Dr Peterson-Question Regarding D&C 132, Celestial Marria

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

The Nehor wrote:
Seven wrote:Talking about these 3 levels of the CK and progression sounds like a good board game.

Yeah, most TBM men don't seem to have any emotion about this doctrine until they read about polyandry. That was the first time my DH became sickened by polygamy. Otherwise, his indifference to the practice has frustrated me.

I would like to see Daniel Petersen's thoughts on what we have discussed. A response to Stn9's quotes I posted in particular. He was one of the only apologists I saw on MAD that put 131 and 132 in context, and the only one who didn't throw out every polygamist teaching as "opinion."


Maybe I'm rare but polyandry doesn't scare me that much either. I accept it would be probably be more difficult than a normal marriage but I'm not sickened by it. It helps that I know people who've made it work.


Polyandry doesn't bother me at first glance either honestly. I suppose it could be done fairly. What makes you think it's not possible?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

The Nehor wrote:
Seven wrote:Talking about these 3 levels of the CK and progression sounds like a good board game.

Yeah, most TBM men don't seem to have any emotion about this doctrine until they read about polyandry. That was the first time my DH became sickened by polygamy. Otherwise, his indifference to the practice has frustrated me.

I would like to see Daniel Petersen's thoughts on what we have discussed. A response to Stn9's quotes I posted in particular. He was one of the only apologists I saw on MAD that put 131 and 132 in context, and the only one who didn't throw out every polygamist teaching as "opinion."


Maybe I'm rare but polyandry doesn't scare me that much either. I accept it would be probably be more difficult than a normal marriage but I'm not sickened by it. It helps that I know people who've made it work.


You know people who practive polyandry and it works?

Hell why not just become a swinger!!
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Jason Bourne wrote:You know people who practive polyandry and it works?

Hell why not just become a swinger!!


They didn't want to. Two guys were in love with same girl and they all agreed to live together. She has a very separate relationship with each one. The guys are friends. It works pretty well for them. When I last talked to them they were thinking about having one of them marry her for legal reasons. I should give her a call, see how things are going.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

The Nehor wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:You know people who practive polyandry and it works?

Hell why not just become a swinger!!


They didn't want to. Two guys were in love with same girl and they all agreed to live together. She has a very separate relationship with each one. The guys are friends. It works pretty well for them. When I last talked to them they were thinking about having one of them marry her for legal reasons. I should give her a call, see how things are going.


Will they have a paternity test if there's a child?
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Hell why not just become a swinger!!


Because you get excommunicated for swinging. If polyandry were insitutionalized by the Church, you wouldn't be excommunicated.

Look at Justin Timberlake and Kevin Federline. They seem to be pretty good friends. I guess they'd both been through the same crap with Britney, so they probably had a lot in common.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Post by _Inconceivable »

The Nehor wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:You know people who practive polyandry and it works?

Hell why not just become a swinger!!


They didn't want to. Two guys were in love with same girl and they all agreed to live together. She has a very separate relationship with each one. The guys are friends. It works pretty well for them. When I last talked to them they were thinking about having one of them marry her for legal reasons. I should give her a call, see how things are going.


Yeah, I heard about them too. They made a movie -

Paint Your Wagon

Who wouldn't want to share a dame with Clint Eastwood (if he could just sing better).
_mocnarf
_Emeritus
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 6:11 pm

Post by _mocnarf »

One explanation for why polygamy will be necessary in the Celestial Kingdom is because more single women than single men will elegible enter the Celestial Kingdom thus causing the to women per man ratio to be 2 or 3 to 1. Polygamy will simple be a nescessity. Then during the millenium the temples will be busy assigning (sealing) these women to Celestialized men.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Just to add another point, I learned in priesthood that it seems to be a firm GA endorsed Mormon ideology that, "Women are more spiritual than men and there will hence be more women in the Celestial Kingdom." I really hated that doctrine and thought it was just throwing a bone to disgruntled feminists, but the brethren seem to really believe it. I sure don't.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Ajax...
Just to add another point, I learned in priesthood that it seems to be a firm GA endorsed Mormon ideology that, "Women are more spiritual than men and there will hence be more women in the Celestial Kingdom." I really hated that doctrine and thought it was just throwing a bone to disgruntled feminists, but the brethren seem to really believe it. I sure don't.


GAG!

I'm with you on this.

Complete NONSENSE! Talk about condescending! :-(

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Special Interest Dances - Proof the Need for Plural M?

Post by _Inconceivable »

ajax18 wrote:Just to add another point, I learned in priesthood that it seems to be a firm GA endorsed Mormon ideology that, "Women are more spiritual than men and there will hence be more women in the Celestial Kingdom." I really hated that doctrine and thought it was just throwing a bone to disgruntled feminists, but the brethren seem to really believe it. I sure don't.


Mocnarf wrote:One explanation for why polygamy will be necessary in the Celestial Kingdom is because more single women than single men will elegible enter the Celestial Kingdom thus causing the to women per man ratio to be 2 or 3 to 1. Polygamy will simple be a nescessity. Then during the millenium the temples will be busy assigning (sealing) these women to Celestialized men.


Nehor,

There is an additional perspective you might be willing to share. I've a number of unmarried/divorced friends & acquaintances that have attended SPECIAL INTEREST dances. The ratio of women to men is quite staggering. What is your experience with this?

Do you think this might be one of the clues that confirms the existance of an afterlife of plural marriage?

(If you'd like, it might be interesting to start a new thread)
Post Reply