Serg

You have alternatives. Before deciding which voice to follow, before deciding to which " fact"(religious or secular) give some worth in such a trouble, realize what you feel, what you want, what you think you are, what you think you want: think of what you " know" and what you " think" you " know" . If after all that, there is still -wanting- in you, a hazardous impulse of -seeking-, then watch what exactly are you seeking: why? What is your fear? That God may not exist or that your church is not " true" , or both? Do both HAVE to go together? if they do(because you feel so), do you then fear abandonment, loneliness, insecurity, judgement from those close to you who religiously rely eithr on your guideance(children) or support(family)? Do you FEAR to disappoint? Disapoint who? You by not seekig " truth", your relatives for not believing the same things, God because you might be wrong in doubting His alleged true church or death and meaninglesness because " god after all may not exist" ? A -crisis- of -faith- is no different at root from any other -crisis- of teh emotional order. Hence, and as many here would uphold, if rational inquiry, if " historical facts" can be bended on both sides(mormons, antimormons, secular, religious) and ' faith' or that ' attitude' to succumb blindly works anyways and APART from any " account" or " logic" , then find the center of your seeking, of your wanting: what is it tou want now? what is it you fear? what is it you feel? where? how? Is it true that you need something exterior to you to feel your way through life? Is it? Is it a divine voice that comes from outside or a very curious phenomena that guides you from your inside, as to make you marvel and think it is you? Do you need to be directed here? You surely know what you will get from this or any othet forum. Some will try to point you in one direction, others to another: but is it true that you need another man's map to find what YOU and only YOU could conceive in yourself of ever wanting to seek? From whence did that other man get his map? Is it that he holds more power or magic, or is more special to the universe that he can guide you while you must inevitably depend on him? Know your self. Do not fear. Fear compromises you.

Because it would diffuse teh line that so passionetaly you draw between them and you: it woul dbe (as hillman puts it) " teaching to hate hatred". Not only is that a contradiction of the blatant form, but a seed of further evil. Though psicological points of view concerning " the shadow" are of full authority to some of us to quote from, is nicer if we just stay put with our true reasoning and emotions: if we draw so sharp a line between teh <evil>, <frenetic>, <neurotic>, <sychopathic>, then we must in some content differentiate ourselves from <them> not only by name. Wit over sense. But teh Lord put it well when said in teh epistle of James: 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. 19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to aspeak, bslow to cwrath: 20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. 21 Wherefore lay apart all afilthiness and bsuperfluity of naughtiness, and receive with cmeekness the dengrafted word, which is able to save your souls. just a thought, not so much of an argument, regards,

If a constitutional amendment recognizing gay marriages was adopted (heaven forbid), there'd be no real case to forbid polygamy.-crimsonkairos We are right now in Puerto Rico reviewing our civil code, and it is very debated becausesome want civil marriages to be extended to homosexuals and others do not. I for one have said that i agree, but, well, I will never become an activist for it! I wonder what the term would be for three or more gays who want to share one civil union? Polyunity?-crimsonkairos I dont know, what about naming the wholespectrum of lesbianism that surrounded the Relief Society in periods between 1870-1900, sexual dynamics that were fursnished through polygamy!! Uh, I littlehistorical apreciation would take away all seeming 'fun'from that last statement.

Now I admit that when Joseph Smith taught that the Father had lived a mortal life and now sits enthroned in yonder heavens an exalted man it was revolutionary even in the minds of the LDS -Atrain We can challenge this statement with a reevaluation of his teachings...

It is the very lds notion of judgement. At least, as Ostler explains it. It is the way in which every man "receiveth after the desire of their hearts". In our view,(or at least of few of us), 'punishment' and ' reward' are very uncompelling words to describe the 'ultimate' state of each human being. Thus, it contains a higly level of meaning rather than truth(literal). A world where a Will(a being, free being, i.e.God) directs the state of another is not the ' perfect' and ' coherent' dwelling place of our desiring hearts. To sum up: at last, in our so called ' last judgement' we will not be appointed an abode, a kingdom, a damnation, but we will ourselves in all freedom and sincerity of being approach the abode that we know best fits us. Hence, there will be no lines, no judges, no books....it is all figure of speech. Their meaning will be there(order, authority, truth). But signifiers do not share equal status(obviously) with their significations. Thus, at the end,('end')there will be no right or left in space(as there IS not such notion), also no 'punishment' or 'reward' , but " intelligence that embraces intelligence, mercy that aproaches mercy, justice that understands justice, holiness that walks along holiness, etc..." , thus says Jesus ' he that be filthy, stay filthy yet" , he that just, just. Sorry if it all seems messy, I havent had time to do almost anything these weeks, and this seemed all the time I got.

