Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, I found the article I was thinking of. It's pretty well-researched, and probably contains as much information as I could provide elsewhere. So have fun picking it apart, and I'll see you guys next week.
Well, the difference could be that Jacob was tricked into his marriage to two women.
It was an arrangement, it was men making a deal, so slavery is now what's freedoms.
And no one can change it now, history mad, perhaps he should have had the light on.
Lamech, o'Israel, then finally Enoch got to leave the wicked world, directly to heaven.
"The Gospel of the Holy Twelve" where a culture may have been created by the same.
Jesus still said that one man and one woman was the best way, that's part of lessons.
Would God order a man to sin---intentionally because He wanted the man to sin? And it doesn't make a bit of difference WHY God would do so. He did. Period.
Quote:
When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom,---"
Hosea 1:2
So don't go telling us anything about multiple marriages which were the norm in ancient times (if one could afford them).
Jesus wasn't talking about multiple marriages when He spoke out in Matt. 19:3-6. It was about divorce that God has always been unhappy with because it is BREAKING A VOW. Fundamentalists have reinterpreted the intention of those verses to support the CULTURE of "one man, one woman" at least serially because they have no intention of calling out divorce as anti-God because they would lose too many of their church members.
In addition, Paul warned that church LEADERS (in particular) should be the husband of one wife.
Quote:
Husband of but one wife, literally, a “one-woman man.” This ambiguous but important phrase is subject to several interpretations. The question is, how stringent a standard was Paul erecting for overseers? Virtually all commentators agree that this phrase prohibits both polygamy and promiscuity, which are unthinkable for spiritual leaders in the church.
Why would Paul have need of picking out just LEADERS of the church to be married to one woman if what he meant was ALL members of the church should be married to one woman. We might speculate, but that's all it would be considering polygamy had been around for a long time and only in the then recent history had the Romans insisted that Jews and Christians have but one wife--a cultural consideration that had nothing to do with who they had sex with. My consideration is that Paul didn't want "leaders" in the church to be arrested for their marital activities, hence other members might have multiple wives but not church LEADERS (this understanding is a bit of refutation of the Mormon idea that a LEADER could have multiple wives.
What, too would be the situation of a man married to several wives be if he became a Christian? Would he then be required to divorce and send away all but one wife and her children? How does that fit in with the view of God that He "hates divorce" --- "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel,(Malachi 2:16a)
So both Jesus and God are more open and generous with cultural considerations than narrow-minded fundamentalists who act as the Pharisees of the 21st century--condemning multiple marriages (in the name of God) while swallowing whole divorce that God "hates."
Originally Posted by Orion Rules
Well, the difference could be that Jacob was tricked into his marriage to two women.
It was an arrangement, it was men making a deal, so slavery is now what's freedoms.
And no one can change it now, history mad, perhaps he should have had the light on.
Lamech, o'Israel, then finally Enoch got to leave the wicked world, directly to heaven.
"The Gospel of the Holy Twelve" where a culture may have been created by the same.
Jesus still said that one man and one woman was the best way, that's part of lessons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Would God order a man to sin---intentionally because He wanted the man to sin? And it doesn't make a bit of difference WHY God would do so. He did. Period.
When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom,---" Hosea 1:2
So don't go telling us anything...[...]
Then why ask the questions then, if it's still , sure, you are perfect inside of you could reach perfection.
There's nothing wrong with having a differing view, as unless you still fail to understand its legitimization.
There may have been no virtue left in the country and so perhaps that is why he had to reach out for one.
The others were business deals and so to make God go against what he believed for himself so note having.
You cannot be bitter springs forever for the LORD loves you more than ever, save you have no belief then.
There were only so many souls left and that's where the world is today the ridicule heaped upon Christians.
The Bible isn't all the word of God, have I not said that before, that if all the ways God has made visitations:
Couldn't a single book fill the whole entire world where there would be no room for anything else but Him?
What men do between themselves, is God expected to baby-sit every single event, they just never listened.
Originally Posted by Orion Rules
Well, the difference could be that Jacob was tricked into his marriage to two women.
It was an arrangement, it was men making a deal, so slavery is now what's freedoms.
And no one can change it now, history mad, perhaps he should have had the light on.
Lamech, o'Israel, then finally Enoch got to leave the wicked world, directly to heaven.
"The Gospel of the Holy Twelve" where a culture may have been created by the same.
Jesus still said that one man and one woman was the best way, that's part of lessons.
Except that is NOT what Jesus said. He was being addressed about divorce. You are lifting words out of context and context is critical in order to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orion Rules
Then why ask the questions then, if it's still , sure, you are perfect inside of you could reach perfection.
Questions are the necessary form if one is to utilize FAITHFUL QUESTIONING as opposed to unwavering obedience. It is the difference between standing for justice and falling for hate and condemnation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orion Rules
There's nothing wrong with having a differing view, as unless you still fail to understand its legitimization.
