Is this dishonest or is it okay?

[Thinker]

Any other evidence you want to bring to the table?

Spoiler

[cab]

Let's also not forget the 2nd witness in the Book of Mormon... When King Noah took over from his righteous father, he turned immediately to this type of practice. This was clearly and sharply condemned by Abinidi. This was similar to what the Nephites did immediately after the death of Nephi, which Jacob clearly condemned... How do we not see the comparisons in these 2 examples and what we did immediately after the death of Joseph Smith? Is it too crazy to think that when Mormon and Moroni saw our day (Mormon 8:30), that they may have abridged the stories that would be included to warn us accordingly?

Maybe we should start over...What is plural marriage and how was it properly practiced. What conditions justified someone entering into the state?

I'm not aware of any people who have lived the higher law to have been commanded to live it, with the best documented examples being the New Testament Saints and the Nephites. All others were either living a lesser law or we have so little understanding of their actual history or cultural norms that we end up with speculation upon speculation. I don't know how everyone else feels about last years Gospel Doctrine Old Testament. But I think it was beyond atrocious. Our lack of understanding of Old Testament prophecy was put on full display. Whatever plural marriage was, I don't believe it was 30-50 plus wives. When was this ever sanctioned by the Lord?

2 Samuel 12 read how Nathan approaches David and what he Says the Lord will do.

But really, I'm not really inclined to go back and forth with you on this. I don't want to argue or be called names or have my intentions questioned.

But...but....but...I do question your sincerity to know correctly.

But you can start by clarifying your statement on John Bennett being the originator of "spiritual wifery". I don't believe that to be the case. I've found the term and practice of "spiritual wifery" to have appeared earlier, through the influence of Jacob Cochran's Cochranites, to whom we sent several waves of missionaries early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/john-c- ... al-wifery/

In fact, does anyone know any contemporary and reliable source that showed he did anything but fight against the polygamy that clearly was being practiced by some of the Saints? By contemporary I mean that the source existed when Joseph was still alive (not recollections many years after-the-fact or suddenly appearing drafts of revelations attributed to Joseph). And by reliable I mean not from the likes of nefarious characters such as John Bennett, William Law, Joseph Jackson, Oliver Olney etc ...

Start here:
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... h/Polygamy
[/quote]

I'm very sincere about knowing what's correct. You just question my sincerity because I've come to different conclusions than you have.

I've read the FAIRlds article and found nothing contemporary to the life and teachings of Joseph. I seems like a blatant apologetic piece pegging dozens of women to Joseph, just cause they said so, whenever they said so. And, I'm sorry, but was that wikipedia article supposed to be a primary source?

You, my friend, have continued to be condescending, "but... but... but...", like I'm a little snot nosed kid (which you may see me as)... . So I'm done giving time to responding to you. And seriously, if you want anyone to take you seriously, please have a little respect....

[Thinker]

I ask you to defend your position and by doing just a modicum, a tiny smigen of effort and you toss it back to me to do the work.

You've got the power - the world-wide-web at your finger tips - and still ask for more?

I'm not sure what you are saying....excellent video though.

Br.Lenox, you, sir, have obtained by some curious modus operandi clout, muscle, capability, ascendency - with procuring a hand-held device, aka "Smigen" yet you still ask for others for it. I'm wondering what could possibly be the circumstances which might produce this event.

And I'm j/k.
Not that I don't think it's funny when men obsess over polygamy.

[cab]

I ask you to defend your position and by doing just a modicum, a tiny smigen of effort and you toss it back to me to do the work.

You've got the power - the world-wide-web at your finger tips - and still ask for more?

I'm not sure what you are saying....excellent video though.

Br.Lenox, you, sir, have obtained by some curious modus operandi clout, muscle, capability, ascendency - with procuring a hand-held device, aka "Smigen" yet you still ask for others for it. I'm wondering what could possibly be the circumstances which might produce this event.

And I'm j/k.
Not that I don't think it's funny when men obsess over polygamy.

Yeah, what the?? Can we get some input from the sisters here!?!? Haha

[brlenox]

I'm not aware of any people who have lived the higher law to have been commanded to live it, with the best documented examples being the New Testament Saints and the Nephites. All others were either living a lesser law or we have so little understanding of their actual history or cultural norms that we end up with speculation upon speculation. I don't know how everyone else feels about last years Gospel Doctrine Old Testament. But I think it was beyond atrocious. Our lack of understanding of Old Testament prophecy was put on full display. Whatever plural marriage was, I don't believe it was 30-50 plus wives. When was this ever sanctioned by the Lord?