Can you explain why you dont buy it?

An Idea came to my mind not long ago. Suddenly, while going through Buber's writtings it hit me again, and I saw it there, printed, laying materialized on a paper surface, written by another man. It felt, as unfaithfulness. In free space there is neither right nor left. In the same way, there is reward and punishment only in this, and not in the Messianic world. Martin Buber's ten rungs, collected Hassidic saying, p.116 Brilliant.

The only good book is the one I can mark.

I agree. I studied the issue, specially a great book, The Orthodox Corruption os Scripture, etc...though yes, many deliberate mistakes were committed(as well as many unwilled mistakes), in translation, it is a mater of fact that the same willful mistakes happened to the BoM and the same unwilled mistakes also. Please! I for one dont detest the bible, but love it, I believe that it's accuracy in describing historical contexts may not be 100% good, but hey, its sufficiently accurate and that is why it was intended. Scripture is not a Divine-human interaction for liability-fraud dynamics, nor for historical fun. It is an exercise of faith and knowledge.

Well its not that simple. There are some intellectuals in our Church that do believe(and I find no problem with it), that teh BoM was mostly affected by JS's contemporary ambience, thought , etc... That doesnt make it a lie. Just like symbols arent lies because they dont portray what actually is they only portray. Put it like this: Scripture says that streets in heaven are made of gold. We die, and find that there are neither streets in Heaven to say the least of any gold. Did Scriptures lie? Well it may be contended, they did portray wrongly the true nature of a thing x. But then again, Scripture is not purposedly developed to make us know certainties of literal knowledge. It is more valueable as a means of knwoing God than as a source of knowing Him...I dont know if i am being coherent. Its a complex issue that of considering scripture a dynamic interaction between man and god. Suffice be to say, pelase, that to call the BoM a mostly 19 century composition doesnt go to assert that lie is at play or that we shouldnt admire Smith as prophet(more than composer). It si an issue that we may do good to retake in a whole thread,

Im sure we will all be shocked and appalled to find when we get there that not every word of every book was literal and true , and not every teaching was to the letter. But guess what, we have been warned we are not suppose to have exactness, assurance and proof. Its all about faith , honey. -Starchild Very true.

Very Wise. "True the experiences will be for our good but I do not believe that that path is marked for me and I am an ant following the scent path with little or no choice because every step is already planned out for me."

Above all, because we do have some strange beliefs*, lol.

That is right Crimson and I am glad i am not th eonly one with this idea, hey, I suggest you a great reading on it, Ostler's treatment of this theory of redemption in his second volume, there he states why teh allegory of teh Father being obligated to punish someone for the sake of an abstarct non willing justice, and Christ as scapegoat, is incoherent. There he explains how truly may redemption work and atonement function within us.... you will surely enjoy it pal. regards,

