially invalidated and all records of marriages destroyed, how would that change your relationship? Would you start sleeping around, move out, or abandon your children? Probably not.

I'm not claiming to know the answer but I'm suggesting that starting from the position that unsealed people abondon their relationships in the next life, may be misguided.

Do you believe your resurrected body will have a penis? There is your answer bro.... what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven.

You will forever be with your wife, you are one flesh. You will be together forever....mentally,spiritually, and physically.

Don't doubt this brother ...our God conquered death for this end

[Allison]

If we accepted the premise that Joseph Smith never endorsed nor practiced polygamy, I think our discussions of the pros and cons would be very different.

I read only half of Volume One of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, while looking up the footnotes and finding much evidence for the citations right in the Harold B. Lee Library Archives, and became convinced that polygamy really did not begin through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith at all.

All he ever said publicly in the subject was to condemn it. If he was publicly condemning something that he privately taught and practiced, then he would of necessity, have been lying — rather prolifically, too. However, if he was telling the truth when he condemned and denied it, then maybe someone else was being untruthful — maybe Brigham? Either way, they both couldn’t have been telling the truth; one was definitely lying, because their stories are at odds with each other. And Joseph said that he never shied away from teaching the hard doctrines.

It does no harm to my faith to think that maybe Brother Brigham got carried away with the ideology of some polygamists he met on his mission to Maine, any more than David’s wives and concubines were an abomination before the Lord, yet the Lord still used him for His purposes.

The book is free to read online: http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm. I only read enough to fully satisfy myself that Joseph Smith did not start polygamy, nor did the Lord reveal it to him. If you think otherwise, you ought to try looking up the references in the book; it’s an amazing research project.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

If we accepted the premise that Joseph Smith never endorsed nor practiced polygamy, I think our discussions of the pros and cons would be very different.

I read only half of Volume One of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, while looking up the footnotes and finding much evidence for the citations right in the Harold B. Lee Library Archives, and became convinced that polygamy really did not begin through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith at all.

All he ever said publicly in the subject was to condemn it. If he was publicly condemning something that he privately taught and practiced, then he would of necessity, have been lying — rather prolifically, too. However, if he was telling the truth when he condemned and denied it, then maybe someone else was being untruthful — maybe Brigham? Either way, they both couldn’t have been telling the truth; one was definitely lying, because their stories are at odds with each other. And Joseph said that he never shied away from teaching the hard doctrines.

It does no harm to my faith to think that maybe Brother Brigham got carried away with the ideology of some polygamists he met on his mission to Maine, any more than David’s wives and concubines were an abomination before the Lord, yet the Lord still used him for His purposes.

The book is free to read online: http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm. I only read enough to fully satisfy myself that Joseph Smith did not start polygamy, nor did the Lord reveal it to him. If you think otherwise, you ought to try looking up the references in the book; it’s an amazing research project.

Have you read, The Exoneration of Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum? I made it most of the way through. It's pretty compelling making the case that Joseph was adamant in his opposition to polygamy. Much of the focus is on Brigham Young. That guy has quite the history...

It's a no win situation, either agree with the Church that Joseph was a liar and very immoral, or side with those opposed to that point of view and everything connected to Brigham Young and his successors is built on lies. You can't really have it both ways.

[Bronco73idi]

If we accepted the premise that Joseph Smith never endorsed nor practiced polygamy, I think our discussions of the pros and cons would be very different.

I read only half of Volume One of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, while looking up the footnotes and finding much evidence for the citations right in the Harold B. Lee Library Archives, and became convinced that polygamy really did not begin through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith at all.

All he ever said publicly in the subject was to condemn it. If he was publicly condemning something that he privately taught and practiced, then he would of necessity, have been lying — rather prolifically, too. However, if he was telling the truth when he condemned and denied it, then maybe someone else was being untruthful — maybe Brigham? Either way, they both couldn’t have been telling the truth; one was definitely lying, because their stories are at odds with each other. And Joseph said that he never shied away from teaching the hard doctrines.

It does no harm to my faith to think that maybe Brother Brigham got carried away with the ideology of some polygamists he met on his mission to Maine, any more than David’s wives and concubines were an abomination before the Lord, yet the Lord still used him for His purposes.