2 Samuel 12 read how Nathan approaches David and what he Says the Lord will do.

But really, I'm not really inclined to go back and forth with you on this. I don't want to argue or be called names or have my intentions questioned.

But...but....but...I do question your sincerity to know correctly.

But you can start by clarifying your statement on John Bennett being the originator of "spiritual wifery". I don't believe that to be the case. I've found the term and practice of "spiritual wifery" to have appeared earlier, through the influence of Jacob Cochran's Cochranites, to whom we sent several waves of missionaries early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/john-c- ... al-wifery/

In fact, does anyone know any contemporary and reliable source that showed he did anything but fight against the polygamy that clearly was being practiced by some of the Saints? By contemporary I mean that the source existed when Joseph was still alive (not recollections many years after-the-fact or suddenly appearing drafts of revelations attributed to Joseph). And by reliable I mean not from the likes of nefarious characters such as John Bennett, William Law, Joseph Jackson, Oliver Olney etc ...

Start here:
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jose ... h/Polygamy
[/quote]

I'm very sincere about knowing what's correct. You just question my sincerity because I've come to different conclusions than you have.

I've read the FAIRlds article and found nothing contemporary to the life and teachings of Joseph. I seems like a blatant apologetic piece pegging dozens of women to Joseph, just cause they said so, whenever they said so. And, I'm sorry, but was that wikipedia article supposed to be a primary source?

You, my friend, have continued to be condescending, "but... but... but...", like I'm a little snot nosed kid (which you may see me as)... . So I'm done giving time to responding to you. And seriously, if you want anyone to take you seriously, please have a little respect....

You haven't responded to me. You haven't done any of the research we discussed. You haven't put anything together that shows you really have given this subject a fair shake. You've complained that I seem to make you feel uncomfortable. Its clear you think I am foolish for my "condescending" attitude and you seem to manifest a bit of sensitivity to boldness, candor and a challenge for excellence in debate.

I don't expect anyone to take me seriously - but sometimes I wonder if others take themselves seriously. I like a bit of shock in the conversation, I interject weak efforts of humor and I push the envelope a touch. If you had tried we would have had an entirely different conversation but without substance all I had left was to push and see if maybe you could be goaded into a show of intellect.

I failed. Maybe not because it is not present but for some reason no one ponied up. For you maybe this material is just conversational talking points and it doesn't really make that big a difference. For me these are the most important issues in life and people should be able to put a little energy into figuring them out.

My apologies for my weak resources. I'm not at home so all I can give you are the quick resources but they could move you in the right direction if you were inclined.

[shadow]

2 Samuel 12 read how Nathan approaches David and what he Says the Lord will do.

But really, I'm not really inclined to go back and forth with you on this. I don't want to argue or be called names or have my intentions questioned.

But...but....but...I do question your sincerity to know correctly.

The problem with the polygamy deniers is that they have to pick and choose which scriptures to believe and which ones to throw out, and yes, they HAVE to throw out scriptures. Not only that but if they believe Brigham was scum, which is what they claim, they must also say Moses and Abraham were scum, among other prominent biblical polygamists like Gideon. The mental gymnastics they put themselves through to validate their incorrect belief is actually painful to witness. I get not liking polygamy, I don't care for it either. I don't blame one of my ancestors for high-tailing it out to California and leaving his new 2nd wife at home alone. After 2 years when she remarried he and his family came back. I'm probably more like him. And yet God has commanded polygamy in times. It can be reconciled for those who try.

David, the polygamist, only erred with Uriah. That's what the scriptures say.

5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

The scriptures also say that David was given his wives and had he wanted more, he would've been given more. The deniers rip that part out of their scriptures and burn it because they don't like it.

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

The gospel isn't a buffet, we can't take what we like and deny the things we don't understand. Those who deny are the ones who have to twist, contort and deny scriptures in order to make sense of their own ideas. They cannot reconcile anything using the scriptures. They have to write an essay with diagrams from a few verses in Jacob to force their own interpretation and even then it makes no sense because they have to erase section 132 and the story of David, which actually give meaning and context to Jacob 2. The funny thing is that Jacob 2 only compares the evil of polygamy with David and Solomon who coincidentally screwed up with polygamy. Jacob 2 doesn't mention the other polygamists in the OT. Jacob doesn't say that Abraham screwed up. He doesn't say that Moses screwed up. No mention of Gideon. No mention of any of the plethora of polygamists other than the 2 who misused it. The Nephites had the records of all of them.