Inded you have all been thoughtful; I particularly believe, that Love is a reality beyond the Self, and yet only comprehended(and virtually given existence to) through the former. The Lord loves in all comprehension, he a-prehends all into his very Being, He loves by nature as much as he has chosen through this loving attitude, to live . He is free, he may be said that in each moment decides to retain his goodness, but as the other brother said, not likely to mortality, not as if he were tempted as much to do otherwise, but because he Is a Self, and properly free, but then again, if we recognize in humans(free) a commitment that sometimes lasts a lifetime, in which no variation occurs, as in belief in something, how much more should we celebrate God's commitment that is unvarying and yet free? Isnt that the great paradox of Love? Free and bonded? Bonded freely? It is so beautiful to contemplate Morality not as a requisit to be a God, no, but a freely chosen nature, a commitment that arises from an already loving self... Real conversion, as Brown said comes from within*. a QUOTE in Bubers I and Thou, reads: "God is the mysterium tremendum that appears and overthrows, but he is also the mystery of the self-evident, nearer to me than my I... How would man exist if God did not need him, and how would you exist? You need God in order to be, and God needs you— for that is the meaning of your life." Also: "Some would deny any legitimate use of the word God because it has been misused so much. Certainly it is the most burdened of all human words. Precisely for that reason it is the most imperishable and unavoidable. And how much weight has all erroneous talk about God's nature and works (although there never has been nor can be any such talk that is not erroneous) compared with the one truth that all men who have addressed God really meant him? For whoever pronounces the word God and really means Thou, addresses, no matter what his delusion, the true Thou of his life that cannot be restricted by any other and to whom he stands in a relationship that includes all others.... Whoever abhors the name and fancies that he is godless— when he addresses with his whole devoted being the Thou of his life that cannot be restricted by any other, he addresses God." Regards,

Ostler in his second volume of Exploring Mormon Thought: The problems of theism and the love of God, answered to the Ostlings. While reading Mormon America, I too noticed a statement made by them, concerning our metaphisichs of morals, our theory of ethics, this is, they said that other christians had a perfect God who was teh source of all GOOD(ethics), while they recognize that they have no way of justifying the devil's existence, moreover we had the perfect explanation for evil in teh world without compromising our God's soverignity, but we had no ethical source, no good source in God, as he was contingent himself. Ostler proposed the Agape Theory of Ethics, based on a new way of reading mormon scriptures. In it, he gave reasons to defend teh lds notion of freedom of will, goodness as something that may be exterior to God(i.e., He is not the source but a follower), but retook it to propose a system of ethics that depended on relationships of love, anything that impared a relationship of true love(of an I and a Thou) among Men or Gods, it was, unethical, it was sin. Love then, is Law. Of which justice, mercy and godness derive themselves. Love isd the only abstarct notion that is exterior to God in that He doesnt govern it but lives it. my concern with you is, Ostler also dismissed Kant's imperative, but in doing this do you agree? The notion of kant about the Good Will, is it necessary for us to abandon it? Also, have any read I and Thou of Martin Buber? It is a splendid treatsie on love and the relationship of teh I and the You in the universe, ethics as teh law of Love. Regards,

It's over!

that you share with Crimson a thought equally disturbing and unjustified of me, in his case, obviously because he is though a great person, a blind believer some times, you on the other hand, maybe because as you (as I believe, not sure now though-sorry) are not part of he Church, 'saw' the same he says in me,but because i resemble the renegade attitude of many apostates.

BenRaines; Your opinion matters to me more than many others' in the forums, what do you think of me according to Blind-Crimson and Renegade-Shantress? Differently than Antimormons, and very much differently than many of you each of those claims that Crimson lists I defended , I gave reasons for doing so, the last one was music, I was accused of not making sense, blah blah, of no arguments, yet when I finally spilled it in elementary school terms, suddenlu thay didnt get to contradict them, than let's bann Serg, then now(because we have no response) Serg ought o reevaluate his membership. Well that is painful, indeed. Wasnt our arrangement in those past thrads that I would offer reasons and you answers? Nevertheless you stopped providing answers to my reasons, not because I was suddenly hostile, but because you coulndt! The hostile enviroment didnt come from me, but form many of you who in wanting to ditract the thread start considering pridefully of my worthiness, etc... How serious and responsable debate is that? And in no stance did you warn me that you were offended or didnt want to procede, moreover you dared me to give 'proof'. Look, it;s not my fault that you are very out of touch with our history, that you have never read teh Reed Smoot transcripts, letters of prophets, diaries, etc... but why blame Serg about it because he has? Is not even a matter of such childih complaints of ; who' knows more. Is not about that. But about who doesnt want to know. Ben, do you really think of me what Crimson says? Have I not given reasonable grounds to MY views? Are they floating in the air or are they somewhat founded? Why reevaluate my stand? Have I not tired of saying that being a member doesnt mean believeing everything there is and that change is possible for a member to desire? Have I not explained that my stand is that of faith in what Josepg Received but not necessarily in all that many have since said received? Doesnt anybody else beside me understand that you can reasonably believe what one perosn says without believeing all. mostly when those other things are patently false? Why then attack Serg? Oh, make no mistake, I feel not abandoned by any of you, for I have never ideed felt accompanied by neither anyways, but by some few good characters that have shown tolerance to others here, incredibly(aside of Ben and a few) most of them are non members.... Well, if you will take any procedure take that which you will Ben, you are part of the Admin. I thought you knew me better than they, maybe you still do. Try to get tham to understand, if not, and such excluding attitudes are to prevail then feel free to delete my account , because at any extent, why would I preserve an account(i hold dearly) which function is to express my views If the condition to do so is to actually stop to do it..? I feel no obligation to nobody as to deny what I truly hold sacred, even if that is a different notion of what it means to be a mature lds member. Either you let me express my views, that in no way have resembled those of antimormons as I have provided also edifying posts of my testimony and for those against current orthodoxy have also presented arguments that remain, say, unanswered, or you delete my account and it has been a sweet and sour experience that of being here with all of you. Nonetheless, it remains your action. As Campbell said "Where ignorance prevails, bigotry shall abound". Hugh Brown , second counselor to McKay, said to students in BYU: "We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation. And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within... " http://www.lds-mormon.com/brown.shtml That was one kind of a leader. Regards,