The book is free to read online: http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm. I only read enough to fully satisfy myself that Joseph Smith did not start polygamy, nor did the Lord reveal it to him. If you think otherwise, you ought to try looking up the references in the book; it’s an amazing research project.

Have you read, The Exoneration of Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum? I made it about half way through. It's pretty compelling making the case that Joseph was adamant in his opposition to polygamy. Much of the focus is on Brigham Young. That guy has quite the history...

It's a no win situation, either agree with the Church that Joseph was a liar and very immoral, or side with those opposed to that point of view and everything connected to Brigham Young and his successors is built on lies. You can't really have it both ways.

Based off of the book “Exoneration of Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum” the Nauvoo temple was a Masonic lodge and Joseph was upset with it, I haven’t read anything more then a lengthy review of it.

Does that mean all temple ceremonies are heathen Masonic rituals?? That seems to be what the author is advocating.

Brigham Young was very rough around the edges. When reading about him, like how he set his young son apart as an apostle or as he said he doesn’t believe men can be monogamous. I then like to remember about the st. George temple.

http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Lightning- ... ed/s/86019

Also judge the tree by the fruits.

[Fiannan]

I dont view communism as inherently immoral or evil. It becomes those things not because the socioeconomic structure is "evil" but because system provides for opportunity for evil in people to thrive at a greater rate than other systems. I believe a truly righteous people could thrive under communism.

Have your sociology teacher read Freud's classic "Civilization and its Discontents" and get back to us.

Communism is great, except it runs counter to human nature. People are inherently different and want different things in life. Some are ambitious, others lazy, some have a lot of concern for others, while many other people do not. So in order for communism to work you need a dictator who will force people to comply to the goals of the state. The dictator will then mold the society to fit his or her sense of the ideal. This is why it is impossible to achieve utopia...it always degenerates to a dystopia.

Some say Marx was the first communist. They are wrong: it was actually Satan.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

I dont view communism as inherently immoral or evil. It becomes those things not because the socioeconomic structure is "evil" but because system provides for opportunity for evil in people to thrive at a greater rate than other systems. I believe a truly righteous people could thrive under communism.

Have your sociology teacher read Freud's classic "Civilization and its Discontents" and get back to us.

Communism is great, except it runs counter to human nature. People are inherently different and want different things in life. Some are ambitious, others lazy, some have a lot of concern for others, while many other people do not. So in order for communism to work you need a dictator who will force people to comply to the goals of the state. The dictator will then mold the society to fit his or her sense of the ideal. This is why it is impossible to achieve utopia...it always degenerates to a dystopia.

Some say Marx was the first communist. They are wrong: it was actually Satan.

Pretty sure my sociology teacher would be 120 years old by now

I dont think your getting the point. You are conflating the problems of human nature with the social structure. The "evil" is based on individuals making evil decisions.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Does that mean all temple ceremonies are heathen Masonic rituals?? That seems to be what the author is advocating.

The endowment ritual is absolutely based and Masonic rites, something the church admits BTW. The author suggests that Masonic activity was at a fever pitch in Nauvoo. Virtually all the leaders were prolific Masons. From what I recall the author points out that the Kirtland temple was built to be a spiritual meeting place, Nauvoo differed in that it was intended to be a step toward the ultimate goal of "true Masonry". You should read it and not rely on someone else to provide their biased (we all are) take on the information.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Brigham Young was very rough around the edges. When reading about him, like how he set his young son apart as an apostle or as he said he doesn’t believe men can be monogamous.

Yeah. I think that would be the very smoothest elements of his "rough around the edges."

[Fiannan]

Does that mean all temple ceremonies are heathen Masonic rituals?? That seems to be what the author is advocating.

The endowment ritual is absolutely based and Masonic rites, something the church admits BTW. The author suggests that Masonic activity was at a fever pitch in Nauvoo. Virtually all the leaders were prolific Masons. From what I recall the author points out that the Kirtland temple was built to be a spiritual meeting place, Nauvoo differed in that it was intended to be a step toward the ultimate goal of "true Masonry". You should read it and not rely on someone else to provide their biased (we all are) take on the information.