[Chip]

Brlenox, I'm probably not the only one here who is interested in hearing what you believe the meaning of Jacob 2:30 is.

Chip the only way to be clear on the meaning is to marry the statement with the other scriptures that speak to the subject. I shouldn't have to do all the work here. In both cases, you and tophat, I ask you to defend your position and by doing just a modicum, a tiny smidgen of effort and you toss it back to me to do the work. Lay the verses out side by side and let them point the direction for meaning...just as the Lord instructed Oliver Cowdery ... do the work then, I will tell you in your heart and in your mind. I have already done these things...if you are sincere it is your turn to do the same.

But the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel and is most plain to the understanding of man. Shouldn't we be able to glean its meaning by just reading it?

[brlenox]

Brlenox, I'm probably not the only one here who is interested in hearing what you believe the meaning of Jacob 2:30 is.

Chip the only way to be clear on the meaning is to marry the statement with the other scriptures that speak to the subject. I shouldn't have to do all the work here. In both cases, you and tophat, I ask you to defend your position and by doing just a modicum, a tiny smidgen of effort and you toss it back to me to do the work. Lay the verses out side by side and let them point the direction for meaning...just as the Lord instructed Oliver Cowdery ... do the work then, I will tell you in your heart and in your mind. I have already done these things...if you are sincere it is your turn to do the same.

But the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel and is most plain to the understanding of man. Shouldn't we be able to glean its meaning by just reading it?

We'll with that logic where do we put temple ordinances and work for the dead? How about Bishops and Stake Presidents and other priesthood order things. What about the things of the Jews. The Book of Mormon recommends them but does it explain an iota of what they are. I only bring that up because it is understanding the things of the Jews that changed my manner of study of the scriptures...You know that it does not mean just read the Book of Mormon and look no further.

When the stick of Ephraim and Judah are combined - now you are getting somewhere, right? I would be a fool to think otherwise.

[topcat]

I gave you my "compelling evidences" already. To review:

1) We know virtually nothing about the OT so-called "polygamy".
2) We know clearly what Brigham Young and his associates engaged in. Sex to the Nth degree.
3) #1 and #2 above are not in any way analogous and should not be equated.
4) You did in fact attempt to equate them. This is my evidence (your quotes above). You attempted to equate two things which are not equal.
5) By equating the two, if that logic were true and accurate (which it isn't), then you could "logically" excuse what Brigham was doing and "logically" lay claim to Brigham's polygamy as being part of a restoration of all things.
6) Thus, by proving they are not equal, your entire argument is rendered invalid. No hard feelings. It's just the way it is.
7) And there is still the hardcore REBUKE of polygamy in Jacob 2. Unmistakable that rebuke it. But we don't even need that rebuke; based on the previous logic above in 1-6.
8) The practice of lots of sex by Brigham and crew raises the question or (I think) obvious conclusion, that they went rogue and were completely apostate from the Lord Jesus Christ. Some credit can be given them for some temporal or even spiritual accomplishments. But ALL credit should be properly given to Jesus who is long-suffering and who seeks to gather His people, as His hand is outstretched still. For centuries, God has always worked through corrupt institutions to accomplish His will. The modern Mormon Church is no exception.

Let's just take these one at a time. You have provided no evidence that you even know what the Old Testament says about polygamy. So show me the evidences in the Old Testament that speak to the subject of plural marriage and let's analyze them for what they do indicate or do not. I also have no interest in hearing further of your inferences concerning Brigham Young and his associates. You accuse a man you do not even know.

I have been warned for calling you foolish for being so bold in your denunciations of one of the Lords anointed. I suspect you were not warned for unnecessary vulgarity or whatever it might be labeled but if so then at least there may be some balance in the world. Either way I wish to restate my observation to a more acceptable less pointed at you observation. There are those who are overly judgmental and cavalier in their judgements about those whom the Lord has chosen to lead his church. Those who engage in such activity are not wise and illustrate imprudence in their efforts and designs. A rose is a rose is a rose....