If this works for you, hey, it's welcomed. I just say, it doesnt do it for many others. We ought then to learn how to coexist in the Church, lol.

Yes, I concede that the only sound argument in favour f poligamy is it's numerical 'inclusiveness' . This is, Oh, poor women who are devasated because they were left alone(a social implanted need-consider happy nuns for example), hey, at l;east poligamy will solve this, and women will get to have partners. First of all, may I reply justly: In the earthly context of this argument; what makes a person think he/she needs a partner to be happy? Well, interaction and love is teh point of life, but it doesnt mean that out of necessity you DO have to encounter someone. It would follow the case, what if of all earthly available mormons to choose there are actually none who make you tingle? Who really are lovable to you? Should you, for the sake of fulfilling this great etarnal ' partnership' law, get married to any you dont love? A society that makes it's individuals think this is sick. A person ouht, to gain an even higer experience of humanity, interact in a love affair, but if it follow the case that there is no actual possibility, no preassure should be upon such person, much less eternal damnation. In the celestial context: What makes you believe that out of all the mroe than 60 billion people that may have well inhabited the planet up to now, those saven in heaven will share a statistic of more women and less men? Should then, because you arrived(and it was the case that women will be more overthere) and have no partner , out of no special feeling ought to engage in a mariage? No. Sick. Now, again, what if(as is a TRUE possibility), there are, in heaven, at elast, from our earth, more men than women? What will such God of Marriages do? These men 'need'(something that is erroneous) marriage to be exalted, what shall they do? Marry other men with their spouses, as in poliginy? No! says the patriarcal mormon, only men have such privilage(sorry-obligation?). Well, what if it happens that more men than women were saved ultimately? Or will God manipulate souls of women to be saved as to ensure his male sons to have each at least one partner? Or will this God of marriage bring from other earths women to marry such worthy males? It looks, by all sides, a thing ultimately contradictory and unstable. At the core of all this issue, lies the concept that would make a whole thread possible. Because of this concept is it so lawful to infer that there will be plural marriage in heaven according to members, and this is, that Marriage is necessary and ultimately desicive in determining yor entrance into Godhood. This I particularly dont believe, but hey, it's open to interpretation. It will be said that it is(in fact, wher it is only) very clear in section 131-132, when speaking of teh higer degree for those married. Though this is scripturally true, it may be subject to challenge easily. However, those who simply accept it as what it has been taken to mean, have yet further to account for the previous contratictory outcomes of such concept, in respect, to plural marriage. There is no way of avoiding the outcome. The concept of marriage as essential to Godhood has to be settled.

