Polygamy best tactic to destroy a family

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

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..

100% agree they are clowns!

[Durzan]

The tradition is that the masonic practices originated in solomon's temple. that doesn't mean that it actually did. We can't really know for certain one way or the other as Masonic rituals have been kept confidential for ages. On top of that, getting any historical records or decent information about a time period older than the middle ages is difficult at best.

[abijah]

The tradition is that the masonic practices originated in solomon's temple. that doesn't mean that it actually did. We can't really know for certain one way or the other as Masonic rituals have been kept confidential for ages. On top of that, getting any historical records or decent information about a time period older than the middle ages is difficult at best.

I think they did. I think this is reflected in Joseph Smith's involvement in Freemasonry, and the direct resemblance with the inspired Endowment ceremony.

I also think so because freemasonry is filled to the brim with occultic truth that is often lost on LDS theology.

People say they worship "Lucifer". Well, they do. The question here is which Lucifer do they worship?

[mtm411]

The temple ceremonies pre-dating Christ is literally impossible. Especially since they are modernly extending to women and much of the language is Christian in nature, not just Messianic.

I am of the same belief as the FAIR folks. The Masonic things are a way that God taught the people in the restoration in a language Joseph and the other leaders could understand. I don't think that lessens its importance at all, but I think we need to make sure our testimony doesn't hinge on the Masonic elements because they are subject to change.

[MMbelieve]

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?

Then I really don't care.

[mtm411]

I don't care what consenting adults want to do either. Also why I don't really care about gay marriage or other people shacking up before marriage, or open marriages. I believe they are all harmful if children are in the equation, otherwise- not my business.

When they start telling young girls that she and her family can only go to heaven if she marries into polygamy then I have an issue.

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?

Then I really don't care.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

The tradition is that the masonic practices originated in solomon's temple. that doesn't mean that it actually did. We can't really know for certain one way or the other as Masonic rituals have been kept confidential for ages. On top of that, getting any historical records or decent information about a time period older than the middle ages is difficult at best.

Durzan, it's not difficult to find the origins of Free Masonry - just ask the Masons... 1700s is when it took on the look and feel of modern Free Masonry. Some major changes in the 1800s. It's also not a mystery what was happening in Soloman's Temple. Just ask the Jews. Spoiler alert, what took place in Solomon's temple resembles very little of Free Masonry or LDS Temple worship.

I can't imagine there are credible people that believe Solomon's Temple was the literal source of Free Masonry. It does get messy though as LDS leaders, likely including Nauvoo era teachings, indicated that they were in fact connected, and simply needed to be restored with some corrections.

[nightlight]

The tradition is that the masonic practices originated in solomon's temple. that doesn't mean that it actually did. We can't really know for certain one way or the other as Masonic rituals have been kept confidential for ages. On top of that, getting any historical records or decent information about a time period older than the middle ages is difficult at best.

Durzan, it's not difficult to find the origins of Free Masonry - just ask the Masons... 1700s is when it took on the look and feel of modern Free Masonry. Some major changes in the 1800s. It's also not a mystery what was happening in Soloman's Temple. Just ask the Jews. Spoiler alert, what took place in Solomon's temple resembles very little of Free Masonry or LDS Temple worship.

I can't imagine there are credible people that believe Solomon's Temple was the literal source of Free Masonry. It does get messy though as LDS leaders, likely including Nauvoo era teachings, indicated that they were in fact connected, and simply needed to be restored with some corrections.

Do you believe the priesthood you hold is real?

[Zenger]

I have raised a heartfelt question on the subject at this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49615&start=120

I am interested in hearing feedback from any and all.

[Benaishtart]

Satans plan is to prevent children from being born. If we use that as a criteria then plural marriage isn’t near the top of his list. However horrific rape is, children are still being brought into the world. Polyamory is far worse than plural marriage and I would argue that homosexual unions are worse than polyamorous relationships.

[Fiannan]

Remember, it is women who punish other women who stray outside the bounds of "proper" society. You see it with ISIS brides inflicting horrific torture on women who do not follow their dictates (for that reason alone we should turn over all ISIS brides to the Iraqi and Syrian governments for trial and execution). However, see who freaks the most if a woman stops shaving her legs or stops using makeup. Males don't really care but their female friends and relatives will have a fit. Some of the science behind it:

https://www.psypost.org/2018/12/women-b ... fKUnMEhI8M

We can assume when polygamy comes back it will be women who will chastise and attack women who choose to enter polygamist unions. It will be women who will try to preserve the status quo, not because of any moral reasons but because it shakes the established order. Note, in "1984" Orwell presents the young women leagues as being the most devoted to Big Brother. Yes, there are many, many women who would enter polygamy, but they will get scorn from many a mad mamma in Relief Society that resents men anyway, even if they are married to one.