Oh my gosh, evil Masons!!!

[Fiannan]

I dont view communism as inherently immoral or evil. It becomes those things not because the socioeconomic structure is "evil" but because system provides for opportunity for evil in people to thrive at a greater rate than other systems. I believe a truly righteous people could thrive under communism.

Have your sociology teacher read Freud's classic "Civilization and its Discontents" and get back to us.

Communism is great, except it runs counter to human nature. People are inherently different and want different things in life. Some are ambitious, others lazy, some have a lot of concern for others, while many other people do not. So in order for communism to work you need a dictator who will force people to comply to the goals of the state. The dictator will then mold the society to fit his or her sense of the ideal. This is why it is impossible to achieve utopia...it always degenerates to a dystopia.

Some say Marx was the first communist. They are wrong: it was actually Satan.

Pretty sure my sociology teacher would be 120 years old by now

I dont think your getting the point. You are conflating the problems of human nature with the social structure. The "evil" is based on individuals making evil decisions.

Nope, an individual can be either a good or a bad polygamist but a communist is dependent on force and thus an instrument of Satan.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Does that mean all temple ceremonies are heathen Masonic rituals?? That seems to be what the author is advocating.

The endowment ritual is absolutely based and Masonic rites, something the church admits BTW. The author suggests that Masonic activity was at a fever pitch in Nauvoo. Virtually all the leaders were prolific Masons. From what I recall the author points out that the Kirtland temple was built to be a spiritual meeting place, Nauvoo differed in that it was intended to be a step toward the ultimate goal of "true Masonry". You should read it and not rely on someone else to provide their biased (we all are) take on the information.

Oh my gosh, evil Masons!!!

I'm definitely not claiming Masons to be evil. Just making the point that Masonic rites underpin our temple worship rituals. Let's own it brother!

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Nope, an individual can be either a good or a bad polygamist but a communist is dependent on force and thus an instrument of Satan.

Is this the type of education that my tithing money pays for at BYU nowadays?

[Bronco73idi]

Does that mean all temple ceremonies are heathen Masonic rituals?? That seems to be what the author is advocating.

The endowment ritual is absolutely based and Masonic rites, something the church admits BTW. The author suggests that Masonic activity was at a fever pitch in Nauvoo. Virtually all the leaders were prolific Masons. From what I recall the author points out that the Kirtland temple was built to be a spiritual meeting place, Nauvoo differed in that it was intended to be a step toward the ultimate goal of "true Masonry". You should read it and not rely on someone else to provide their biased (we all are) take on the information.

I used the word “all” for a reason. Yes the endowment is an adaptation.

As a prophet why would he get irritated that the lord’s house got more attention? I personally don’t blame him when you take in what his poor wife Emma had to go through. I also wouldn’t use that as a talking point to support my position. That’s me.

Why wouldn’t the Community of Christ have Joseph Smith translation of KJV in their standard works, they can leave the book of Abraham out. It makes no sense to me.

[Durzan]

Does that mean all temple ceremonies are heathen Masonic rituals?? That seems to be what the author is advocating.

The endowment ritual is absolutely based and Masonic rites, something the church admits BTW. The author suggests that Masonic activity was at a fever pitch in Nauvoo. Virtually all the leaders were prolific Masons. From what I recall the author points out that the Kirtland temple was built to be a spiritual meeting place, Nauvoo differed in that it was intended to be a step toward the ultimate goal of "true Masonry". You should read it and not rely on someone else to provide their biased (we all are) take on the information.

I used the word “all” for a reason. Yes the endowment is an adaptation.

As a prophet why would he get irritated that the lord’s house got more attention? I personally don’t blame him when you take in what his poor wife Emma had to go through. I also wouldn’t use that as a talking point to support my position. That’s me.

Why wouldn’t the Community of Christ have Joseph Smith translation of KJV in their standard works, they can leave the book of Abraham out. It makes no sense to me.

They do. Its called the Inspired Version, I think.

[MMbelieve]

I dont view communism as inherently immoral or evil. It becomes those things not because the socioeconomic structure is "evil" but because system provides for opportunity for evil in people to thrive at a greater rate than other systems. I believe a truly righteous people could thrive under communism.