There may have been no virtue left in the country and so perhaps that is why he had to reach out for one.
I agree with differing views as long as they do not lead one to condemning other people for being nothing other than themselves. SOME Mormons think polygamy is okay. I think it is hard enough to handle one woman let alone two or more. But if it is their belief system, so what? There is so much divorce and serial marriage it doesn't seem to be worth the effort for condemning either polygyny or polyandry as long as they are consenting adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orion Rules
The others were business deals and so to make God go against what he believed for himself so note having.
You cannot be bitter springs forever for the LORD loves you more than ever, save you have no belief then.
I have no idea what your point is here. I'm not bitter and have remained a believer for 55 years who has grown far away from the fundamentalist views I was originally taught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orion Rules
There were only so many souls left and that's where the world is today the ridicule heaped upon Christians.
The Bible isn't all the word of God, have I not said that before, that if all the ways God has made visitations:
Couldn't a single book fill the whole entire world where there would be no room for anything else but Him?
What men do between themselves, is God expected to baby-sit every single event, they just never listened.
There is no ridicule heaped on Christians. There is ridicule heaped on asinine views of the those thinking the Bible is a rule book---open a page and an answer jumps out. That kind of "belief" is definitely subject to ridicule no matter how genuinely held.
No, the Bible is not ALL the word of God. He still inspires men and women today--to grow morally rather than remain where our forefathers were. That's why societal acceptance of slavery disappeared DESPITE what the Bible says. And it shall eventually come for LGBTQ people. Whether or not polygamy will reach acceptance is doubtful because not that many find it to be "inspiring."
And no God does not "baby-sit" every event. That's why He has inspired PEOPLE to do the right thing.
As a character in the book Grapes of Wrath says, "God will do nothing without men; and without God men can do nothing."
...
There is no ridicule heaped on Christians. There is ridicule heaped on asinine views of the those thinking the Bible is a rule book---open a page and an answer jumps out. That kind of "belief" is definitely subject to ridicule no matter how genuinely held.
Quote:
No, the Bible is not ALL the word of God. He still inspires men and women today--to grow morally rather than remain where our forefathers were. That's why societal acceptance of slavery disappeared DESPITE what the Bible says. And it shall eventually come for LGBTQ people. Whether or not polygamy will reach acceptance is doubtful because not that many find it to be "inspiring."
Societal acceptance of slavery was not, in general, dependent on what the Bible said, but rather on men misunderstanding what the Bible says. Words only have meaning in context.
Quote:
And no God does not "baby-sit" every event. That's why He has inspired PEOPLE to do the right thing.As a character in the book Grapes of Wrath says, "God will do nothing without men; and without God men can do nothing."
That is one of the most astute statements about how God deals with man I have heard all day.
1) As long as D&C Section 132 remains canonized Mormon Scripture;
2) As long as there is no repudiation of statements by Brigham Young and others that polygamy is required in order to achieve exaltation;
3) As long as the Mormon church continues to seal men to additional women after a wife dies (resulting in a man being sealed to one living and one or more dead women);
4) As long as the Mormon church continues to seal men to additional women after a divorce (resulting in a man being sealed to more than one living woman);
As long as these things are still happening, the Mormon church will have a very difficult time being taken seriously when claiming that it has NOTHING to do with polygamy.
(Point of clarification - #3 above is very common in the Mormon church. Virtually all Mormons know about it, it is widely practiced, and generally praised. #4 above is not nearly as common, but neither is it extremely rare. Many Mormons don't know that it is happening, and the fact that it occurs isn't widely publicized. However, it affects me in a very personal way. Understanding #3 requires some additional knowledge and insight into Mormon doctrine, and I will be happy to explain further if anyone is interested.)
(Point of clarification - #3 above is very common in the Mormon church. Virtually all Mormons know about it, it is widely practiced, and generally praised. #4 above is not nearly as common, but neither is it extremely rare. Many Mormons don't know that it is happening, and the fact that it occurs isn't widely publicized. However, it affects me in a very personal way. Understanding #4 requires some additional knowledge and insight into Mormon doctrine, and I will be happy to explain further if anyone is interested.)
Oops! To late to edit a typo. Please see the change in red above.
A federal judge ruled late Friday that a key section of Utah law criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional, granting multi-spouse families the right to live together without facing arrest, so long as they do not acquire multiple marriage licenses.
U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups ruled Utah's criminalization of cohabitation violated the due process and First Amendment religious freedom rights of the Brown family, which includes husband Kody Brown and his four wives.
The Browns are fundamentalist Mormons and the stars of TLC show "Sister Wives." They chose to leave their home in Lehi, Utah, after local police and prosecutors launched an investigation into their lifestyle in 2010. Before moving to Las Vegas, a deputy Utah County attorney said, "The Browns have definitely made it easier for us by admitting to felonies on national TV." https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-federal-court
Oh, that's great! Good for the Browns. Thanks for sharing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, sure, you are perfect inside of you could reach perfection. 
