LeSellers

There are two problems people have with accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet:
1) He has a last name.
2) His life post-dated the printing press.
Lehi

Amen, I envy you for the second amendment. my fellow countrymen are sadly soft and too content. they murmur and complain but they don´t have enough privations to stand up for themselves. But Berlin, Washington DC is a den of thieves and I hope those fools don´t kick off another war in Europe. That is our greatest concern here. Unfortunately our government is just all too willing to appease anything that your government cooks up.

In that order.
Alma the Younger said that preaching the word had more effect on the people than the sword. But his successor was both prophet and general, wielded both word and sword.
Lehi

So, you're saying that is is not because they are women that he denigrates those he does, but only those he has no use for? That is not the same thing as having little respect for them because they're women. It's useless women he doesn't like.
But he has no respect for useless men, either, so it's not sexism, it's "utilitism": the useful are respected, the useless not. I am not seeing this as irretrievably wicked.
Any employer uses those he hires for his own economic purposes. (Well, not Bill "BJ" Clinton: he hires them for, er, other purposes.) He uses their talents, their skills, their abilities. If not, he's a fool.
It seems you're intent on believing every evil thing the adversarial media publishes about the man. I despise the media more than I despise Hitliary, and I trust them even less. They're willing to invent stories about their political enemies (Dan Blather, anyone?), and it's evident that  they will shade the truth without qualm. It's not what they do publish, it's what they do not; it's not what they write, it's how they write it.
The mediocre poet, but good philosopher, William Blake wrote:
A Truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
I usually use this quotation when responding to antis, but it fits here just as well.
Again, I do not like Trump: there are far better candidates out there. But if there is a chance he can keep O'bama II (or Clinton III, however you see it) out of the Oval Office, I'll vote for him in a tight Colorado race. I'll hold my nose and, yes, choose the lesser of two evils — because to do otherwise is to choose the greater of two evils.
Lehi

While not sleeping this morning (at around 2:30), it struck me that we do have a contemporary example of polyandry, or, perhaps more accurately, polyamory. The huge fraction of unwed mothers, especially in inner cities, where ¾ of children are born to mothers whose "husbands" (however temporary) also have children by other "wives", and whose many children often have different fathers, shows us that polyandry or polyamory is rampant under the welfare state.
It seems possible that the welfare state not only makes this possible, but a rational choice for the women, perhaps for the men, as well, since not only do the mothers not have to worry about choosing a long-term partner to raise her/their children, but, it makes no sense to do so: the state will take the role of provider/protector and will fill it better than most of the men whom she has access to. The men, on other hand, don't need to choose mates to complement them — they can merely spread their seed as far and as widely as testosterone drives them or allows.
Does it work? That's the only question we need consider. It does and it does not. It only does because the state takes resources (money, primarily) from pair-bonded families and subsidizes whatever-in-the-heck these other entities are. Take away the welfare state, and this kind of mating strategy would collapse and disappear. (Whether an unsubsidized system or polyandry or polyamory would work is an open question. I've read of such things, but in one case, polyamory, it was fiction, and in the other, polyandry, I don't recall any of the details.)
Does it work emotionally? I don't know anyone in this kind of situation, so I have no observations up close and personal. However, we can discern a thriving community with this mating structure. The women turn to each other (especially their own mothers and grandmothers) for the emotional support they need, but it seems they don't do well at all in raising the children: murder, stealing, rape, and other violent, along with a pervasive miasma of non-violent, crime accompanies this culture. Death at a young age, usually violent death, is part of the fabric of these communities.
Does it work economically? Were it possible to extract the welfare component, we'd probably see it falter in weeks or months. Partly because there is no incentive for the men to create wealth. They live of of their mothers or "wives" and do nothing useful — just "chill out", have sex, rob, kill, and do a lot of drugs. Take away the money stolen from productive people, and it is a toss up whether they'd go "get a job" or simply increase their criminal activities. There is little to support the former theory, and much to buttress the latter.
But it does work reproductively: the fraction of people in these circumstances has grown significantly over the past five decades, whether the economy grows or not.
So, whether you consider this polyandry or polyamory, it's an aberration that will not positively affect anyone involved (except bureaucrats and politicians): those living it are not well off, those "contributing" are worse off, and there is no reasonable means of escaping the vicious cycle.
Lehi

This is more-or-less true. It does not change the fact that a man will choose the most desirable available women he can get from whatever pool is before him. Likewise, a woman will choose the most desirable man from the pool she has access to. Whether these pools are limited by geography or otherwise does not change the fact that each will choose the best he can get.
"Wreck" is an amorphous word. But what it would do is change the dynamics by allowing women to choose better men than the remnants, the picked-overs, those others have not chosen.
It would also allow women from lower status pools to "move up" into other pools because they are depleted by men who have taken multiple wives from the pools on the same levels they were allowed to fish.
Again, under polygyny, it is the lower/est grade men who suffer the most and the most highly desirable women who become gatekeepers for their highly desirable husbands as to whether they can take additional wives. If they permit additional marriages, one might say they, too, suffer. But they are in control, so any suffering is of their own choice.
With polyandry, the sexual roles are reversed with regard to which class suffers and which gains. Nonetheless, the total benefit is higher across the whole population.
Lehi