Crimson; Why Poligamy is Unfair: 1) Numerically, it is after all, uneven, say, any number plus 1 added to one side of the relationship. 2) There is no logical necessity in this principle, is not grasped by logics, because it is a ' principle' that is only proposed as a willed act not properly a higer level ethics(which would in principle be subject to logic). 3) There is no sound argumentation for this when defending it in it's own. This is, without appealing to God's decree(with which we'll deal in short), it has no agreeable base. One defense thrown here in the thread, is that, men, de facto, have more desire towards women that these in their turn have toward men. Is these enough for justifying the satisfaction of such need? If it is, it certainly should be satisfaied NOW, as many poor men are being tried unjustly, because they, de facto, because of their intrinsic needs, NEED this practice, without which aparently, they are not only unhappy but in grave danger of commiting adultery(as their need is so profound and real that they cant take it). If this is so, God has men castrated, they are thanks to Him canceling the practice, cut off from true selfrealization in this earth. Thus we all, can only be half happy. Let us take this farther; Following this line of thinking, we are certainly agreeing that in celestial spheres, where blood is no more, where hormones exist no more, we will be sure of satisfying this most urgent earthly need. What sort of erection shall we have? A spiritual one? Being that blood is what actually fills the penis, is it inmortal spirit then which will fill it? Moreobver what is the need of sex in heaven(because sex is what is being supposed when giving this ' most urgent need' of men as justification) in the manner of producing spirits? How come, a God and a Godess both join in sexual intercourse, but some times they have fleshly children and other times they have spiritual ones? Has teh Mother actually a vaginal switch whcih she turns when she wants 2 million spirit babies and when she wants 2 million of flesh? This is so, because you see, aside of the incoherence of both having flesh but begetting spiritual ones, the Father could in principle beget a fleshly boy when being with a mortal(a lower female) than when Mother in the preexistance. Hum..... Further more; The claim that men have more desire by nature and that they thus ought be given relief and satisfaction through new marruiages follows to be false, because any remark that you make of all, as in universal proposals(philosophical ones) ought to follow for all individuals. This claim does not follow. In fact, ssexuality is after all a social construct in many extents. Men have been raised in this patriarcal culture(angloxajon and latin) believeing and thus experiencing that they are more justified in sex and more willingly to have it. This followed since the decline of the victorian era(see Focoult) when women were being treated as sinful objects of sex, sex from which they ought to take care, lest be that they fall into a manly behaviour of actually wanting it. This was seen also in our even more patriarcal usage of power. Up to the early 50's many members yet had sex with their garments on, just as in the mids 1850's secular population made women wear a blanket on her while the man made a hole to it and had sex with her. This compulssion of men to have much sex has been created, and is part of the chains with which satan has worked to deceive us from what is important. In many other noiwadays cultures we see that it is actually teh opposite. Many native cultures have aside other notions of gender, women who are the ones considered to have this urgent need, while men are taken to be the passive partners. What shall teh Lord make of such a man in heaven? If he doesnt claim(or has) such need, will the Lord then put it into him so he can become a succesful Semental God? Another argument is that of quantities. If to be a God you ahve to be married(the ' logic follows' ) then being that there will be more women than men in hevaen marriages to cover this fault will take place. This is a more sound argument, indeed the only one sound. But it is sound only at the extent of agreeing that its supposition is sound, this is, that marriage ought to take place for you to be a God. This we can contend later. As to the source of this practice: The only mention we have of poligamy in our whole set of Scriptures are Genesis, Exodus, 1 and 2Cronicles, 1 and 2 Samuel, Jacob(book of mormon) and section 132. Now you have to in order to understand this, get to teh shoes of this 25 year old guy who has felt been called to be a prophet. Poligamy had since(1100's) been abandoned by secular/christian people. All theological discourse that Joseph has in mind as learned points to the opposite, that it was left and ought not be taken again. Yet you say, but we have a revelation, section 132. Well, that is another great story, I already and we all did, discuss the section 101st of doctrine and covenants in my thread of (What happened to section 101st?) . To summerize here: 1) There is no actual record of any plural marriage suggestion in writtings of Joseph prior to 1835. The revelation we hold 132, was actually rewritten, it is a copy of the copy, becauise the original was burnt by Emma(with all joy). 