For your info, I've never flagged or complained to a moderator about any content. I don't believe in using force personally when my rights aren't being violated. I do try to respect the rules of the private property I'm using in this cyber space. So as far as between me and you, I'm good. I grant you complete freedom of thought and expression, though I reserve the right to disagree.

[John Tavner]

2 Samuel 12 read how Nathan approaches David and what he Says the Lord will do.

But really, I'm not really inclined to go back and forth with you on this. I don't want to argue or be called names or have my intentions questioned.

But...but....but...I do question your sincerity to know correctly.

The problem with the polygamy deniers is that they have to pick and choose which scriptures to believe and which ones to throw out, and yes, they HAVE to throw out scriptures. Not only that but if they believe Brigham was scum, which is what they claim, they must also say Moses and Abraham were scum, among other prominent biblical polygamists like Gideon. The mental gymnastics they put themselves through to validate their incorrect belief is actually painful to witness. I get not liking polygamy, I don't care for it either. I don't blame one of my ancestors for high-tailing it out to California and leaving his new 2nd wife at home alone. After 2 years when she remarried he and his family came back. I'm probably more like him. And yet God has commanded polygamy in times. It can be reconciled for those who try.

David, the polygamist, only erred with Uriah. That's what the scriptures say.

5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

The scriptures also say that David was given his wives and had he wanted more, he would've been given more. The deniers rip that part out of their scriptures and burn it because they don't like it.

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

The gospel isn't a buffet, we can't take what we like and deny the things we don't understand. Those who deny are the ones who have to twist, contort and deny scriptures in order to make sense of their own ideas. They cannot reconcile anything using the scriptures. They have to write an essay with diagrams from a few verses in Jacob to force their own interpretation and even then it makes no sense because they have to erase section 132 and the story of David, which actually give meaning and context to Jacob 2. The funny thing is that Jacob 2 only compares the evil of polygamy with David and Solomon who coincidentally screwed up with polygamy. Jacob 2 doesn't mention the other polygamists in the OT. Jacob doesn't say that Abraham screwed up. He doesn't say that Moses screwed up. No mention of Gideon. No mention of any of the plethora of polygamists other than the 2 who misused it. The Nephites had the records of all of them.

Maybe, I'm sure those who didn't believe in Christ said the same thing about Christ - just giving a different perspective. Additionally I'm not saying Brigham is slime, perhaps confused, or he misunderstood. Too often people give false dichotomies. I try to follow the Spirit. I come from a polygamist family. I've always believed in polygamy until recently. I don't hate anyone nor am I throwing stones. The one thing I do know is that Joseph really was the Lord's anointed - claimed to speak with the Lord, he was ordained by angels - Brigham was not. Do I also know the church had a hard time telling the truht in the 1800's after J Smith died -yes. It had an extremely hard time. Deception was their #1 game. Confusion and lies regarding polygamy was rampant. It was really sad. That is why during the 1890 manifesto people thought meh not really - why? because the church had stated they were done multiple times beforehand - This is why it wasn't until the 1920's when they started not only excommunicating people, but searching anyone that taught of polygamy they kicked them out. Why because all the old people in the church were literally taught for years to ignore what the leadership said on polygamy and to lie about it, and wink wink say they weren't practicing it. So no, not all people believe everyone is evil and slime and wicked. Confused maybe, didn't understand things perhaps, and some may have been wicked -I don't know; however, with all that lying, it really isn't hard to believe they may have lied about a few other things. This is especially true when they literally added words to Joseph's diary- words he did not say contemporarily in order to demonstrate that they were teaching the truth. That is where I stand.

[cab]

Brlenox, I'm probably not the only one here who is interested in hearing what you believe the meaning of Jacob 2:30 is.

Chip the only way to be clear on the meaning is to marry the statement with the other scriptures that speak to the subject. I shouldn't have to do all the work here. In both cases, you and tophat, I ask you to defend your position and by doing just a modicum, a tiny smidgen of effort and you toss it back to me to do the work. Lay the verses out side by side and let them point the direction for meaning...just as the Lord instructed Oliver Cowdery ... do the work then, I will tell you in your heart and in your mind. I have already done these things...if you are sincere it is your turn to do the same.

But the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel and is most plain to the understanding of man. Shouldn't we be able to glean its meaning by just reading it?