[Fiannan]

I can't imagine there are credible people that believe Solomon's Temple was the literal source of Free Masonry. It does get messy though as LDS leaders, likely including Nauvoo era teachings, indicated that they were in fact connected, and simply needed to be restored with some corrections.

Really? Well, I suppose, unlike Solomon, our Church leaders did not enslave demons to help in the construction of the temple. By the way, did you know that many of our advances in mathematics throughout the centuries are connected to supernatural influences?

A side note, maybe it is harsh to call the Jinn demons. Depends on perspective.

[tdj]

I don't really care about the subject either way, but I can think of some positives to polygamy. For one, I think any time someone wants to marry additional people, there needs to be a letter from the others saying it's ok. I can see where a man marrying another, younger woman without the first wife's permission could be a problem. ALL adults should be on board with it, since it could affect them in any number of ways.

Also, a marriage with more then two people could bring in much more money then just two people. Think about it: You have a man who has say four or five wives. One can stay home and watch the kids, while everyone else is out making money. The average income is $50,000. Multiply that by 4, and you got a pretty well off family. Provided the husband shows some stinking restraint and not use his wives as a bunch of brood mares, and you won't have that much in child care expenses either. One kid per woman tops.

Also, if the husband is one of those rare types (sarcasm) who tends to be a jerk every once in a while, then the women can gang up on him and put him properly in his place. Too many women feel alone in monogamous relationships and don't really have someone who has their backs when it comes to husbands and setting him straight when need be and soundly jerking a knot in his tail.

[Sarah]

Remember, it is women who punish other women who stray outside the bounds of "proper" society. You see it with ISIS brides inflicting horrific torture on women who do not follow their dictates (for that reason alone we should turn over all ISIS brides to the Iraqi and Syrian governments for trial and execution). However, see who freaks the most if a woman stops shaving her legs or stops using makeup. Males don't really care but their female friends and relatives will have a fit. Some of the science behind it:

https://www.psypost.org/2018/12/women-b ... fKUnMEhI8M

We can assume when polygamy comes back it will be women who will chastise and attack women who choose to enter polygamist unions. It will be women who will try to preserve the status quo, not because of any moral reasons but because it shakes the established order. Note, in "1984" Orwell presents the young women leagues as being the most devoted to Big Brother. Yes, there are many, many women who would enter polygamy, but they will get scorn from many a mad mamma in Relief Society that resents men anyway, even if they are married to one.

I have noticed this phenomenon within my own circle, of woman trying to punish or control other women within the family, and I think a huge part of it is that they grew up feeling controlled themselves, and feel that this is the normal way to relate to others, and they also have low self-esteem and want to bring others down to help themselves feel superior. This happens with men too, especially in the workplace, men wanting to control or manipulate other men, and you see that men who were abused as children are more likely to grow up to be abusers.
We also see how in places like China the daughters who were servants to their mother-in-laws, now feel entitled to boss their own daughters in-law-around.

[mtm411]

Think of how much better that system would be in reverse. 4 men and one women. This exists in the world already. Certain tribes practice it so the inheritance is passed down to just one group of children. All the men share the workload of the land, the woman and her children are provided for.

I don't really care about the subject either way, but I can think of some positives to polygamy. For one, I think any time someone wants to marry additional people, there needs to be a letter from the others saying it's ok. I can see where a man marrying another, younger woman without the first wife's permission could be a problem. ALL adults should be on board with it, since it could affect them in any number of ways.

Also, a marriage with more then two people could bring in much more money then just two people. Think about it: You have a man who has say four or five wives. One can stay home and watch the kids, while everyone else is out making money. The average income is $50,000. Multiply that by 4, and you got a pretty well off family. Provided the husband shows some stinking restraint and not use his wives as a bunch of brood mares, and you won't have that much in child care expenses either. One kid per woman tops.

Also, if the husband is one of those rare types (sarcasm) who tends to be a jerk every once in a while, then the women can gang up on him and put him properly in his place. Too many women feel alone in monogamous relationships and don't really have someone who has their backs when it comes to husbands and setting him straight when need be and soundly jerking a knot in his tail.

