Number 1 reason why plural marriage probably won't be a part of the Millennium and Celestial Kingdom

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

You dont know the hI story of her bringing up my mental health and what Pam the admin said to end it.

And that's relevant to my comment...how?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And that's relevant to my comment...how?

She triggers me like no other posters and the admin said to stop bringing up what she says and is disobedient and then shows she has too much pride to apologize to me. Is that how a mod representing a church board should act and you think I'm in the wrong? Get out of here with that.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Zarahemla said:

She triggers me like no other posters and the admin said to stop bringing up what she says and is disobedient and then shows she has too much pride to apologize to me. Is that how a mod representing a church board should act and you think I'm in the wrong? Get out of here with that.

Trigger Warning.

I have no respect for the concept of being "triggered".

Regardless your reply is still entirely irrelevant to my reply.

Want to try again?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Trigger Warning.

I have no respect for the concept of being "triggered".

Regardless your reply is still entirely irrelevant to my reply.

Want to try again?

I'm the one who was wronged I don't have to answer you.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Zarahemla said:

I'm the one who was wronged I don't have to answer you.

Then why have you been answering me?

Edited April 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

Bottom line question I have. Is it wrong to desire plural marriage in the afterlife and Celestial Kingdom if the reason you are desiring it is because other past good men lived it and it means a large sacred family and are desiring it for family reasons. Is that ok or do you consider anyway wanting it even for good reasons to be bad? Why or why not? Explain. Especially if you are single and haven't vowed yourself to anyone yet.

Plural marriage is a means to the ends of 1) ensuring that all who qualify can be in a celestial marriage regardless of demographics; 2) individual refinement of one's Christlike attributes; and 3) an accelerated beginning to the fulfillment of the promise of eternal increase (i.e.--more kids).  

All of those goals are obtainable through other means; and in fact the modern Church leadership--through revelation--has exercised their priesthood keys so as to forestall contemporaneous plural marriage.  Once the Church leadership has closed the door on a particular course of conduct, it's not helpful--and is potentially highly dangerous--to perseverate on that particular course of conduct.  And frankly, if I can't stop myself from doing it; then I probably do need some outside help to develop new ways of channeling my thoughts into more productive directions.

Oh, and re the bickering:  knock it off.  The mods will deal with the situation through appropriate channels; and those channels do not have anything in common with a Survivor episode.  So let's quit trying to discuss who ought to be voted off the island.  Further public posts in that vein will be deleted without further comment; and we also reserve the right to excise from this thread the bickering that has already occurred.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

perseverate

Today's Nerd Award goes to Just_A_Guy for knowing how to use this word.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, zil said:

Today's Nerd Award goes to Just_A_Guy for knowing how to use this word.

lol. That's awesome. 

We love you @Just_A_Guy! 

@zil gives out nerd awards, I give out cool kids club cards. 

Edited April 15, 2017 by MormonGator

[An Investigator]

2 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Bottom line question I have. Is it wrong to desire plural marriage in the afterlife and Celestial Kingdom if the reason you are desiring it is because other past good men lived it and it means a large sacred family and are desiring it for family reasons. Is that ok or do you consider anyway wanting it even for good reasons to be bad? Why or why not? Explain. Especially if you are single and haven't vowed yourself to anyone yet.

If your asking me then I believe yes it is wrong to desire it.  I think it's ok to pray about it and to try and put it in the context of your own life and to say ok, if that is what Heavenly Father wants I will do it.   To desire means you are not being obedient to God, let him tell you what is good which at this time is one wife, then put it in his hands what happens after.    All this obsession really is looking beyond the mark.  Heavenly Father wants you to be happy, and this means being obedient and not obsessing over things.  Concentrate on finding one wife first.

[Vort]

10 hours ago, An Investigator said:

Well... I have done a lot of research on this topic and if I am honest going back to my previous thread, I am sure plural marriage must be a very large stumbling block for a lot of converts.  I have read some horrific things about the way Brigham Young (prophet or not) treat some of his wives and their lack of ability to exercise their agency due to financial and societal restraints,

I have never read anything believable to suggest that Brigham Young was anything but generous to his wives. He was not above calling them out publicly for bickering and such, but I have never read a reliable account that suggests "horrific" treatment, or anything close. If anything, Brigham Young preferred to err on the side of the woman, and as governor of Deseret territory freely granted divorces to women (including plural wives, and including his own) who sought them, while being much more strict with men who sought divorce. He is infamously recorded as denying a man's petition for divorce by telling him that "when a man took a wife he took her for better or for worse, and had no right to ill use her, and if she [defecated] in the bed and laid in it until noon; he must bare it.”

