deseretgov

So the term polygamy isn't really an incorrect term to use in reference to Plural Marriage. Also I can never remember how to spell polygyny.

I think the more correct term for the principle is "Plural Marriage." But "Polygamy" is shorter.

Joseph Smith was sealed to some women who were already sealed to a husband.

Well for that matter I also contemplate what my feelings would be if I gave the ownersip of all my property to the church. So what is one man with more than one husband? Or one woman with multiple wives? Or for that sake what is one man with multiple husbands and wives? Or one woman with mutliple wives and husbands? Or what is one transgendered person with more than......

They constitute the operation of a household. Love is a different aspect of the discussion and I wasnt discussing that aspect. My lack of comment on that doesn't mean that it isn't something that is important. It just means I was't talking about that particular aspect. But if you want to talk about it I will. If a man was going to marry more than one women love would be the most important thing. Love will help people forgive eachother and work together. Because of love people can overcome problems. Because of love people will serve eachother. All of these things are vital to having a successful marriage. Is a relationship with more than one wife it would be vital to have love. Jealousy would be a huge temptation for the wives. Wives would need to love each other. The husband would need to love both of his wives. A hardship for the husband would be to love each wife equally and to give equal time and attention to each. The husband and wives would have to love the children. They would need to care for the needs of the children and wives who were not the mother of a child would have to love a child that is not hers. There now the love aspect has been discussed. Or you could always make your own.

Isn't that a given? Another woman could also help provide additional income for the household, which a nanny or housekeeper could not.

I've stated my opinon of desiring multiple wives twice before in this forum. So I'm sure many of you have heard if before. And I'll say it, yes I desire multiple wives. I already do have one wife. She is everything I could ever ask for. I love her very much. We also have a beautiful little girl. One reason I desire multiple wives to be a worthy husband to women who dont have one. There are many in the Philippines. There simply aren't enough worthy men. Of course then if the worthy men who are already there could marry them. But our baby is also another reason I have seriously thought about plural marriage. It would be so nice for myself and my wife to have another person to help take care of the baby. Everyone would get much more sleep and the house could get taken care of. But I have but serious thought into the subject. One thing I've done is tried to imagine my wife having more than one husband. Then I examine my feelings about that. Having more than one wife would not be an easy thing to do. And because of that I can see why it is a higher law. It would require so much more effort, time, work, honesty, etc to make a plural marriage work.

But did you see why she wanted to send her away? Hagar despised Sarai for not being able to bear children. So it's not that the relationship was wrong it's that those who participated in it did not fulfill their duties. So if Joseph Smith said God commanded polygamy but was lying that would make him a....false prophet.

Why do you think Polygamy is wrong?

Because without our ancestors we cannot be linked through the generations unto Adam. We have to have those sealing links if we are to attain eternal life. Also Ressurection is an ordinance that can only be performed in the Spirit world. That might have something to do with it too.

Actually that's only one translation. This part of the Book of Enoch is confirmed in the Bible. Genesis 6:2-4 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. To me it seems that this story is not about angels whocame down but rather a select group of holy men. Maybe a special order of priesthood holders or something. They are refered to as the sons of God. They used to be righteous but saw the fairness of the daughters of men. They probably lusted after them and and descended from a mountain(mountains can be used as temples when temples are not available). They took the daughters of men as their wives. In verse four it talks about the giants. It talks about the sons of God and daughters of men had children who became the mighty men of old who were renowned. In the Bookof Enoch it tells us that the children of the sons of God and daughters of men were actually the giants which makes sense why the giants and mighty men are in the same verse in the bible. Since we know that it was impossible for it to be angels in the Book of Enoch when compared to teh Bibleit seems most likely it was a group of priests whose descent from a mountain may have seemed, to teh daughters of men, like angels.

I haven't finished it yet but it's really great. It was considered canon in the New Testament times. I wish it still was. There is so much good information there. It is a part of my personal canon.

What country?

True, I haven't seen anything like that in prophecy. But what if it wasn't the United States.

I seem to recall the "conspiracy theorists" predicting this economic down turn long ago. Hmmm. And gee people called us crazy back then. Now they still call us crazy and wont admit that we were right. Even though we are.

Well what if you said, "Oh my g**" With a small "g" not to be confuse with the one with a big "G." But anyway a new perspective learned came fomr the Book of the Law of the Lord that was "translated" by James J. Strang. In there it said that taking the nam eof the Lord in vain was using the name of God a without the right to do so. For example if you didn't have authority to baptize someone. But you baptized them in the name of God(Father, Son, Holy Ghost). Then that was considered to be in vain. Becasue God didn't give you permission to use His name.

I'm not sure what you mean. The thred wasn't about commanding people to live plural marriage but was about government forced acceptance of it. It not about if people would actually take more than one wife it's about what the church would do if it were forced to abandon excommunication/denying admittance to the temple to those who have or would marry more than one wife.

So you're also saying that the church would pull out of the hypothetical country, surrender all assets (including at least one temple), and leave at least half a million hypothetical people stranded religiously? I posted this in another forum and someone gave an interesting answer. THey said they thought the Church would abide by the laws of the land but make sure to tell everyone(like in temple recommend interviews) that while they may be free from motral punishment that doesn't free them from eternal punishment for sdoing something that is against God's Laws. But I guess we should also consider that there wouldn't be a huge flock of people going to get married to more than one wife. The number would probably be pretty low. Would the Church leave because of such a small number?

I'm inclined to agree with you Loudmoth. It seems to me more like what the church would do, especially since it's multinational. Of course it's a different time than in WW2. Who many members were in Germany and how many temples? Would the modern Church be willing to theologically abandon over 500,000 people? My understanding was that they would have to give up their other wives.

What I mean is that a church(in our "what if" the Church) could not punish a person because of the fact they had more than one wife. But other reasons for punishment would still be allowed.

I'm known to think of a lot of what if's. So here's one I was thinking about. What if there was a country that had a strong LDS presence(let's say half a million), with at least one temple; and then that country made it a law that no religion could put any form punishment(i.e. Deny membership, excommunicate, disfellowship, etc) on any person who had more than one wife. If a church didn't abid by it then they would seize the property and disolve the organization of a church(kind of liek what happened when polygamy was outlawed in early church history). What would the Church do? Of course this is HIGHLY unlikely, that's why it's a "What if..." So would the church change its policy and allow members in that hypothetical country to live plural marriage? Or would the church disolve its organization involving at least half a million members, allow said government to sieze all church property, including at least one temple? We can't really know what the church would do but let's have fun and imagine. So what do you think the church would do?

My friend's mother and father seperated and got their sealing cancelled. It wasn't because of adultery though.

That to me is the contradiction of tolerance. It gives no room for having an acceptable standard of behaviour. Because to be really tolerant you can't pick and choose what you tolerate.

Obviously the 16 year old's feelings can't be dismissed. She's part of the family and her opinon counts. If I was in that situation I would probably wait until the 16 year old moves out or something. If she moves out she has her own household and no longer has a say in the operation of your household.

But if a person is truely tolerant then they must tolerate intolerance. If not they are not truely tolerant.