Gimme a break!

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Pahoran
For myself, I find it fascinating how the vaunted "land of the free" so easily jettisoned its principles in order to suppress an unpopular minority religious practice. Perhaps it is America that is the "farse"[sic]; but your nasty gloating is unsurprising, considering how vile is your hatred for The Church of Jesus Christ.

If a person exposes a pyramid scheme, would you call them anti-business? anti-free market?

I think most people here have no desire to 'suppress' a minority religion. They simply desire for the members to know ALL sides of the story, not the whitewashed version printed by the church's committees.

I don't see this as a form of suppression.

Yes and Yes again

The Mormon church was bulit on polygamy

My great grand mother was a product of a polygimast union and she had many scares that she took to her grave with her.

I'm sorry but I cannot change that fact

[_Dr. Shades]

My great grand mother was a product of a polygimast union and she had many scares that she took to her grave with her.

Hang on a second--what do you mean by "she had many scares"? And if she took them to her grave with her, how do you know she had them?

[_desert_vulture]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives. Because the church teaches that polygamy will be brought back in the Millenium and practiced in heaven, and Section 132 remains in full force, polygamy is still alive and well in the LDS church in my opinion.

That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of "polygamy." Both of those men are living in monogamic marriages. Widowers remarrying is not "practicing polygamy" in any normal usage of those words.

It's really only as idiosyncratic as the variation on polygamy taught by Joseph Smith, of taking a living man's wife as a "spiritual wife." The spiritual wivery practiced by Joseph Smith has little relation to the polygamy practiced in the Old Testament. Therefore, I believe that the current version of polygamy practiced in the church may be considered idiosyncratic as you correctly state, yet would be considered a polygamous relationship nonetheless.

I discovered this type of occurence when my wife told me that her grandfather was a step-grandfather and that he had actually had a wife before her grandmother. His first wife had passed away, then he married my wife's grandmother, who had been divorced. He also married her for time and all eternity in the temple, just as his first wife. So he was sealed for time and all eternity to both women. I asked my wife if she was sure about this, and she said that she was positive. That is when I learned that an LDS man can be sealed for time and all eternity to more than one woman. I told my wife that I believed this is why Section 132 was never repealed, edited, or corrected, because we still practiced a brand of polygamy. She agreed. My father-in-law is a temple sealer and when we discussed the eternal fate of his mother, he reluctantly agreed that his mother was in a polygamous union for the eternities. I don't know why everyone wants to tap dance around it. It's as plain as day that this is just as much a polygamous union, as being married to two women at the same time in this life.

[_Jason Bourne]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives. Because the church teaches that polygamy will be brought back in the Millenium and practiced in heaven, and Section 132 remains in full force, polygamy is still alive and well in the LDS church in my opinion.

That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of "polygamy." Both of those men are living in monogamic marriages. Widowers remarrying is not "practicing polygamy" in any normal usage of those words.

It's really only as idiosyncratic as the variation on polygamy taught by Joseph Smith, of taking a living man's wife as a "spiritual wife." The spiritual wivery practiced by Joseph Smith has little relation to the polygamy practiced in the Old Testament. Therefore, I believe that the current version of polygamy practiced in the church may be considered idiosyncratic as you correctly state, yet would be considered a polygamous relationship nonetheless.

I discovered this type of occurence when my wife told me that her grandfather was a step-grandfather and that he had actually had a wife before her grandmother. His first wife had passed away, then he married my wife's grandmother, who had been divorced. He also married her for time and all eternity in the temple, just as his first wife. So he was sealed for time and all eternity to both women. I asked my wife if she was sure about this, and she said that she was positive. That is when I learned that an LDS man can be sealed for time and all eternity to more than one woman. I told my wife that I believed this is why Section 132 was never repealed, edited, or corrected, because we still practiced a brand of polygamy. She agreed. My father-in-law is a temple sealer and when we discussed the eternal fate of his mother, he reluctantly agreed that his mother was in a polygamous union for the eternities. I don't know why everyone wants to tap dance around it. It's as plain as day that this is just as much a polygamous union, as being married to two women at the same time in this life.

With this I whole heartedly agree. Plural marriage is enthrenched in the eternal plan of God as it now stands in the LDS Church.

Jason

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

My great grand mother was a product of a polygimast union and she had many scares that she took to her grave with her.