2)Joseph didnt recieve any Manifiesto cocnerning it, nor gave any to the fellowship of teh Church. He was directing th Church, if a policy came in, it followed that as God's Vocal he was to impart it to all. Imagine that Hinckley and other leaders secreatly are leaving now a higher law, anbd we are left behind. 3) The case wa sthat Joseph never intended it to be universal practice, but selective. It satarted with him, obviously. He was having an affiar with a young woman that lived in Emma's place, when Cowdery discovered him and told him that such conduct was unfauthfulness he excomunicated unhesitantly. 4)Many reports of womn he approached(and married) say that he told them that he received the ' revelation'(input) of the practice in teh following manner; an angel appeared unto him, after he had been praying to understand how could Abraham practice this, he explained it to him and told him that now as understanding it he had to practice it, to what Smith refused and teh angel with teh sword threatened to kill him if not. Then, afraid andnot joyful because of having to marry other boring women, he went sadly to practice it. What?!! 5) events that followed actually make it more obvious the source of the revelation. he began to excomunicate every member that said something about him concerning teh practice. 6) he lied publicly in affidavits, interviews, and church conferences saying that he never received any such thing and that he was a married man with Enma only(this he sustained till the very week he died). 7) Paradoxically, he received after 1834(when he began practicing poligamy) a Sction, called section 101st of teh book of covenants(now suppresed in Church records), that stated that the lord God had never approved to |Joseph any plural marriage revelation, but thet every male in teh Church ought to have one wife only, and that ONLY this monogamous marriage was approved by Him. What?! 8) Confusion and contradicton lead to more apostasy in teh Chuch and less confidence on leaders. 9) Navoo proved to be teh pinacle of Smith's practice and intentions. 10) He actually condemed publicly while in Ohio(or \navoo) a member in an official letter to te government saying that this member that was praching plural marriage was a deceiver and lier, that he neve taught or practiced this. What?! 11) Finally, those members who stayed in the Church, and survived teh sujorn with Young to teh Rocky Mountains, were astonished when in 1852 Young in a Conference announced the New sempitern covenant, two things that Utah practiced, one for ten years and the other for more than 60, Slavery and Poligamy. Elder Pratt, a former victime excomunicated because of his unwillingness to let his wife marry Joseph was again received after he got a testimony of teh section 132. (you see, he was mostly an intellectual, and to say truth, section 132 has a rather profound and good literacy and rethoric, so he as, I was impressed, but differently to me, he accepted it as true). Pratt introduced this under Young, and now, members were mad, crazy, confused, how in such a world 6 years before members were being excomunicated because of their assurance of this in teh Church and now you say that teh Prophet actuallky did it, and moreover left a section? 12) Many said but hey, what about section 101st? What section 102st? replied Young. There was no such section anymore. When in Utah and after teh persecution in navoo and destruction of teh book of commandments, the section was recovered, but in teh new compendium at Utah , directed by Young, it was suppresed, and they were told that section 132 was now teh new covenant. Woodruff was asked 40 years later, what happened to teh such section, why did they take it off the cannon without Church consent, he replied' we dont know' to teh government. 13) The poligamy practiced in Utah was not that practiced by Smith either. The former had not the improved look of communal bond and sociological beneficence. Smith's was vice. Young's was porpuseful. Now you, see, after all this well documented history, I have but no option that to believe that both the arguments and source of thuis revelation were wrong, or at least not God. Now, this is not to say that teh practice per se, was wrong. I believe it served a porpuse, and I am not ashamed of it in those terms. But I , in order to admire what it did to thsoe conviced of it, dont have to take it as a literal divene command. That is a fundamentalist attitude supported by nothing in history than mere wishful thinking. Smith was after all a man, a man now relied on by members, a man with ' needs' as you say. Well, I belieev that he took quite literally the Word in D&C that speak of teh burning in the bossom to stablish truth, and when contemplating Abraham with many women, felt a burning in the bossom too...who would have not!? It is an out of context revelation, filled with brilliance in each word. But false. Simply beautiful to those who parcticed it. What I will not convene with any person, is that it still is a Celestial principle, a Law eternal. That is nonscriptural, nonphilosophical, nonlogical, and further most non historical notion. but hey, I have no problem, with those who such thing believe, that is after all, a very sacred experience of a person, but my opinion is this after all inquiry. That's all. Regards,