That's what I thought and will continue to think. Funny how we're accused of picking and choosing scripture and then that same accuser flat out contradicts the Book of Mormon regarding David... I'm throwing in the towel for real now... I'm clearly no match for these keyboard warriors - probably not worthy to lace up their gloves.

[cab]

2 Samuel 12 read how Nathan approaches David and what he Says the Lord will do.

But really, I'm not really inclined to go back and forth with you on this. I don't want to argue or be called names or have my intentions questioned.

But...but....but...I do question your sincerity to know correctly.

The problem with the polygamy deniers is that they have to pick and choose which scriptures to believe and which ones to throw out, and yes, they HAVE to throw out scriptures. Not only that but if they believe Brigham was scum, which is what they claim, they must also say Moses and Abraham were scum, among other prominent biblical polygamists like Gideon. The mental gymnastics they put themselves through to validate their incorrect belief is actually painful to witness. I get not liking polygamy, I don't care for it either. I don't blame one of my ancestors for high-tailing it out to California and leaving his new 2nd wife at home alone. After 2 years when she remarried he and his family came back. I'm probably more like him. And yet God has commanded polygamy in times. It can be reconciled for those who try.

David, the polygamist, only erred with Uriah. That's what the scriptures say.

5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

The scriptures also say that David was given his wives and had he wanted more, he would've been given more. The deniers rip that part out of their scriptures and burn it because they don't like it.

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

The gospel isn't a buffet, we can't take what we like and deny the things we don't understand. Those who deny are the ones who have to twist, contort and deny scriptures in order to make sense of their own ideas. They cannot reconcile anything using the scriptures. They have to write an essay with diagrams from a few verses in Jacob to force their own interpretation and even then it makes no sense because they have to erase section 132 and the story of David, which actually give meaning and context to Jacob 2. The funny thing is that Jacob 2 only compares the evil of polygamy with David and Solomon who coincidentally screwed up with polygamy. Jacob 2 doesn't mention the other polygamists in the OT. Jacob doesn't say that Abraham screwed up. He doesn't say that Moses screwed up. No mention of Gideon. No mention of any of the plethora of polygamists other than the 2 who misused it. The Nephites had the records of all of them.

Oops, last thing haha... Shadow, you love to reference 1 Kings 15... But re-read it using the Joseph Smith translation.

5 Because David did right in the
eyes of the Lord, and turned not
aside from all that he commanded
him, to sin against the Lord; but
repented of the evil all the days of
his life, save only in the matter of
Uriah the Hittite, wherein the Lord
cursed him.

Changes the meaning a bit from the King James doesnt it? He repented of his evil, all except for the matter of Uriah. What evil? Read Jacob 2 and 3.

[brlenox]

I gave you my "compelling evidences" already. To review:

1) We know virtually nothing about the OT so-called "polygamy".
2) We know clearly what Brigham Young and his associates engaged in. Sex to the Nth degree.
3) #1 and #2 above are not in any way analogous and should not be equated.
4) You did in fact attempt to equate them. This is my evidence (your quotes above). You attempted to equate two things which are not equal.
5) By equating the two, if that logic were true and accurate (which it isn't), then you could "logically" excuse what Brigham was doing and "logically" lay claim to Brigham's polygamy as being part of a restoration of all things.
6) Thus, by proving they are not equal, your entire argument is rendered invalid. No hard feelings. It's just the way it is.
7) And there is still the hardcore REBUKE of polygamy in Jacob 2. Unmistakable that rebuke it. But we don't even need that rebuke; based on the previous logic above in 1-6.
8) The practice of lots of sex by Brigham and crew raises the question or (I think) obvious conclusion, that they went rogue and were completely apostate from the Lord Jesus Christ. Some credit can be given them for some temporal or even spiritual accomplishments. But ALL credit should be properly given to Jesus who is long-suffering and who seeks to gather His people, as His hand is outstretched still. For centuries, God has always worked through corrupt institutions to accomplish His will. The modern Mormon Church is no exception.

Let's just take these one at a time. You have provided no evidence that you even know what the Old Testament says about polygamy. So show me the evidences in the Old Testament that speak to the subject of plural marriage and let's analyze them for what they do indicate or do not. I also have no interest in hearing further of your inferences concerning Brigham Young and his associates. You accuse a man you do not even know.

