TruthSeekerToo

Maxel, I am really not seeing how the context paints this any prettier. Polygamy caused this family all kinds of disfunction. Am I the only person who sees anything wrong with sending away (into the wilderness) your wife and child?!?!?!?!?!?! Mocking is not a grevious sin. It certainly can be repented of. If your wife mocked your child would you have the right to "put her away"? Clearly the fact that Sarah could choose the fate of her servant who she gave to her husband to sleep with (did Hagar have a choice) makes Hagar INFERIOR! That is the whole point. Apperently people STILL believe that women are inferior and that God sanctions it.

You guys are cracking me up! But, in all seriousness, if the "wife of his youth" annoys him he can just go get another wife. If you read some of the journals, letters and stories of women who were in polygamy they were often ignored once a new wife entered the mix.

Yes, because Hagar was treated inferior because she was a concubine. Oh, and remember that the man can override his first wife. It says so in D&C 132. So he didn't have to do what Sarah said.

Oh, I see. I was working off the point of inferior and used the word slave to drive the point home. Sorry. You are right, they are not always slaves, but they are always treated as inferior whether by inheritance, status or actual treatment. ETA: It does appear that the early pioneers/settlers had a different definition of concubine. It was more of a woman you had children with who could not legally be your wife....at least that is what I'm seeing. Again, she would have no legal recourse if she was dumped out on the streets.

Hmmm. Giving Hagar bread and a bottle of water and sending her into the wilderness with her child... Yup.

In which "form" is a woman not inferior---and her children? Sorry, but your link just proved that concubines are inferior.

The point here is that it makes them inferior. That is the only issue I am trying to discuss (even though it is hard to seperate it all out). Concubines are treated inferior because they are slave wives.

Maxel, I can look for where I found that statstical jazz, but in case I can't find it lets just look at BY. He had 56 children by 16 women. Ten of them only bore him 1 child. All of my pioneer ancestors who lived at the same time period in Utah had families of 10-16 children each. As for the concubines.... D&C 132:37-39 37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the ckeys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord. These scriptures seem to be saying that God approves concubines.....

Well, I hope you find a wife, too. Statistics show that polygamous relationships result in fewer children born. It appears that JS had no children from any of his polygamous wives-although he was certainly able to have children. And I'm wondering if anyone will be willing to admit that concubines are inferior. Concubines are slave wives. Is anyone gonna touch that one?

I believe I do understand quite a bit of the history surrounding church history. Having no say in the matter makes her inferior and does not place her in equal status as her husband. You think concubines are equal??? Nope. They are slaves and often raped because they have no choice. If God endorses concubines then slavery is okay by him. Does anyone have a first hand account of the angel with the flaming sword? As it stands, I believe it is heresay. Why would God kill Joseph over polygamy (which he never publicly taught) and keep Hitler around??? I know this is veering off topic, though. Oh, and why would a righteous man want another wife?

Thanks, Hemi, that still makes the women inferior.

As a woman this passage makes me feel very unloved and inferior. D&C 132:64-65 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. 65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. My understanding is that the "law of Sarah" is getting permission from the first wife for other wives. If permission is refused the man is at liberty to take another wife anyway. Oh, and the first wife gets destroyed. Yeah, and concubines are slave wives.

PC, thank you for your posts. Have you spoken in tongues? I'm sorry for being so forward, but I am interested in the manifestations of the Spirit. --------------------------- Why am I Christain? Alma 11:38-40 38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? 39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; 40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else. Because I believe!!!

I understand where your coming from, but I feel the potential loss of freedom negates the potential benefits. Just adding the thought that they would be chipped for life unless they had surgery to remove it.

James, thanks! That is exactly what I was looking for.

Actually, he is teaching the people how to pray. He says after this manner you need to pray. So, to me he is teaching the formula by which we pray. That is why I would expect him to teach the people exactly how it is to be done. Hope that makes more sense of where I'm coming from. =)

A really good LDS fiction book was written by Gerald Lund on a similar premise. Only it is a chip implanted in everyone that will give you pain if you think about doing something wrong. It's called The Alliance. I love it! I know your premise is different, but I just love that book. Here is a blog with lots of links about chipping people. I have NOT read it all, so please take it for what it is worth. I don't think it is good. There are conspiracy theorists that believe babies are being chipped at birth. There are people who believe that all military and police are chipped. I don't know if it is true because I haven't really researched it. I just don't get a good feeling about it.

On Sunday I was looking at the prayers Jesus taught in 3 Nephi and Matthew. I noticed that he taught to close the prayer "Amen" and did not teach to say "In the name of JC." My husband and I couldn't find out when or how we knew to close the way we currently do. We just found all the missionary and ensign articles that teach the current way. It is obvious in the scrips that all ordinances are done "in the name of JC." I just can't find scriptural evidence of praying "in the name of JC." Oh, the dedicatory prayer in D&C 109 is done in his name, but that would also be an ordinance wouldn't it? Does anyone know the answer to this? I realize we could be missing something obvious. Here are the scriptures where we learn the order of prayer: Matthew 6:9-13 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. 3 Nephi 13:9-13 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 12 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. 13 For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

Yes, I am glad we can both see the others position. I am in love with history and my pioneer heritage. So, that is one of my stronger points. Although the more I learn the less I know.