I remain after all, opposed to such a practice in my life. I believe that is culturally acceptable to allow it to those who so willfully choose. But I myself consider it unfair. Of course, women may come to like it, they may come to internalize it and even enjoy it, but for me, it will be as he captive that becomes inlove with the criminal that holds her. It can be genuine affection, hey most muslim women actually defend and enjoy it! But deep inside, and aside all 'feeling' poundering, it is, at least in principle, philosophically unfair. But again, this is su superflous, that to leave mormonism because of this is unjustified. Retain a testimony of Jesus and of the Truth he conveyed to this particular Church. That supercedes any othet disturbance, just as cures superceed their dicoverers' source for financial founding, or personal affairs... You may as well(unlike me, but certainly better than nothing) adhere to those who not only accept it as historically flawed but actually value it as a most escathological and future-revealing concept. Thos ewho do this, while recognizing healthily it'' unfairness, they rely on a hope(genuine) for understanding that precludes them in every manner to abandon their faith. regards,

Yup. Crimson obviously is extrapolating(in all genuine and fair effort) a most commented conclusion on historical marriages of Smith. But only of him. It is said that is unreasonable to think he sustained sex within marriages other than his first. But this is a blatant leap of faith, into nothingness. The promise of plural marriage was not to sustain the widow, or to give nonsexual spiritual company to a solitary worthy member. It was a belief in literal reproduction and aquiring of family. The more wives and sons(both on earth and heaven) a man had(or proposed himself to further have) teh more exaltation he would gain(and dignity in fron of others). It is true, thoughm, that less than 25% of mormons practiced this is Utah. But it matters not, because in fact, those who didnt practice it, didnt want to! This concerned the utterly nonsensical Young generation that got ahold of this phenomena in Smith's times, (when it was secret). Those who defend this ' utility' and nonsexual reality of plural marriages propose that its ultimate function was of a sociological order, to strengthen communal bond and needs through a Sacred experience(that they hold literally true) of family. But in this view, a man that had say, two wives, and the second he chose because he actually wanted to fulfill these former propuses, at least in principle was compromised to; sustain economically such household and sustain openly and in an affectionate manner the spiritual development of it. Smith failed in both. There is no evidence(but to the contrary) in the reflexions of even apologists of FAIR/FARMS that Smith supported financially any other marriage other than Emma's. There is no evidence(but to factual contrary notion) that Smith openly(or intimately) supported his wives in spiritual fairness and treatment(lie and deceit among every treat he gave them is factual). There is no reasonable argument that precludes any man to think the obvious, that Smith actually had intimate relations with them. Of course, we sont expect to open their diaries and find any of his wives stating "Today, another night of great pleassure with teh Prophet" . Nor in any other suggestable way, it was, after all a victorian enviroment. But we know of fact, that Uthans under Young's regimé did have intersexual fellowship. In fact we all know of whom did Young begat his 50 plus sons. Certainly, not of his one and first wife. There was , after all, no sentiment of wrongness in this, it is only recent modern thinking apologists who persist in that this was not a reality and that all was a manifestation of charity. Any close look at diaries, ordanation certificates, temple ceremony, Official Historical records of sermons in teh Church, oral heritage and intern ecclesistical discontent prove the contrary.

I believe it can only be unfair. And, dont worry, up There no injustice will be practiced. You dont have to shatter your faith in the Truth revealed through Joseph based on this particular nonesense of injustice. Accept it as it was, an error that worked for the good in some extents and from which we got over. It didnt have to be divine litarally, i believe it was part of Joseph's genuine experience of the Scripturally Sacred, and that mixed with teh obvious wants any man has, well... What is important is that Joseph is not poligamy, and mormonism isnt either. There is no reasonable argument that could lead you to assume that Celestial Poligamy is of so sure nature that mormonism's promise IS that... or that either you get over it and accept it or leave teh Church. No. You can accept it as a historical distorion, a genuine but limited experience of the Sacred, but jeject it as a personal escathological conviction. It remains unfair, but hey, dont leave the Church ofr such reasons, there are most compelling reasons to levae the Church than those, and even those ' most compelling' to some, are really negociable in theory*. regards,