You are perhaps referring to Ann Eliza Webb, an ex-wife of Brigham Young. She published a popular and scandalous book called Wife No. 19, which purported to expose the evils of Mormons and polygamy in 1876 -- claiming, in fact, that her account was a mere taste of the evils of Mormonism, and that she could tell ten times more such lurid histories. Her exaggerations and outright fabrications are so obvious to a modern, educated reader that it's hard to read the book without laughing (though amazingly, some still use it as a source for insight into 19th century Mormonism). In 1906, she published Life in Mormon Bondage, essentially a reworking of Wife No. 19 but with the material reworked and many things excised that she thought unflattering to herself (e.g. her failed marriages before and after her marriage to Young). Despite her earlier insistence, she didn't manage to bring in any new material...so much for all those other lurid tales she could relate.

I would not consider Ms. Webb Dee Young Denning's work to be a credible source for criticism against Brigham Young or the Mormons. Unsurprisingly, a great deal of anti-Mormon literature, especially invective against Brigham Young, traces back to Ann Eliza's work -- evidence of how shaky our understandings of history really are, based as they are on accounts by people like Ann Eliza Webb etc. As I recall, Hugh Nibley offered a couple of very interesting talks on this topic.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Vort

[Guest]

I honestly believe if we seek plural marriage for the sake of plural marriage, it is a sin.  No exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head.

Plural marriage has a purpose and a place.  If a man has such circumstances in his life (death of spouse or divorce) that would have him sealed to more than one woman, then it will be a natural outcome of such circumstances.  But that's just it.  A natural outcome.  It is not a goal.  It may be considered a means to an end in some circumstances.  But not the end itself.

Go ahead and hit me with D&C 132.  I've read it and understand it.  Nothing in it seems to contradict what I just said.

[An Investigator]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have never read anything believable to suggest that Brigham Young was anything but generous to his wives. He was not above calling them out publicly for bickering and such, but I have never read a reliable account that suggests "horrific" treatment, or anything close. If anything, Brigham Young preferred to err on the side of the woman, and as governor of Deseret territory freely granted divorces to women (including plural wives, and including his own) who sought them, while being much more strict with men who sought divorce. He is infamously recorded as saying

You are perhaps referring to Ann Eliza Webb, an ex-wife of Brigham Young. She published a popular and scandalous book called Wife No. 19, which purported to expose the evils of Mormons and polygamy in 1876 -- claiming, in fact, that her account was a mere taste of the evils of Mormonism, and that she could tell ten times more such lurid histories. Her exaggerations and outright fabrications are so obvious to a modern, educated reader that it's hard to read the book without laughing (though amazingly, some still use it as a source for insight into 19th century Mormonism). In 1906, she published Life in Mormon Bondage, essentially a reworking of Wife No. 19 but with the material reworked and many things excised that she thought unflattering to herself (e.g. her failed marriages before and after her marriage to Young). Despite her earlier insistence, she didn't manage to bring in any new material...so much for all those other lurid tales she could relate.

I would not consider Ms. Webb Dee Young Denning's work to be a credible source for criticism against Brigham Young or the Mormons. Unsurprisingly, a great deal of anti-Mormon literature, especially invective against Brigham Young, traces back to Ann Eliza's work -- evidence of how shaky our understandings of history really are, based as they are on accounts by people like Ann Eliza Webb etc. As I recall, Hugh Nibley offered a couple of very interesting talks on this topic.

Most of the stuff I have read have come from a variety of different places,  I have not read the above book.   I have read accounts of him leaving wives to die and in a destitute condition.   True or not, I have also read reports about how women used their grain to bail out the early church, how men would go on a mission and leave their wives to fend for themselves and then not return... times were hard but especially hard for women.    I have no romantic notions about that period of time in the history of the church.  

If you have any links to the Nigby Talks I would very much like to read them if possible.

Edited April 15, 2017 by An Investigator

[zil]

5 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

If you have any links to the Nigby Talks I would very much like to read them if possible.

There's a boatload of Hugh Nibley writings here: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/hugh-nibley/

...I don't see anything obviously about plural marriage, but that doesn't mean it isn't in one of them...

[Vort]

Just now, An Investigator said:

how men would go on a mission and leave their wives to fend for themselves etc.

This much is certainly true, though not exactly common. Men would go to a Church meeting and hear their mission call over the pulpit, then get their things in order as much as possible and go out on a mission while their wife and children held down the homestead. These were people who understood what sacrifice actually meant.

Re: Nibley: I remember two or three talks he gave along these lines. Here is one, called How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book. it's more of a primer on how poor "historians" lie, but there's a lot of information regarding Ann Eliza Webb. He was really just one of the best speakers in LDS history -- a bit ironic, really, given his rejection of rhetoric.

