Polygamy---Commanded by God in the Old Testament or Tolerated?

[_truth dancer]

Hey Ray... :-)

Because something isn't emotionally, intellectually, mentally, or logically appealing to me, doesn't mean it can't be true.

I absolutely admit this and have stated it several times on this thread.

ANYTHING can be true. Any version of heaven is possible. I do not think we can possibly grasp what is existence and our universe.


truth dancer wrote:
I think the ability for emotional intimacy and human bonding found in exclusive relationships is indeed new and highly evolved... this is not a judgment of individual choices but an observation about life and the history of mating patterns in life.

Only if you equate those differences with "bad", and "bad" is mostly formed from societal attitudes and traditions.

I do not think of any form of mating as good or bad... there are thousands of forms or patterns of mating on our Earth... I mean it seriously is a fascinating topic. What I will say is what is healthy or not healthy, maladaptive or adaptive, and my personal sense of what is holy. (By this I mean what is in the best interest of life and our universe).

I LOVE cavier.

LOL...

No, it doesn't mean they are gross. Women sharing men "could" be like Cavier, to some. They may genuinely prefer this, as difficult as it is for others to understand. And not because of sexual preferences, but because of character preferences.

Absolutely... I've stated this many times on this thread. There are women who do not like monogamy. There are women who like all sorts of forms of mating. I totally get this, and I understand why. I have had numerous discussions with some of these women. I respect them and their choices and preferences.

See my bold qualifier, TD. I share your opinion, by the way. I would like one woman, one love, one "mate". And no other. I can't even grasp how I can love two women, much less 42. But should I completely close off "alternative thinking"? The least I can do is remain openminded, even to things that currently make me feel somewhat ill. And I mean that. I do think monogamy is the ideal, and I appreciate your posts along this line. I think you're being honourable and sincere in your opinions, but I can't discount Charity, either.

I understand Charity... as I do other women who would like or enjoy alternative relationships. I seriously have no problem with women who prefer choices other than the ones I like.

Again, it goes back to the problem of God commanding a form of partnering that for many seems disgusting, horrible, cruel, and unhealthy. This is a different topic than women who perfer alternative forms of mating.

This is the qualifier: to me.

Yes... just sharing my opinon. :-) As always! Totally acknowledge I know nothing! (smile)

Once again, I'm not posting this as a defense of polygamy. I'm posting it as a defense of free speech, and belief.

I am right with you... I have stated this many times.

Charity is entitled to her views, without recrimination.

Or course. I have no problem with folks who disagree with me, who share their opinion, and who see life diffrerently.

Maybe if she actually experienced polygamy, she might have a different opinion.

I don't think so. I know others who have similar beliefs and ideas as does Charity.

Then again, she may be sincere, and feel she's doing/saying what God wants, and that may be far more important to her than the "evils of polygamy". For all you and I know, she may be even a more steadfast defender and believer than Eliza Snow. Her God, and her religion, comes first. And as weird as it may seem to many, I admire that. She has been endlessly ridiculed here. But she is entitled to her opinion/ belief, no matter how much it differs from others, and I'm not saying you dispute this. The reference to "harems" is offensive to her, because it sounds like cheap sex, and that isn't how she perceives polygamy.

Of course she is entitled to think, believe, live as she wishes. Absolutely.

I have repeatedly tried to respectfully help charity understand why it is people have a difficult time with her. I think it is clear it has nothing to do with her beliefs, (we all value the gift to think and believe as we wish). It has to do with her style, her inability to listen, her pretend arguments, her misrepresentations, her over-the-top rude responses, her judgments, her attitude. etc. etc.

Again, I have no problem with folks who engage in whatever form of partnering/mating they wish. I seriously do not. If Charity wants to be one of many wives good for her, I hope her dreams come true. I sincerely mean that. I am all for women and men living in ways that bring them happiness and peace.

I am NOT for requiring/demanding/commanding people live in ways that create disharmony, unhealthiness, degradation, harm, heartache, and pain in their lives.

Best wishes Ray,

:-)

~dancer~

[_Ray A]

I have repeatedly tried to respectfully help charity understand why it is people have a difficult time with her. I think it is clear it has nothing to do with her beliefs, (we all value the gift to think and believe as we wish). It has to do with her style, her inability to listen, her pretend arguments, her misrepresentations, her over-the-top rude responses, her judgments, her attitude. etc. etc.

TD, I have to admit this is true. On the other side of the coin, there are some posters I find far less tolerable than Charity. Just my opinion, of course. I'm winding up for work today, so probably won't be participating much on the board until next week. In any case, I'll still be following the debate, if not saying too much. I think it's pretty clear where we both stand, and there's no need to rehash the points over and over.

[_moksha]

I am so glad that the practice of polygamy is over. Perhaps it could be viewed as teenage acne. You grow older and get over it. Hopefully it did not leave many scars. The memory of such acne is unpleasant if we remember the embarrassment it caused. No need to dwell on the relief one had by popping the pimples, even if they were gushers.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Mok... :-)

I am so glad that the practice of polygamy is over. Perhaps it could be viewed as teenage acne. You grow older and get over it. Hopefully it did not leave many scars. The memory of such acne is unpleasant if we remember the embarrassment it caused. No need to dwell on the relief one had by popping the pimples, even if they were gushers.