I have been warned for calling you foolish for being so bold in your denunciations of one of the Lords anointed. I suspect you were not warned for unnecessary vulgarity or whatever it might be labeled but if so then at least there may be some balance in the world. Either way I wish to restate my observation to a more acceptable less pointed at you observation. There are those who are overly judgmental and cavalier in their judgements about those whom the Lord has chosen to lead his church. Those who engage in such activity are not wise and illustrate imprudence in their efforts and designs. A rose is a rose is a rose....

For your info, I've never flagged or complained to a moderator about any content. I don't believe in using force personally when my rights aren't being violated. I do try to respect the rules of the private property I'm using in this cyber space. So as far as between me and you, I'm good. I grant you complete freedom of thought and expression, though I reserve the right to disagree.

...and regardless of how it seems I am interpreted this conversation is here on the forum. Where you and I to meet I'd give you a big hug, and tell you what a fool you are and laugh with a wink. My problem on the forum is I'll get dinged for characterizing you as a fool but you can call Brigham Young a sex fiend all day long and it goes unnoticed. That's an interesting double standard from my perspective, especially in light of forum guidelines about not being disrespectful of the church. I don't worry about it and just figure someday I'll either get relegated to outer darkness or booted all together. Still it is my tender spot and whenever I am admonished it generally seems to be my tone about how folks speak of the brethren. I figure it is a good place to be.

[shadow]

Oops, last thing haha... Shadow, you love to reference 1 Kings 15... But re-read it using the Joseph Smith translation.

5 Because David did right in the
eyes of the Lord, and turned not
aside from all that he commanded
him, to sin against the Lord; but
repented of the evil all the days of
his life, save only in the matter of
Uriah the Hittite, wherein the Lord
cursed him.

Changes the meaning a bit from the King James doesnt it? He repented of his evil, all except for the matter of Uriah. What evil? Read Jacob 2 and 3.

It actually doesn't change anything because if you think about it, back in Samuel it clearly states that the Lord gave David his wives, and Joseph did NOT change that verse, even tho he did make changes in that chapter (proving that he knew it was there and what it meant). If you look at the whole then contextually your interpretation doesn't add up. It all has to be reconciled. I get that sometimes we have ideas in our heads of how things should be and we cherry pick certain scriptures to back our claims, but if we find scriptures that counter our claim- we must reconcile them, we can't delete them. Denying polygamy cannot be reconciled. Christ even used a parable in the NT with polygamy as it's center regarding the wise virgins. It's inescapable. The best we can do is hope we're not ever called to live it. Fortunately Elder Cook spilled the beans and claimed the brethren don't think it will return, that it served it's purpose. And it did serve a purpose. It was effective in jump-starting the number of faithful LDS. It wasn't even practiced by many saints, I think it's less than 5%. Everywhere I've lived in Utah was foundationally started with a t least some polygamist families, from Logan to St. George. As a side note- life is better in St. George

[cab]

Oops, last thing haha... Shadow, you love to reference 1 Kings 15... But re-read it using the Joseph Smith translation.

5 Because David did right in the
eyes of the Lord, and turned not
aside from all that he commanded
him, to sin against the Lord; but
repented of the evil all the days of
his life, save only in the matter of
Uriah the Hittite, wherein the Lord
cursed him.

Changes the meaning a bit from the King James doesnt it? He repented of his evil, all except for the matter of Uriah. What evil? Read Jacob 2 and 3.

It actually doesn't change anything because if you think about it, back in Samuel it clearly states that the Lord gave David his wives, and Joseph did NOT change that verse, even tho he did make changes in that chapter (proving that he knew it was there and what it meant). If you look at the whole then contextually your interpretation doesn't add up. It all has to be reconciled. I get that sometimes we have ideas in our heads of how things should be and we cherry pick certain scriptures to back our claims, but if we find scriptures that counter our claim- we must reconcile them, we can't delete them. Denying polygamy cannot be reconciled. Christ even used a parable in the NT with polygamy as it's center regarding the wise virgins. It's inescapable. The best we can do is hope we're not ever called to live it. Fortunately Elder Cook spilled the beans and claimed the brethren don't think it will return, that it served it's purpose. And it did serve a purpose. It was effective in jump-starting the number of faithful LDS. It wasn't even practiced by many saints, I think it's less than 5%. Everywhere I've lived in Utah was foundationally started with a t least some polygamist families, from Logan to St. George. As a side note- life is better in St. George

No one's denying polygamy. It happened and it was part of the Lord's plans to fullfill his purposes. What we are questioning is the wicked way certain people have chosen to pursue it and implement it over history.

