LDS Freedom Forum

I opened this forum to anyone who wishes to discuss the topic
so please keep it out of the Law of Consecration topic
Thanks

Col. Flagg wrote:
I also don't think he would instruct the male Saints to take more wives... only that from now on, having more than one wife was OK. However, having said that... this will never happen anyway because plural marriage is not part of the plan of salvation. IMO, polygamy has always been an excuse for men to satisfy their sick, twisted sexual appetites... nothing more.

Shadow wrote:
Not to pick on you Col., but the Lord has commanded plural marriage on numerous occasions. It serves a purpose and is eternal in nature. In Jacob he says it's an abomination UNLESS he commands it. What do we know about His commands? D&C 29:35 for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual. If God makes a command, we better understand that it's an eternal principle. Thus while not fully practiced now, nor allowed to be practiced by all, polygamy is an eternal principle.

_________________

There is already a plural marriage topic that we hashed over quite extensively. Col. Flagg made some flagrant statements and we were just asking him to clarify.

quote]Col. Flagg wrote:
I also don't think he would instruct the male Saints to take more wives... only that from now on, having more than one wife was OK. However, having said that... this will never happen anyway because plural marriage is not part of the plan of salvation. IMO, polygamy has always been an excuse for men to satisfy their sick, twisted sexual appetites... nothing more.[/quote]

I don't believe Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or many more of the church leaders at the time who practiced polygamy were sick or twisted. I admire them greatly and would like to be as righteous as them. I think it is wrong to call them sick and twisted for being polygamist.

You poor guys! Dream on.

When plural marriage was practiced during early Church (19th Century) history, the women did most of the hard labor of building the homes and businesses of Deseret while the menfolk were away on three and four year missions.

One of David O' McKay's grandmothers built that house with all its additions in Huntsville. Those women were Amazons who probably viewed a husband as somewhat less essential to their lives than their children and other members of the household.

For a man who had 27 or 28 wives, Brother Brigham actually fathered only 52 children. He taught very strict guide rules for the treatment of pregnant and nursing wives. It was strictly 'hands off'.

Perhaps in the heavenly beyond harems will be stocked with high stepping fillies who spend their days belly dancing for their main squeeze, but if you are thinking about plural marriage during an apocalyptic scenario, you will most likely be stuck with a bunch of Amazons who had the physical & spiritual constitution to survive the first few volleys of disease and mayhem.

The pretty little things will be waiting for you on the other side. But then, perhaps the Muslim martyrs will get there first.

Mark Twain on the Institution of Polygamy:

Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter. I had the will to do it.

With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here - until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said,
"No - the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure - and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

buffalo_girl wrote:You poor guys! Dream on.

Who's dreaming? Polygamy is a matter of fact. Few have been called to endure and blessed be their name for so doing. Nothing I would wish or hope for, certainly not dream for. When my wife gets together with her friends or sister and mom, I'm to be found far far away. A three yr mission wouldn't be long enough. "President, can I extend my call? Please! You have no idea what is awaiting me at home!" would be my plea.

[quote="buffalo_girl"]You poor guys! Dream on.


Perhaps in the heavenly beyond harems will be stocked with high stepping fillies who spend their days belly dancing for their main squeeze, but if you are thinking about plural marriage during an apocalyptic scenario, you will most likely be stuck with a bunch of Amazons who had the physical & spiritual constitution to survive the first few volleys of disease and mayhem.

The pretty little things will be waiting for you on the other side. But then, perhaps the Muslim martyrs will get there first.


Thanks-that was very funny. Even my wife laughed!

I wish we knew more about this era in our history. It seems like there was a missing generation if you try to find any history. The restoration skips from 1857 to 1920 for some odd reason. 8)

I may be wrong, but this is my understanding of the previous need and organization of polygamous marriages: A husband took on the responsibility of caring for a woman whose husband may have died, or who may not have had a husband at all. I think that's noble. Too often people reduce the spirit of polygamy to a veiled excuse to engage in sexual contact with numerous partners. I wholeheartedly think that this does not have to be a precedent for polygamy to be successful. Just because someone has taken the responsibility upon themselves to care and provide for another person does not leave to public scrutiny the methods and arrangements of that union. Nowhere is it written that polygamous marriages are based on sex.

Right? Wrong? Too assumptive? Shortsighted?

Zip

Just because someone has taken the responsibility upon themselves to care and provide for another person does not leave to public scrutiny the methods and arrangements of that union. Nowhere is it written that polygamous marriages are based on sex.

Maybe none of us can or should presume on the family dynamic unique to each household - whether monogamous or polygamous.

A dear older neighbor in an area of Salt Lake Valley near the Oquirrh Mts. recalled from his early childhood - around 1900 - a colony of old LDS sisters who struggled alone without a husband or grown children due to the fact that they had been passed over as less appealing - even as plural wives. The treatment of these aged women left alone to care for themselves as best they could in their increasing frailty was a major factor in our neighbor's contempt for the Church.

I won't judge. I do not know every story. I do know a few, at least enough to know that 'many hearts died pierced with deep wounds'.