Have your sociology teacher read Freud's classic "Civilization and its Discontents" and get back to us.

Communism is great, except it runs counter to human nature. People are inherently different and want different things in life. Some are ambitious, others lazy, some have a lot of concern for others, while many other people do not. So in order for communism to work you need a dictator who will force people to comply to the goals of the state. The dictator will then mold the society to fit his or her sense of the ideal. This is why it is impossible to achieve utopia...it always degenerates to a dystopia.

Some say Marx was the first communist. They are wrong: it was actually Satan.

Pretty sure my sociology teacher would be 120 years old by now

I dont think your getting the point. You are conflating the problems of human nature with the social structure. The "evil" is based on individuals making evil decisions.

Nope, an individual can be either a good or a bad polygamist but a communist is dependent on force and thus an instrument of Satan.

Feeling forced to participate in polygamy just to go to heaven is any better? Many women do it under this belief and feel they must oblige or be damned. Using ones faith and desire to be with God for selfish means is also evil.

[nightlight]

Do you guys understand that Freemasonry was an order of those who built Solomons Temple. Regardless of what they are now or what you read about their origins...this is the case

Why do you think our judeo-christian forefathers were apart of this order... which was a preparatory order to the priesthood coming back.

George Washington knew more than you guys think about the building of Zion (through the hands of Masons). George Washington was servant of Christ. IMO, he was a Warrior Prophet as well as a warrior president

Isaiah5
20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

[Fiannan]

Have your sociology teacher read Freud's classic "Civilization and its Discontents" and get back to us.

Communism is great, except it runs counter to human nature. People are inherently different and want different things in life. Some are ambitious, others lazy, some have a lot of concern for others, while many other people do not. So in order for communism to work you need a dictator who will force people to comply to the goals of the state. The dictator will then mold the society to fit his or her sense of the ideal. This is why it is impossible to achieve utopia...it always degenerates to a dystopia.

Some say Marx was the first communist. They are wrong: it was actually Satan.

Pretty sure my sociology teacher would be 120 years old by now

I dont think your getting the point. You are conflating the problems of human nature with the social structure. The "evil" is based on individuals making evil decisions.

Nope, an individual can be either a good or a bad polygamist but a communist is dependent on force and thus an instrument of Satan.

Feeling forced to participate in polygamy just to go to heaven is any better? Many women do it under this belief and feel they must oblige or be damned. Using ones faith and desire to be with God for selfish means is also evil.

Coercion is not a good thing. Yet what if a woman wants to be part of a polygamist union?

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Do you guys understand that Freemasonry was an order of those who built Solomons Temple.

Sorry my friend. This is absolutely false. There is no connection between freemasonry and Solomon's Temple. None. ZERO. NADA

[nightlight]

Do you guys understand that Freemasonry was an order of those who built Solomons Temple.

Sorry my friend. This is absolutely false. There is no connection between freemasonry and Solomon's Temple. None. ZERO. NADA

Lol cuz your Google search said so....

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Do you guys understand that Freemasonry was an order of those who built Solomons Temple.

Sorry my friend. This is absolutely false. There is no connection between freemasonry and Solomon's Temple. None. ZERO. NADA

Lol cuz your Google search said so....

www.fairmormon.org

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... 7s_time.3F

"The trouble here is that we know that Masonic ritual practices do not trace to the temple of Solomon or to any time close to it. If one assumes that any part of the ritual is based upon Freemasonry, then Joseph Smith used ritual elements known to him and his followers to teach a uniquely restorationist view."

[nightlight]

Do you guys understand that Freemasonry was an order of those who built Solomons Temple.

Sorry my friend. This is absolutely false. There is no connection between freemasonry and Solomon's Temple. None. ZERO. NADA

Lol cuz your Google search said so....

www.fairmormon.org

"The trouble here is that we know that Masonic ritual practices do not trace to the temple of Solomon or to any time close to it. If one assumes that any part of the ritual is based upon Freemasonry, then Joseph Smith used ritual elements known to him and his followers to teach a uniquely restorationist view."

Bwhahahah because a Google search told the clown at fairmormon..