We are also questioning how it became a Holy, Celestial commandment with strict penalties for not obeying in our recent history given that man has unrighteously justified himself in it's practice in the past.

The scripture in Samuel says David was given the wives and property of the King. How many wives was this? How many more did David acquire? Did the Lord command him to live a Celestial Law of plural marriage? Did he sin by seeking more wives and concubines? I don't see that the scripture in Samuel (or any ancient scripture) supports the idea that the Lord has commanded a form of heavenly polygamy to any people. The Book of Mormon says David did something grievous in the sight of the Lord in regard to his pursuit of many wives, so I'm trying to account for that.

I'm sorry you don't think we have valid questions. Here we disagree, and that's ok. But that doesn't mean I'm negligently ignoring scripture. To me, you are ignoring Lehi, Jacob, and Abinidi - but I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous.

And maybe here's where you'll say, "yeah but you're accusing Brigham et.al. of all sorts of nasty stuff!". Well, I feel that's what's been done towards Joseph, with very little resistance.... So, yeah... We disagree, but we don't have to be enemies, nor have you failed if you've been unable to convince me of my error.

Believe it or not, this isn't fun for me. I'm not here just to cause trouble or be a rabble rouser. My pursuit of the truth has caused suffering to myself and my family. It's not the easy road. You think I'm apostate, deceived, prideful, or covering sins or whatever. Truth is, this is where my seeking after the Lord has landed me. If I went back on what I feel, I truly feel I'd be offending the Holy Ghost. You say that questioning the brethren can't be of the Lord. Well, that's not exactly consistent with where I feel the Lord has taken me. That doesn't mean it's everyone's path. Sorry, I'll make good on my word and stop relying to you (and brlenox).

[Chip]

So, it never occurred to me that the virgins in the Parable of the Ten Virgins were going to MARRY the bridegroom. I always assumed they were just attending the wedding as guests. How do we know which?

[shadow]

So, it never occurred to me that the virgins in the Parable of the Ten Virgins were going to MARRY the bridegroom. I always assumed they were just attending the wedding as guests. How do we know which?

Maybe they were just guests but why would it matter to make note that they were virgins and why would it matter if they were going to meet the groom? Why a groom and why must one be prepared to meet him if only to simply be in attendance? Where's the bride in all this unless the bride is the one going to meet the bridegroom?

5 ¶ For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

[Chip]

So, it never occurred to me that the virgins in the Parable of the Ten Virgins were going to MARRY the bridegroom. I always assumed they were just attending the wedding as guests. How do we know which?

Maybe they were just guests but why would it matter to make note that they were virgins and why would it matter if they were going to meet the groom? Why a groom and why must one be prepared to meet him if only to simply be in attendance? Where's the bride in all this unless the bride is the one going to meet the bridegroom?

5 ¶ For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

I think that because this story is always presented in a way where these virgins seem to be guests, I never considered any alternative meaning before. And is TEN significant, or is it just a number sufficiently bigger than one that lends itself to the analogy of there being many with different outcomes, so that the hearer considers who among them HE would be?

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Christ even used a parable in the NT with polygamy as it's center regarding the wise virgins. It's inescapable.

Wow.

[Mindfields]

WOW is right. Some of the comments on here defending polygamy absolutely crack me up. More please.

[shadow]

So, it never occurred to me that the virgins in the Parable of the Ten Virgins were going to MARRY the bridegroom. I always assumed they were just attending the wedding as guests. How do we know which?

Maybe they were just guests but why would it matter to make note that they were virgins and why would it matter if they were going to meet the groom? Why a groom and why must one be prepared to meet him if only to simply be in attendance? Where's the bride in all this unless the bride is the one going to meet the bridegroom?

5 ¶ For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

I think that because this story is always presented in a way where these virgins seem to be guests, I never considered any alternative meaning before. And is TEN significant, or is it just a number sufficiently bigger than one that lends itself to the analogy of there being many with different outcomes, so that the hearer considers who among them HE would be?

I don't know if 10 is significant or not or if the point is that only half who were waiting for the Groom to come were prepared. I suspect the latter.
The idea of Christ being the Groom and the church with her members being the Bride is nothing new, despite how much the idea can make people laugh. I don't think anyone is laughing at Paul-

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
I suppose only half of the virgins would be able to be presented to Christ.

The similarity to Christ's parable is clear.

[Chip]

WOW is right. Some of the comments on here defending polygamy absolutely crack me up. More please.

Well, there's polygamy in the Bible, which seemed to be a cultural norm in its time.

Then, there's LDS polygamy which was not a cultural norm in its time and was surrounded with controversies, lies, intrigues, and murder, with some good reports by its practitioners mixed in, and the result of people being born who lead the church to this day.

I'd like to be done with thinking about it, because it seems like an unsolvable mess, unless I take the stance that it was just men being men, which makes the most sense, and is certainly how the rest of the world assesses the whole thing at a glance, but that leaves the church being a liar. I don't know how the church could have been so wrong and, yet, I've had such good experiences and growth in it. I'd like to personally resolve it all and not be bothered by it, anymore.

[shadow]

I'd like to be done with thinking about it

The nice thing is that we have nothing to do with polygamy anymore . Today it's not our doctrine. There's no reason for social justice warriors to pick a fight. Who can they fight anyway? All the polygamists are dead. The church leaders of that time are dead. Do people expect Nelson to take responsibility for what Brigham did? That's impossible. You can't get to your destination if you're constantly looking back.

Take Joseph's admonition to heart-
22 Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.

[topcat]

Let's just take these one at a time. You have provided no evidence that you even know what the Old Testament says about polygamy. So show me the evidences in the Old Testament that speak to the subject of plural marriage and let's analyze them for what they do indicate or do not. I also have no interest in hearing further of your inferences concerning Brigham Young and his associates. You accuse a man you do not even know.

I have been warned for calling you foolish for being so bold in your denunciations of one of the Lords anointed. I suspect you were not warned for unnecessary vulgarity or whatever it might be labeled but if so then at least there may be some balance in the world. Either way I wish to restate my observation to a more acceptable less pointed at you observation. There are those who are overly judgmental and cavalier in their judgements about those whom the Lord has chosen to lead his church. Those who engage in such activity are not wise and illustrate imprudence in their efforts and designs. A rose is a rose is a rose....

For your info, I've never flagged or complained to a moderator about any content. I don't believe in using force personally when my rights aren't being violated. I do try to respect the rules of the private property I'm using in this cyber space. So as far as between me and you, I'm good. I grant you complete freedom of thought and expression, though I reserve the right to disagree.

...and regardless of how it seems I am interpreted this conversation is here on the forum. Where you and I to meet I'd give you a big hug, and tell you what a fool you are and laugh with a wink. My problem on the forum is I'll get dinged for characterizing you as a fool but you can call Brigham Young a sex fiend all day long and it goes unnoticed. That's an interesting double standard from my perspective, especially in light of forum guidelines about not being disrespectful of the church. I don't worry about it and just figure someday I'll either get relegated to outer darkness or booted all together. Still it is my tender spot and whenever I am admonished it generally seems to be my tone about how folks speak of the brethren. I figure it is a good place to be.

I appreciate the thought (and the hug, and wink), after all, we're brothers in Christ at the end of the day. FYI, I've been chastised in the last 48 hours in a private message from the powers that be here for crossing forum rules.

[Chip]

I'd like to be done with thinking about it

The nice thing is that we have nothing to do with polygamy anymore . Today it's not our doctrine. There's no reason for social justice warriors to pick a fight. Who can they fight anyway? All the polygamists are dead. The church leaders of that time are dead. Do people expect Nelson to take responsibility for what Brigham did? That's impossible. You can't get to your destination if you're constantly looking back.

Take Joseph's admonition to heart-
22 Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.

I am not a SJW. That's dismissive of you to say.

Polygamy is not really over, because it still drives dishonesty and gaslighting in the church. It's like a tumor that was covered up, instead of excised. It still festers. There needs to be resolution. Talks that involve leaders' who had many wives should be able to incorporate that fact without shame. It's like a big mess that needs repentance to solve. Doesn't sit right with me, at all. I think if the church doesn't get out in front of the issue, God's work of revealing secrets will keep causing more people to understand that the church isn't being honest. I think the church needs to do the hard thing it advises us to do. Something like "Go talk to the bishop." God won't make the church do anything. It's in the leaders' hands to act.