[Benaishtart]

Think of how much better that system would be in reverse. 4 men and one women. This exists in the world already. Certain tribes practice it so the inheritance is passed down to just one group of children. All the men share the workload of the land, the woman and her children are provided for.

I don't really care about the subject either way, but I can think of some positives to polygamy. For one, I think any time someone wants to marry additional people, there needs to be a letter from the others saying it's ok. I can see where a man marrying another, younger woman without the first wife's permission could be a problem. ALL adults should be on board with it, since it could affect them in any number of ways.

Also, a marriage with more then two people could bring in much more money then just two people. Think about it: You have a man who has say four or five wives. One can stay home and watch the kids, while everyone else is out making money. The average income is $50,000. Multiply that by 4, and you got a pretty well off family. Provided the husband shows some stinking restraint and not use his wives as a bunch of brood mares, and you won't have that much in child care expenses either. One kid per woman tops.

Also, if the husband is one of those rare types (sarcasm) who tends to be a jerk every once in a while, then the women can gang up on him and put him properly in his place. Too many women feel alone in monogamous relationships and don't really have someone who has their backs when it comes to husbands and setting him straight when need be and soundly jerking a knot in his tail.

This is institutionalized cuckoldry and it’s purposed intent is to lower the birthdate (even in those societies). Partial paternity is inherently anti gospel

[mtm411]

As opposed to institutionalized adultery and womanizing that polygamy is? It's purposefully removing the influence of a father from the child's lives because there is no way one father can effectively influence, provide for, and parent that many children.

If he marries women much younger than himself, he is creating single, widowed mothers of young children. Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow left widows in their twenties with small children to be raised fatherless. That seems antithetical to the proclamation on the family that says that fathers have duties beyond providing sperm. Their widows at least had church pensions to rely on. How many polygamist wives and children didn't? Social Security wasn't around to provide for them.

Women don't like sharing their spouses anymore than men do. They never have and they never will. Men who are in favor of polygamy can't wrap their heads around the fact that we actually like them and want to be a true partner in life, and that their children need their influence, too. However, they would lose their mind if their wife paid attention to another man. Women feel the same way!

Think of how much better that system would be in reverse. 4 men and one women. This exists in the world already. Certain tribes practice it so the inheritance is passed down to just one group of children. All the men share the workload of the land, the woman and her children are provided for.

I don't really care about the subject either way, but I can think of some positives to polygamy. For one, I think any time someone wants to marry additional people, there needs to be a letter from the others saying it's ok. I can see where a man marrying another, younger woman without the first wife's permission could be a problem. ALL adults should be on board with it, since it could affect them in any number of ways.

Also, a marriage with more then two people could bring in much more money then just two people. Think about it: You have a man who has say four or five wives. One can stay home and watch the kids, while everyone else is out making money. The average income is $50,000. Multiply that by 4, and you got a pretty well off family. Provided the husband shows some stinking restraint and not use his wives as a bunch of brood mares, and you won't have that much in child care expenses either. One kid per woman tops.

Also, if the husband is one of those rare types (sarcasm) who tends to be a jerk every once in a while, then the women can gang up on him and put him properly in his place. Too many women feel alone in monogamous relationships and don't really have someone who has their backs when it comes to husbands and setting him straight when need be and soundly jerking a knot in his tail.

This is institutionalized cuckoldry and it’s purposed intent is to lower the birthdate (even in those societies). Partial paternity is inherently anti gospel

[tdj]

As opposed to institutionalized adultery and womanizing that polygamy is? It's purposefully removing the influence of a father from the child's lives because there is no way one father can effectively influence, provide for, and parent that many children.

If he marries women much younger than himself, he is creating single, widowed mothers of young children. Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow left widows in their twenties with small children to be raised fatherless. That seems antithetical to the proclamation on the family that says that fathers have duties beyond providing sperm. Their widows at least had church pensions to rely on. How many polygamist wives and children didn't? Social Security wasn't around to provide for them.

Women don't like sharing their spouses anymore than men do. They never have and they never will. Men who are in favor of polygamy can't wrap their heads around the fact that we actually like them and want to be a true partner in life, and that their children need their influence, too. However, they would lose their mind if their wife paid attention to another man. Women feel the same way!

Think of how much better that system would be in reverse. 4 men and one women. This exists in the world already. Certain tribes practice it so the inheritance is passed down to just one group of children. All the men share the workload of the land, the woman and her children are provided for.