Ziptie wrote:I may be wrong, but this is my understanding of the previous need and organization of polygamous marriages: A husband took on the responsibility of caring for a woman whose husband may have died, or who may not have had a husband at all. I think that's noble. Too often people reduce the spirit of polygamy to a veiled excuse to engage in sexual contact with numerous partners. I wholeheartedly think that this does not have to be a precedent for polygamy to be successful. Just because someone has taken the responsibility upon themselves to care and provide for another person does not leave to public scrutiny the methods and arrangements of that union. Nowhere is it written that polygamous marriages are based on sex.

Right? Wrong? Too assumptive? Shortsighted?

Zip

I don't know.... I would just hate to imagine marriage without glorious sex! Otherwise, why even be married?? There is nothing at all wrong with intimacy between husband and wife (and wife and wife and wife???) We had a two stake fireside here several months back regarding sex. We were told the fireside was for parents and their teenagers and it was designed to teach the evils of pornography. It ended up being some guy from the church (a sociologist or family therapist or someone like that) who gives speaches to teenagers and adults about how glorious and great sex between husband and wife is. He told us about firesides he spoke at in the past where he asked members of the stake in the congregation to stand up and to describe their sex life in just a couple of words (apparently most people said things like "great" and "wonderful" etc..). The idea was to make the kids understand that sex isn't evil when practiced within the bonds of marriage and it is nothing to be ashamed of. Mainly, the speaker wanted the kids to understand that if they sinned with regards to sexual immorality, they should speak to their bishop and not be ashamed to do so. Too many people are afraid to confess to the bishop due to shame. Though one should feel shame for his sins, too much can be bad because it can keep people from repenting. He wanted parents and their kids to be able to discuss sexual matters without shame and fear. I don't remember his exact words, and maybe I have butchered some of what he was saying, but that was the jist of it. Oh, and I suppose he did talk about the evils of pornography also.

buffalo_girl wrote:

Just because someone has taken the responsibility upon themselves to care and provide for another person does not leave to public scrutiny the methods and arrangements of that union. Nowhere is it written that polygamous marriages are based on sex.

Maybe none of us can or should presume on the family dynamic unique to each household - whether monogamous or polygamous.

A dear older neighbor in an area of Salt Lake Valley near the Oquirrh Mts. recalled from his early childhood - around 1900 - a colony of old LDS sisters who struggled alone without a husband or grown children due to the fact that they had been passed over as less appealing - even as plural wives. The treatment of these aged women left alone to care for themselves as best they could in their increasing frailty was a major factor in our neighbor's contempt for the Church.

I won't judge. I do not know every story. I do know a few, at least enough to know that 'many hearts died pierced with deep wounds'.

I am not sure how their plight could be blamed on polygamy. If they were that unappealing, they would be even less likely to have been married in a non polygamous society. Still, it is a shame if what that guy said is true, that they were so forsaken.

Ziptie-are you an electrician? Or a crowd control expert? Or neither?

Emmanuel Goldstein wrote:I wish we knew more about this era in our history. It seems like there was a missing generation if you try to find any history. The restoration skips from 1857 to 1920 for some odd reason. 8)

There was a book advertised on billboards along I-15 a few years back that apparently discussed polygamy during the church's history. I don't remember the title and I never read the book. Maybe someone else here knows it if you are really interested.

249, I think with your tools, you're more qualified for crowd control...!
It's funny you should ask about both an electrician, because I was an AE in the Navy, and work on aircraft in the .civ community for thirteen years, and also worked as a police officer. I always have zipties with me. Good catch!

As far as the sexual conference in church, I'd be really hesitant to spill the beans in public, because it's really none of anyone's business. I see what you're saying about the importance of sex in a marriage, it definitely is a major plus in the balance, but for practicality's sake, I could never have an additional wife as a fulfilment of emotional or physical needs, because the trade-off of all the emotional psycho-babble would be more trouble than it would ever be able to balance out.

Zip

M249Gunner wrote:

Emmanuel Goldstein wrote:I wish we knew more about this era in our history. It seems like there was a missing generation if you try to find any history. The restoration skips from 1857 to 1920 for some odd reason. 8)

There was a book advertised on billboards along I-15 a few years back that apparently discussed polygamy during the church's history. I don't remember the title and I never read the book. Maybe someone else here knows it if you are really interested.

One book a history does not make. A book is fine but the fun of history is being able to discuss it with others. I just want us to be willing to talk about it without judgement and accept that it was not an evil thing like so many seem to think now. God had a reason for it and when the time came to give it up it was abandoned.

Ziptie wrote: I could never have an additional wife as a fulfilment of emotional or physical needs, because the trade-off of all the emotional psycho-babble would be more trouble than it would ever be able to balance out.

Zip

It would be quite a challenge and would make for a strange family dynamic.

Ziptie wrote:249, I think with your tools, you're more qualified for crowd control...!
It's funny you should ask about both an electrician, because I was an AE in the Navy, and work on aircraft in the .civ community for thirteen years,

Zip

Do you still work on general aviation aircraft? Do you fly?