Hang on a second--what do you mean by "she had many scares"? And if she took them to her grave with her, how do you know she had them?

Sorry I meant both....Scares and Scars

Both actually.....I saw them both I was her granddaughter and I witnessed them both....she died a very unhappy woman

[_Pahoran]

Regards,
douchebag

I realise that in your mind that probably passes for humour. I also realise that you have absolutely no concept of the canons of civil discourse. But it is a well-known and accepted point of netiquette that you don't make nasty and unflagged editorial changes to your opponent's text even while you dishonestly pretend to quote it. You are at all times free to find "creative" ways to express your boundless personal vileness in your own text. You are not to interfere with mine.

Once again your ability to rationalize is unsurprising.

If by "rationalize" you mean "make a rational argument," I accept.

Your response neither confronted the issues raised nor gave us enlightening views.

What issues were those?

Instead you state that it is me, the US govt, definition of child molestation and the always present denial of fact that is the issue.

You really ought not to knowingly misrepresent my position when it is there for all to see.

Your approach is to redefine the problem so the majority is to blame for a twisted criminal minority.

No. It is not.

Joseph smith had sex with a fourteen year old girl.

Really? Call for references, please. Who was she? Where and when did this take place?

You see, it is no longer the case that you and your fellow-bigots are merely talking among your rather worthless selves. Having the filthiest of minds, of course you can't imagine that a sealing would involve anything but sex, but those who understand the faith of the Latter-day Saints can see considerably farther than you.

[Snip vulgarity]

Of course, you would just say that it ever happened, pujt your fingers in your ears and start saying "lalalala". I did the same thing when I was in the church defending the indefensible so I can relate EXACTLY to the mental backflips you have been doing.

Actually it is clear that I am entirely beyond your comprehension.

Do you have any semblance of logic?

Why yes. Thank you for asking.

Do you see David Koresh in the same light as Joseph? HE died for his cause, does that make him a prophet too?

You know the answers: no and no. What, if anything, does the cheap polemical trick of "damnation by association" have to do with "logic?"

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Both of those men are living in monogamic marriages.

No, each man is cohabiting with one woman -- each is eternally married to two women.

Widowers remarrying is not "practicing polygamy" in any normal usage of those words.

It sure is in the case of a widower having been married to his deceased spouse for time and all eternity, and then does the same with a second wife. This could not be more clear from the Church's own Handbook -- a living man sealed to a first wife (from whom he is now widowed or civilly divorced), can be sealed to a second living woman; in contrast, a living woman sealed to a first husband (from whom she is now widowed or civilly divorced) cannot be sealed to a second living man (unless the first sealing is cancelled). This procedure is based on the principle and doctrine of plural marriage. As an aside, it gets even worse -- under current LDS policy, a woman who was sealed to a first husband (which sealing has not been cancelled), and who is later widowed or civilly divorced from that 1st husband, and then remarries a second husband, she and the children sired by the second husband will go to the first husband in the hereafter. Ain't polygamy grand?!

You might plausibly be able to claim that the Church believes in a form of post mortem polygamy; but there is no such "practice" going on, and it would be rather misleading to claim that there was without some rather long-winded explanations.

Sure there is, to a limited degree -- Tom Perry, Dallin Oaks, and Russell Nelson have all done it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The Church also authorizes a widow to be sealed to another husband. Is this polygamy?

You are incorrect. The general rule: "A living woman may be sealed to only one husband." A living man is not so limited. A deceased woman can be sealed to all men she married during her life, but if she was sealed to any one of them during her lifetime, then all those husbands must be dead before she can be sealed to the others.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

"In every state the law allows a man or a woman to be married to only one person of the opposite sex at a time. The crime of having more than one current spouse is called polygamy." From http://www.answers.com/topic/plural-marriage

Widowed persons remarrying is not polygamy. You are indulging in polemical special pleading when you claim that it is.

Wrong. A non-temple wedding usually carries an expiration such as "til death do you part." As you know, an LDS temple wedding does not have such an end, but is "for time and all eternity." This is why an LDS widower can remarry and be sealed "for time and all eternity" to a second woman, all the while remaining married to the first wife, under LDS doctrine.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I can't speak for the apostate (i.e. ex-Mormon) groups, but I can tell you that women in The Church of Jesus Christ were never regarded as "cattle."

I'm not so sure. Heber C. Kimball once reportedly said:

"I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow."