Joseph: Polygamy was a mistake.

[_DaniteMason]

There is no documentation however, that ties the wearing of garments to the practice of polygamy.

I was with you right up to this point. I do not think this is an accurate statement. I think there is evidence that the garment was introduced in conjunction with the introduction of secret plural marriage in the Nauvoo period. I am not arguing that the fact that Taylor was not wearing his garments at the time of Smith's death shows that he had renounced polygamy. But to say there is no connection between the garment and plural marriage is overstating your case, I think.

I think you've raised a valid objection, but once again, as far as documentary evidence has suggested, claims that someone might identify themselves as a polygamist merely because they wore the garment is a stretch. The garment would have identified someone as a member of the Holy Order or Anointed Quorum, but not necessarily as a polygamist. This is evidenced by the fact that at least five notable members of the Quorum of the Anointed, Sidney Rigdon, William Law, William Marks, Samuel Smith, and Lyman Wight - none of whom entered plural marriage, but were nonetheless endowed.

[_harmony]

Besides i personally believe that when it comes to polygamy, men should be removed from the discussion, and it should be all done by the sisters.

This will never happen. All decisions in the church are made by men. ALL of them, even something as minute as if the nursery can have treats.

[_Mihalj]

The whole thing is based on here say, and smells similar of the white horse prophesy ETC. I used to be a born again before i joined the church some 27years ago, and the same arguments reigned. It was excellent ammo against those evil Mormons. But like all things once I prayed all was revealed, and Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are all they claim to be.
Perhaps polygamy is similar to the law of tithing in its timing, perhaps it was correct then but only for a short while, perhaps the time will soon be for it to be operational once more.
The amount of single sisters compared to men is tragic, including abandoned and abused wives. It makes sense for it to be reintroduced again.
My beautiful wife has spoken about whom she would like to be a sister bride, not me. Furthermore do not the scriptures say something about seven women grabbing hold of one man asking their reproach to be taken away.
Besides i personally believe that when it comes to polygamy, men should be removed from the discussion, and it should be all done by the sisters.
Hey anyway that is my rant.

Welcome to the board.

I'd like to see your documentation for the current amount of single LDS women compared to single LDS men. (good luck with that, since those numbers are not revealed by any official source).

Your comments make no sense, in light of the early history of LDS polygamy. You might want to become a little more knowledgable about it.

Just an observation, there always seem to be more sisres than brethren, especialy when counted from the pauplet.

I do have some knowlige about polygamy, but in all honesty the dicussion is not realy relevant as it is not church doctrine for now. When if in the future it arrives then lets pray and ask the Lord and get an answer for ourselves, our own testimony on the matter.

Please forgive me for my brashness, you know how us Aussies are, but it seems simple to me, If the Prophet announces it, well we pray about it, and then make our own choise.

Well anaway just drove home for six hours following Stake conference, it was very powerfull, the mesaage was all about trimming our lamps and having our oil vessels full, and prepare for the second comming, we have been away from home since Friday and managed a session at the Temple, and when we came home riding on our spiritual high we found our two big 60kg dogs in the house and turning the place upside down. We now have a slightly damaged back door, but i don't think that we will have a problem with burglers.

Till next time

[_jon]

own choise.

Well anaway just drove home for six hours following Stake conference...we found our two big 60kg dogs in the house and turning the place upside down.

So if you took you six hours to drive back from Conference I am safe to assume it took you six hours to get there in the first place.
Allowing three hours for conference, that looks like you left your two dogs alone and unattended for 15 hours, minimum.

You don't sound like a dog lover.

[_harmony]

Just an observation, there always seem to be more sisres than brethren, especialy when counted from the pauplet.

Now is not then.

I do have some knowlige about polygamy, but in all honesty the dicussion is not realy relevant as it is not church doctrine for now.

Until Sec 132 is removed from the canon, it is still doctrine. It may not something that is actively lived, but it certainly is part of current life for any woman who wanted to be sealed to a second husband.

When if in the future it arrives then lets pray and ask the Lord and get an answer for ourselves, our own testimony on the matter.

It won't arrive again until we get another prophet like Joseph... one willing to damn himself forever in exchange for satiation of his earthly appetites. Thank God for small favors.

Please forgive me for my brashness, you know how us Aussies are, but it seems simple to me, If the Prophet announces it, well we pray about it, and then make our own choise.

I am not a sheep. If the prophet announces it, I will immediately know he is not the prophet. Joseph's foolishness and Brigham's compounding of the foolishness does not remove polygamy from the top of the Abomination scale.

[_jon]

Just an observation, there always seem to be more sisres than brethren, especialy when counted from the pauplet.

Now is not then.

I do have some knowlige about polygamy, but in all honesty the dicussion is not realy relevant as it is not church doctrine for now.

Until Sec 132 is removed from the canon, it is still doctrine. It may not something that is actively lived, but it certainly is part of current life for any woman who wanted to be sealed to a second husband.

When if in the future it arrives then lets pray and ask the Lord and get an answer for ourselves, our own testimony on the matter.

It won't arrive again until we get another prophet like Joseph... one willing to damn himself forever in exchange for satiation of his earthly appetites. Thank God for small favors.

Please forgive me for my brashness, you know how us Aussies are, but it seems simple to me, If the Prophet announces it, well we pray about it, and then make our own choise.

I am not a sheep. If the prophet announces it, I will immediately know he is not the prophet. Joseph's foolishness and Brigham's compounding of the foolishness does not remove polygamy from the top of the Abomination scale.

Harmony, what is your position on the fact the LDS Church still practices polygamy in terms of temple marriages?

[_Mihalj]

Dear Harmony,
Are you a member of the church?
Do you beleive the gospel is true?
Do you beleive J.S and B.Y were prophets?

Honestly it sounds as if you are more interested in giving guidence rather than receiving it?

Or are you are a man hater?

Do you beleive that revelation requires your approval?

But not to worry, as living this higher law may well be out of your scope.

[_jon]

Dear Harmony,
Are you a member of the church?
Do you beleive the gospel is true?
Do you beleive J.S and B.Y were prophets?

Honestly it sounds as if you are more interested in giving guidence rather than receiving it?

Or are you are a man hater?

Do you beleive that revelation requires your approval?

But not to worry, as living this higher law may well be out of your scope.

Instead of having a pop at Harmony why don't you explain why the Prophet GBH referred to this 'higher' law as 'not doctrinal'?

[_Mihalj]

Dear Jon
Instead of tag teaming how about i pop you with the same Q's, because you also smell of being a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Ultimately everything depends on your personal testimony, pray and ask the Lord yourself.
So far between the two of you A.I. gather that this is not an LDS forum but a Bible bashing forum.
Consider this a pop at you as well

[_harmony]

Harmony, what is your position on the fact the LDS Church still practices polygamy in terms of temple marriages?

Since the track record for prophecy in the modern church is a joke, and since I think Joseph managed to lose the most important revelation he was ever given, I think the modern church, with it's lack of revelation or prophecy, can't be faulted for rarely getting anything right.

I think, in the long run, it's not going to matter. The concept is founded on a lie, so modern practices are moot.