I don't really care about the subject either way, but I can think of some positives to polygamy. For one, I think any time someone wants to marry additional people, there needs to be a letter from the others saying it's ok. I can see where a man marrying another, younger woman without the first wife's permission could be a problem. ALL adults should be on board with it, since it could affect them in any number of ways.

Also, a marriage with more then two people could bring in much more money then just two people. Think about it: You have a man who has say four or five wives. One can stay home and watch the kids, while everyone else is out making money. The average income is $50,000. Multiply that by 4, and you got a pretty well off family. Provided the husband shows some stinking restraint and not use his wives as a bunch of brood mares, and you won't have that much in child care expenses either. One kid per woman tops.

Also, if the husband is one of those rare types (sarcasm) who tends to be a jerk every once in a while, then the women can gang up on him and put him properly in his place. Too many women feel alone in monogamous relationships and don't really have someone who has their backs when it comes to husbands and setting him straight when need be and soundly jerking a knot in his tail.

This is institutionalized cuckoldry and it’s purposed intent is to lower the birthdate (even in those societies). Partial paternity is inherently anti gospel

I think cuckoldry is when the woman cheats and has another man. Not a man who has more then one woman, wife or not.

[Fiannan]

So all the millions of women who want a husband, and can't find one, should just be satisfied and buy themselves some cats and become liberals?

There are more women who wish to be mothers than there are men who want to be fathers. Even the most ardent feminists I know admit that they like children, and many want to have children, with a man, woman or however.

Polygamy would not be for everyone, but it would be for those who could tolerate sharing a husband, or who would actually find the idea itself appealing, for whatever reason.

[Fiannan]

I think cuckoldry is when the woman cheats and has another man. Not a man who has more then one woman, wife or not.

To be more specific, it is when a husband wants to witness the cheating with another man, or hear his wife describe it to him when she returns home. And yes, the idea appeals more to liberal men than to conservative ones.

[Sarah]

So all the millions of women who want a husband, and can't find one, should just be satisfied and buy themselves some cats and become liberals?

There are more women who wish to be mothers than there are men who want to be fathers. Even the most ardent feminists I know admit that they like children, and many want to have children, with a man, woman or however.

Polygamy would not be for everyone, but it would be for those who could tolerate sharing a husband, or who would actually find the idea itself appealing, for whatever reason.

Maybe that option would allow a few that preferred that route to take it, but I doubt it would take hold in the free world. We have enough freedom that anyone seeking that arrangement can find it online. Are they choosing it? Plurality of wives seems only to come about when you have women with little to no choice in the matter.

With women being able to support themselves nowadays, they are not forced to take what they can get, just so they can have children and survive. And pretty soon they would realize that the quality of care wouldn't be super great. From my family history I know that being a plural wife essentially meant you were a single mom struggling to survive. How many women want that? I think I would rather be childless than know that I and my children might not be taken care of appropriately. We already have enough single moms who struggle to survive.

The main reason why any woman allows her husband to have more wives is because she is commanded to and she is willing to sacrifice for what she believes are promised blessings. As much as some might think it would be an attractive arrangement for women, I can't see it taking hold unless women are desperate and we are commanded to do it again. How do you think your wife would like it if she found out she would only see you 50% of how often she sees you now? And that is with only one other wife! What if you had 3 or more? I think most men (and some women) think the ideal is that everyone live in one house and share everything. But that was proven in those days to be extremely difficult and many times impossible. Can you imagine having two other men move in to your home and share your wife with you, and your common rooms, and your office space. Would you be willing to do that? Can you imagine if, where you work, you have two or more men having to share that exact same space with you? That is what it feels like for a woman having to share her home and kitchen.

And then you still have the problem of all the single men who aren't settling down and taking wives. What are they doing instead? Not progressing and probably causing trouble. It sure doesn't help them. A few men taking more wives only leaves less and less desirable marriage partners for all these single men who don't have the nerve or desire or attractiveness as other men. What are you going to do with them? The problem with plurality of wives on a large scale, without some type of United Order in affect, is that the men are left behind, and the women feel like single moms. I think it's sad that among the men who practiced this in the early days of the church, most were so concerned about protecting their rights with no desire to help uplift their fellow brothers, by sharing their substance. When Orderville failed, in large part it was because the young men growing up to maturity, wanted to venture out of the order. It wasn't a very attractive arrangement to have to live and work with other men who had many wives and big houses and because of their large families, and be the weakling on the block who had to compete with that for attracting a wife.