Sometimes logic is so far from the discussion and personal opinion so far from the mark it is obvious that someone has not done their homework and is offended by simple truth.  Example,  someone(s) is having trouble trying to get some electrical device to work.  You can feel the anger in their 4 letter words.  So you walk up, tap someone on the shoulder and say, "Maybe if you plugged it in."  Oddly enough the longer they have thought their anger at the device was justified (something is wrong with it) - the more they will hate you for telling them the answer is pilot error. And if it has anything to do with religion or politics - not only will they hate you but they will not believe it.  Even if it is the bright sun of noon day - they will say it is night.
 
The Traveler

It is harder to "put yourself out there" in today's world.  We are ruled by the inane "political correctness" idiocy that plagues our society.  
I think I will start calling my Doberman a "Doberperson"

God and guns.

This.

In several other topics, we've seen a melding of the concepts of polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and the Celestial idea of Plural Marriage. These are not the same things, and speaking about them as if they were only muddies the waters and makes understanding more difficult than it need be.
The superset is polygamy: from the Greek, meaning "many joinings", i.e., marriages (whether formalized or not) between or among multiple partners, male or female, same-sex or natural.
Completely within "polygamy" are "polyandry" and "polygyny". The former means "many men", the latter, "many women". "Polygamy" also subsumes "polyamory", a portmanteau (mixing of Greek and Latin roots) meaning "many loves", i.e., several men and/or several women who engage in sex with each other promiscuously, including homosex if desired, with the knowledge and consent of all of the others in the "family".
"Polygyny" could  mean (but I've never seen it used this way) same-sex joinings between/among women. In parallel, "polyandry" could mean (but unattested) the common homosexual practice of having multiple homosexual males partners. In general, however, either means heterosexual marriages (formal or not) with one partner of one sex and multiple partners of the complementary sex.
"Plural Marriage" is a subset of "polygyny" (with some "outerlaps", that is, parts that common polygyny does not include). Plural Marriage is not the subject of this topic. Please do not raise it, and only use scriptures (please divorce them from their spiritual basis) to support or undermine the other, legitimate, subjects. An example might be 1 Samuel 1, wherein we meet Hannah and her polygynous husband and see the strife between the wives of Elkanah. The question to be examined here would be "Is polygyny inherently stressful, or can two women share a husband without harming each other?"
Finally, while it is a major issue in our time (we're not alone, the ancients did it, too), serial polygamies of whatever sort, don't lend themselves to this topic, either. Divorces and remarriages have little redeeming value, absent brutality. Jesus condemned them, and that's good enough for me.
The goal (assuming "goal" isn't too strong a word) of this topic is to examine the plusses and minuses of each arrangement.
It would be really nice if participants could keep it scholarly and detached. This is a potentially contentious topic, deeply imbued with emotion. That's not the point.
Lehi

They're not mutually exclusive, fer cryin' in a bucket.
The first commandment God gave mankind is "multiply and replenish the earth." It was not learn the Gospel, it was not learn your trade or craft. These are important things to do, but they are not the principle reason for being here.
And, as they marry older, the number of children decreases. This is bad both spiritually and temporally, personally and culturally. (Read The Birth Dearth: What Happens When People in Free Countries Don't Have Enough Babies?, by Ben J. Watternberg.)
As they get older, they become more set in their ways, and they are less able to adapt to married life and make the concessions required when two people live together.
As they marry older, they are less able to sacrifice their personal "wants" to a greater good, that of their family.
Having a good job is nice, but it is not a requisite for marriage. Having "stuff" is nice, but it is not required for marriage. Having all this eliminates the struggle and reduces the necessity of bonding together in (trivial, although it doesn't seem so at the time) adversity that will make facing hardships later easier and natural.
Late marriage is worse than early marriage. Physically, it seems better, but measuring those things that count, it doesn't hold a candle to having a spouse and children when our God-designed bodies are ready for parenting.
Lehi

I have not read it, but I am seeing comments on it from people who have, and it is not "pro-life". It is probably better than the death-by-mother clause in the DemoComms' platform, but it is not what many Conservatives would hope for.
Lehi

In essence, yes. And this "scheme" was a win-win — it was designed by Father.
AntiSocial inSecurity, on the other hand, may not have been the first, but it is certainly among the most abominable Ponzi schemes. It's legal, but it's morality is non-existent: another lose-lose.
Lehi

well, don´t the media always manipulate public opinion in the US ? I mean after all, some people may not have realized that there has been other candidates for presidency from other parties that were not democrats or republicans. 
And I agree with you LaSellers, This whole media campaign is neither fair nor partial. Not supporting any of those two but the democrats sure fight dirty and underhanded. Your political systems needs an overhaul as much as does mine. 
By the way, I liked what Clint Eastwood said about people being tired about being political correct. PC is a festering cancer that promotes injustice and lying.