Ahhh, I see where I had the disconnect. I believe the scriptures are inspired by God. They say what he wants them to say. I guess that is why I misunderstood. I thought it was about disbelieving that the written word means what it says. I just wanted to demonstrate that everyone does the same thing I do, which apperantly was not the thrust of this thread. Ooops. That is why I think the example of Jesus saying to hate is so perfect. Like you, when God says to hate people I know to dig for deeper meaning. I do this with or without footnotes, so that might be different than others. Likewise, when God says (or is attributed as saying) to kill people I know to dig deeper. I know that God does not ask us to literally do anything in opposition to the Light of Christ. Whenever something in the scriptures is in opposition to the Light of Christ I dig deeper. There are many scriptures which say that God won't ask us to do anything bad. He also warns of people who call good bad and bad good. He also has warned us that he will send a delusion and allow us to believe a lie. So the scriptures can also testify of the lies that we believe. Isa. 66: 4 4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. 2 Thes. 2: 11 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: I absolutely know that the scriptures say what they are supposed to say. It is up to us to learn the actual message.

Historically speaking: *Mine house-refers to the temple to be built in Missouri. This revelation was given to the saints before Nauvoo was settled. It was given at Far West, MO in 1838. Here is a picture of the temple site. It refers to the temple in Zion, based on the fact the tithe begins with the "saints IN Zion." I agree that Zion is the pure in heart, but here it is speaking of the "land of Zion." *Foundation of Zion-Well, Salt Lake City isn't Zion and never has been. Again, this is referring to Missouri. Zion is to begin there and spread out from there. See D&C 57 Zion shall not be moved from her place even though we are in a scattered state. See D&C 101:17 and D&C 97:19 As an interesting side note: if the saints had been obedient they would not have had to leave Nauvoo. The whole section is very good. Specific to this topic 45-48. D&C 124:45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. *Very true that the church and it's presidency is no longer in debt. Quite the opposite. Anyway, that is my understanding of the history surrounding these passages.

Sorry, I just found a really good example. Could someone please explain this, because I find it really hard to understand. Luke 14: 26 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. On the other hand we have: 3 Nephi 12 43 And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy; 44 But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you; A bunch more references to loving here. Matt. 19: 19 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Matt. 22: 39 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mark 12: 31 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. In one scripture Jesus is telling us that we are not worthy to be his disciples unless we hate an awful lot of people. In all the other scriptures he is says to love everyone including our enemies. It appears that we have to reject the literal rendition of one or the other....

Here is a reference to the quote from DoS in the book "Black and Mormon" on page 35. It doesn't appear to be an "anti" book so I see no reason to disbelieve it. You could also google it and find it referenced in dozens of places. And, yes, my answers are good enough for me. I know my answers. I was inquiring about YOUR answers. That was the whole point of this thread, I think. D&C 27 is the revelation about changing the emblems. Here is the historical background for it. You'll have to scroll down to Section 27. It is Joseph Fielding Smith who explains that wine was still used in those early years interchanged with water and it wasn't until later that water was exlusively used. As to hearing that wine was procurred in this instance I can't recall where I read it. So we'll just go with what the manual says. As to the polygamy question. Let me just say that the Article on Marriage called for strict monogomy and was canonized. It was accepted by common consent. By so doing the church was under covenant to uphold and live by it. It was there until 1876 when it was replaced by D&C 132. You can draw your own conclusions from that. Section 119 does not contain any of the law of consecration. Look at the heading-it is the complete law of tithing given to the saints after they failed to live the law of consecration. After you give all your surplus property you continue to work. You will either grow food, earn money, sell things or whatever. So, the next year you figure out your proper tithe and give it. The year after that you figure out your proper tithe and give it. Does that make more sense? I don't believe surplus is everything over "subsist" level. I believe a family can determine what is surplus or extra. The D&C does mention our "needs and wants" so I think that is more than just food and shelter-of course it is in D&C 51 law of consecration. Sorry for making it sound that way in my pp.

It was a lovely lesson, wasn't it? I have already been doing the more and shorter prayers all the time. What I hadn't thought of was how they stream together. I love the idea. Also to live in an attitude thanksgiving. Our thoughts can continually be towards H.F. Oh, and yes, it will change your life.

Immigration status has never had an impact on temple recommends. You can still get one if you are illegal. I got this info from an LDS blog with comments from bishops over wards near the border, so I feel like it is accurate. I never knew illegal immigrants served missions. We have given T.R.s to people who break the laws of the land since Nauvoo.......