 

[An Investigator]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

This much is certainly true, though not exactly common. Men would go to a Church meeting and hear their mission call over the pulpit, then get their things in order as much as possible and go out on a mission while their wife and children held down the homestead. These were people who understood what sacrifice actually meant.

Re: Nibley: I remember two or three talks he gave along these lines. Here is one, called How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book. it's more of a primer on how poor "historians" lie, but there's a lot of information regarding Ann Eliza Webb. He was really just one of the best speakers in LDS history -- a bit ironic, really, given his rejection of rhetoric.

 

I will take a look.  Thanks!

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

I will take a look.  Thanks!

Just to second what my friend @Vort said, I can't recommend Hugh Nibley strong enough. Great writer on virtually any topic. 

[Guest]

In honor of Easter and Christ's atomement I want to avoid grudges and apologize to Eowyn and hope she knows I go off the rails a little when my mental health is brought up to derail a thread. All good and happy for Easter now?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I honestly believe if we seek plural marriage for the sake of plural marriage, it is a sin.  No exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head.

Plural marriage has a purpose and a place.  If a man has such circumstances in his life (death of spouse or divorce) that would have him sealed to more than one woman, then it will be a natural outcome of such circumstances.  But that's just it.  A natural outcome.  It is not a goal.  It may be considered a means to an end in some circumstances.  But not the end itself.

Go ahead and hit me with D&C 132.  I've read it and understand it.  Nothing in it seems to contradict what I just said.

You raise a very good point and answer my question. I asked if it was a sin or not to dream of an eternity of plural marriage and you seem to say it is.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Re: Nibley: I remember two or three talks he gave along these lines. Here is one, called How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book. it's more of a primer on how poor "historians" lie, but there's a lot of information regarding Ann Eliza Webb. He was really just one of the best speakers in LDS history -- a bit ironic, really, given his rejection of rhetoric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=018tHIiXN3s

That is probably the best description of what defines "Anti-Mormon" rhetoric than anything I've ever heard.

[Guest]

It seems that those that want plural marriage are like Solomon after he had his 700 wives and 300 concubines and they turned his heart away from God and toward idols. It seems those that want polygamy have their hearts turned away from God and toward the idol of women and sex and lust. Am I wrong or right?

[Just_A_Guy]

(Mod hat on a moment)

I have deleted a few posts that continued the back-and-forth after my last post here.  A more intensive mod review of the rest of the thread is pending.

I'm glad y'all have been able to make peace.  Let's keep it up.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

You raise a very good point and answer my question. I asked if it was a sin or not to dream of an eternity of plural marriage and you seem to say it is.

Of course Him saying it is does not definitively answer it.  (As I'm sure he'd readily agree). But really, I think, it depends on what you mean by "dream". I think one could, theoretically, reasonably make the assumption that plural marriage was, indeed, the highest form of marriage, and that having such would, indeed, bring the greatest joy, and therefore look forward to it -- all without having any sinful thoughts whatsoever.

Edited April 16, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

It seems that those that want plural marriage are like Solomon after he had his 700 wives and 300 concubines and they turned his heart away from God and toward idols. It seems those that want polygamy have their hearts turned away from God and toward the idol of women and sex and lust. Am I wrong or right?

Each person is individual to themselves. Each person is motivated by their own interests, logic and conclusion. How could you possibly know if someone who wanted plural marriage was motivated by lust or not?

Frankly, from a logical point of view, the same could just as easily be concluded about men who want monogamous marriage? Are men not motivated to want marriage in part because of the hormonal drive that pushes them to desire mating? So why doesn't that fall into the category of hearts turned away from God and towards the idol of women sex and lust?

Obviously because that's not the ONLY reason most men want to be married.

Nor, I believe, is it reasonably to conclude that someone who wanted plural marriage, even if motivated partially by hormones, etc., is ONLY motivated by that. In point of fact, it makes no sense to draw that conclusion. Marriage, after sex is said and done, is a challenge. It means burdens of time, money, commitment, etc. I think the only way the Solomon theory works is with a man who has enough power and money and what-have-you that they could take on a pure "ownership", for-sex-only wife/concubine. That simply is not a reality for pretty much any other men in existence.

Edited April 16, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

Happy Easter. No harm intended, sorry for any caused.

[Guest]

My motivation for wanting plural marriage in the eternities is because God commanded it. That command was never rescinded with the manifesto and I desire a large sacred family and multiple exalted eternal companions is in tune to my soul with when they say eye hath not seen nor ear heard what God has in store for those that love him.