The Folk Prophet

Following this logic one would have to contend, legally, for complete anarchy. There are many things that "free" agency allows for that are curtailed by the laws of the land, and quite reasonably so.

Fair enough. But you did say:

This is pretty similar to what I know of my family history as well, and what I know of other's family histories.

The wives are sealed only to their husbands in the plural marriage relationship, not to each other.

This was also never a rule in ye olden days. Many, many polygamous families shared households.

This is wherein you're lucky. If everyone would faithfully and diliegenly magnify this, none would feel left out. It would solve a whole bunch of problems. I've long been of the opinion that HT and VT are the keys to bringing about Zion. Zion will come no faster than the church does its HT and VT at an honorable, faithful, and diligent level.

I will. The priesthood is an eternal order. It's not something that changes. The patriarchal order is an eternal order. It's not something that changes. And, moreover, women have, and always have had, exactly what they need for exaltation. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, of course...but I'm not.

In the spirit of God not being one of chaos, I really can't see where He'd inspire one member that women should have the priesthood against what He's telling the prophet. That seems pretty chaotic to me.

See now, I don't totally disagree with this. I think it's incomplete. You "can" divorce it in cases, and should, but it is not always divorced. Clearly our feelings are highly related. My point is that our self interest ought not be the prime catalyst for determining right and wrong. If you'd stop responding to what I say with a defensive, we're-just-bickering, p.o.v. maybe you'd find we have some understanding that can actually be shared.

Agreed. :)

Just curious. Have you considered that your view of it as merely "bickering" might just be influencing your interpretations of my points? Just curious. I am not just bickering. I'm trying to uphold gospel principles, morality, doctrine, and righteousness.

I have no opinion on that. I inferred it from the fact that I posted that it didn't work that way and your first sentence in response was "I disagree." *shrug* Maybe I misunderstood.

You're responding like I was arguing with you. I am not. You said "Exactly" and I was further supporting that with scripture. If you had said "Boloney" instead, I can see it coming across like a debate. Not sure why you took it that way.

What I am not interested in is quote mining from the Journal of Discourses. And, specifically, arguing with you about the need for plural marriage -- primarily because unlike Traveler, I don't enjoy beating a horse to death and we've been through this many times. I find your views of polygamy highly biased by your distaste for it. You are free to that bias, but I see your arguments as flawed by that bias and don't see much use in the "nuh uh", "uh huh" sort of back and forth that is likely to come of it. Moreover, I find your points of view contradictory to decades of teachings concerning polygamy (with the exception of the aforementioned quote mining). It was very clearly taught that plural marriage was the order of heaven by many prophets and apostles. They taught that monogamy was flawed. They taught that polygamy was superior. You disregard those things because it does not favor your position. I could quote them to further debate. You would refute them with some other quote, and back and forth and so on? Seems like a waste of time to me. The bottom line is, we have no idea on most of these things. There is specific evidence of the way it worked though, and a Journal of Discourse quote or two isn't going to change that. You can disagree all you want, but the historical record makes it fairly clear that wives did not choose their husband's other wives. The husbands found their own - consistently. Wives getting revelation for their husbands may have happened. It was certainly not "the rule".

By way of scriptural support: D&C 28 6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church; 7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead. and 12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

She does not have insight that the church leaders do not. That is specifically prescripted as against the order of God.

There is no being true to God according to our own understanding. There is only being true to God or not. Truth is truth. It is not relative. Morality is not relative. God defines right and wrong. If our understanding is mistaken it is not an honorable thing? It's just mistaken. Pretty much every evil person throughout history was doing what they personally felt was right. We can throw out examples of Ghandi and Luther but we could just as easily throw out HItler and Stalin. You gonna stick with the, "I'm just being true to myself" defense in those cases?

Sort of seems that way...except the no remarriage after divorce is spouse is living thing... ???? Either way, not an LDS Article of Faith.

Incredibly flawed in our apologetic point of view. Not incredibly flawed in other's points of view. Obvious in theirs. I mean, unless your a DNA scientist who's actually run the tests and understands the process, I presume you're pulling your "incredibly flawed" theory from LDS apologetics. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's clear choice in what we choose to accept as valid empirical evidence or not. My hands are really tied on this argument because I refuse to bring up and discuss "valid" critiques of the Book of Mormon from a supportive point of view. But Ignoring that there are, indeed, valid arguments (yes, empirical ones) is putting on blinders. And yes, lack of evidence is construed as evidence by many. That apologetic approach never held much water. But, fine...take out the "empirical" part of it. There are, still, things that to some make many things (like the BOM) in the LDS faith "obviously" mistaken. Should we discredit them as valid thinkers? They're discrediting us that way. The only solution to valid arguments against religious teaching is faith. I can't explain dinosaur bones. But I'm not going to accept them as evidence that the Bible is a bunch of made up stuff. I think we should err on the side of explaining the sciences to fit religion rather than the other way around. As much as it's all speculation, I'd much rather go with a "dinosaur bones must be from another planet" sort of theory (as silly as it is) then a, "the Bible must be wrong" sort of theory. It really stinks to me of, "they are learned, so they think they are wise". Donkey's don't talk! We know that. We're learned. So obviously the donkey talking story in the Bible is allegorical. Meh. What can I say. I'm keeping an open mind on the whole donkey talking thing.

Anatess! We agree!!! Yay! Yeah...I can get behind this idea of it.

Hehe. You mean like the anarchist who's upset when someone shoots him in the leg?

Wait. You mean to say you don't agree with me?!

You fear what the results will be, or you "know" what the results will be? :) The writing's kind of on the wall.

I was wondering the same. Certainly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not added any Articles of Faith.

Sorry, not gonna link to the anti-Mormon stuff or re-post it here. If you don't get my meaning, let's move on.