Elsewhere, a commenter opined that maybe they should just get little fetus tramp stamps for each one, like fighter pilots marking their kills on the plane, so the next sperm donor can keep track.

I have actually no words whatsoever... this is pretty deranged and sad... Well, I guess such people stand out as a warning what happens if you delete your brain with hipster coffee and overdose on liberal ideas with a pinch of political correctness and entitlement.

They're not mutually exclusive, fer cryin' in a bucket.
The first commandment God gave mankind is "multiply and replenish the earth." It was not learn the Gospel, it was not learn your trade or craft. These are important things to do, but they are not the principle reason for being here.
And, as they marry older, the number of children decreases. This is bad both spiritually and temporally, personally and culturally. (Read The Birth Dearth: What Happens When People in Free Countries Don't Have Enough Babies?, by Ben J. Watternberg.)
As they get older, they become more set in their ways, and they are less able to adapt to married life and make the concessions required when two people live together.
As they marry older, they are less able to sacrifice their personal "wants" to a greater good, that of their family.
Having a good job is nice, but it is not a requisite for marriage. Having "stuff" is nice, but it is not required for marriage. Having all this eliminates the struggle and reduces the necessity of bonding together in (trivial, although it doesn't seem so at the time) adversity that will make facing hardships later easier and natural.
Late marriage is worse than early marriage. Physically, it seems better, but measuring those things that count, it doesn't hold a candle to having a spouse and children when our God-designed bodies are ready for parenting.
Lehi

Cite names... Name the ones that signed off and then continued.  It is easy to  say that they "All signed" off  with out knowing who they are..  It is easy to "assume" those that continued signed off...  But with out names it is simple speculation that they over lapped...
 
But lets assume that a few did anyway... how does that negate the answer?  It is so easy to imagine one (or some) of them thinking that the statement they signed off on was a PR stunt with strong terms to get the government off their backs.  And that the church would continue business as usual

In several other topics, we've seen a melding of the concepts of polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and the Celestial idea of Plural Marriage. These are not the same things, and speaking about them as if they were only muddies the waters and makes understanding more difficult than it need be.
The superset is polygamy: from the Greek, meaning "many joinings", i.e., marriages (whether formalized or not) between or among multiple partners, male or female, same-sex or natural.
Completely within "polygamy" are "polyandry" and "polygyny". The former means "many men", the latter, "many women". "Polygamy" also subsumes "polyamory", a portmanteau (mixing of Greek and Latin roots) meaning "many loves", i.e., several men and/or several women who engage in sex with each other promiscuously, including homosex if desired, with the knowledge and consent of all of the others in the "family".
"Polygyny" could  mean (but I've never seen it used this way) same-sex joinings between/among women. In parallel, "polyandry" could mean (but unattested) the common homosexual practice of having multiple homosexual males partners. In general, however, either means heterosexual marriages (formal or not) with one partner of one sex and multiple partners of the complementary sex.
"Plural Marriage" is a subset of "polygyny" (with some "outerlaps", that is, parts that common polygyny does not include). Plural Marriage is not the subject of this topic. Please do not raise it, and only use scriptures (please divorce them from their spiritual basis) to support or undermine the other, legitimate, subjects. An example might be 1 Samuel 1, wherein we meet Hannah and her polygynous husband and see the strife between the wives of Elkanah. The question to be examined here would be "Is polygyny inherently stressful, or can two women share a husband without harming each other?"
Finally, while it is a major issue in our time (we're not alone, the ancients did it, too), serial polygamies of whatever sort, don't lend themselves to this topic, either. Divorces and remarriages have little redeeming value, absent brutality. Jesus condemned them, and that's good enough for me.
The goal (assuming "goal" isn't too strong a word) of this topic is to examine the plusses and minuses of each arrangement.
It would be really nice if participants could keep it scholarly and detached. This is a potentially contentious topic, deeply imbued with emotion. That's not the point.
Lehi

I get that assumption from the same place you did--from D&C 132, which provides for polygamy but not for polyandry.

That feeling when you realize the only person left with an active complaint against them is you.

I'd rather die single than spend my life growing in love with somebody who I will not be with in the eternities. So unless I get an undeniable impression to do otherwise, I will continue to date only church members who are, as far as I can tell, temple-worthy.

And they won't encounter such people dating outside the church?