LOL!

You have such a way of saying what needs to be said with a beautiful blend of humor and reality!

I'm voting for you for next prophet!

:-)

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

I would also be interested in any type of link you could provide involving the quote regarding Joseph Smith's words to William Marks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ma ... Day_Saints)

In the weeks before Joseph Smith's death, Marks claimed that Joseph came to him and told him that plural marriage had proved a curse rather than a blessing to the church. Smith wanted to take decisive steps to end the practice, but time ran out, related Marks. Other pieces of evidence, such as Joseph's burning of the polygamy revelation and destroying his temple garments, seem to support Marks's story (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 146). Not all members of the church hierarchy believed Marks's testimony, though Quinn believes that Brigham Young gave credence to it by declaring that Joseph "did not have one particle of spiritual light in him" in the days before his death (as quoted in Quinn, p. 145). In addition, Young would also state that Smith had wearied of polygamous marriage by the time of his death (Quinn, p. 146-147). Ironically, Joseph Smith III later would not believe Marks, either, since Marks implicated Joseph Smith III's father in polygamy. (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, pp. 145-148; Launius, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet, p. 199)

[_Yoda]

I would also be interested in any type of link you could provide involving the quote regarding Joseph Smith's words to William Marks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ma ... Day_Saints)

In the weeks before Joseph Smith's death, Marks claimed that Joseph came to him and told him that plural marriage had proved a curse rather than a blessing to the church. Smith wanted to take decisive steps to end the practice, but time ran out, related Marks. Other pieces of evidence, such as Joseph's burning of the polygamy revelation and destroying his temple garments, seem to support Marks's story (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 146). Not all members of the church hierarchy believed Marks's testimony, though Quinn believes that Brigham Young gave credence to it by declaring that Joseph "did not have one particle of spiritual light in him" in the days before his death (as quoted in Quinn, p. 145). In addition, Young would also state that Smith had wearied of polygamous marriage by the time of his death (Quinn, p. 146-147). Ironically, Joseph Smith III later would not believe Marks, either, since Marks implicated Joseph Smith III's father in polygamy. (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, pp. 145-148; Launius, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet, p. 199)

Thanks, Jason!

Charity, what is your take on this? Do you have any additional background information on this?

[_charity]

Charity, what is your take on this? Do you have any additional background information on this?

I am skeptical for several reasons.

1.My take is anybody can say anything they want after a person is dead when they can't refute it.

2. The only background information I have is Joseph's journal. The one which covered this period of time is called the Third Illinois Journal. Many revelations were recorded in this journal. This wasn't.

3. But beyond that, it is not in character with what we know of Joseph Smith. But it does mesh with William Marks. He was an early and outspoken critic of polygamy. This fit in with his ideas.

But it doesn't sound like Joseph's ideas to me at all.

[_ludwigm]

Hey Mok... :-)

I am so glad that the practice of polygamy is over. Perhaps it could be viewed as teenage acne. You grow older and get over it. Hopefully it did not leave many scars. The memory of such acne is unpleasant if we remember the embarrassment it caused. No need to dwell on the relief one had by popping the pimples, even if they were gushers.

LOL!
You have such a way of saying what needs to be said with a beautiful blend of humor and reality!
I'm voting for you for next prophet! :-)~dancer~

I am so glad that the practice of polygamy is over.
- - I were more glad if it were never practiced.
Perhaps it could be viewed as teenage acne.
- - Perhaps it was more, many more relevant.
You grow older and get over it.
- - The wives who has got 1/50 part of their husband are long dead. What is our problem with polygamy? It's over.
Hopefully it did not leave many scars.
- - Only many descendants.

I'm voting for you for next prophet!
Unfortunately, there is no voting. Only extinction.
Poor Moksha, he should wait to his old age. ( He should be >60 or >70. Or >80. )

________
If You read this as sarcasm, then this is sarcastic.

[_Inconceivable]

Charity,

I have challenged you to back up your thoughtless conjecture on numerous occasions. You shrink from each challenge. Whether I am capable of selfless love has no bearing on this.

This entire chapter [Jacob 2] is devoted to the evils of Mormon adultery. It has one poorly worded verse that sexual deviants use as an "out". [I][I]30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Pardon me, inconceivalbe, but Jacob 2 does not use the word "Mormon" even once. And if you are going to quote Jacob to bolster up your argument in one instance, you are stuck with using the whole thing, and not trying to pass it off Sorry, you were caught in your own net on that one.

Isn't this about where you get all flustered and bear your testimony?

You have not been able to mount one argument that is even close to flustering me. Sorry, but flies are only irritating. And all you need is a swatter.

I just tried a little experiment.

I began talking to the TV. No matter what channel I changed it to, it didn't seem to respond to anything I commented on. It was like it was oblivious to anything I said even though it made all this noise. Depending on the channel, some things appeared to reflect some sort of intelligence, but not particularly about the subject at hand.

Experiment, now over. I think I will turn it off.

Bye Charitv.

click.

[_Yoda]

The only background information I have is Joseph's journal. The one which covered this period of time is called the Third Illinois Journal. Many revelations were recorded in this journal. This wasn't.

Wow! That would be interesting to read. Where did you locate that? Is there a link on where something like that could be ordered?

Were there any revelations recorded in that journal that are not currently recorded in the D&C?