Ask and ye shall recieve(Spam Lightly)

Xanidu · Post by **Xanidu** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:55 pm

Luis Antonio wrote: Let me ask, then:

Why the white shirt and tie even on tropical places at 35 degrees celcius?

We believe that it shows respect to the Lord and invites the Spirit to reside with the missionaries and the people who they teach. Why would the Spirit want to be with someone who does show respect to the Lord?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:11 pm

Xanidu wrote:Mormons did practice polygamy at one point in the 1800's but not for the reason you state above. My understanding as I have been taught is that when the saints were moving from the east to the west, there were being constantly persecuted. Many people did not like the fact that Joseph Smith said he saw the God the Father and the Son. So, when mobs and angry people of states such as Missouri came to kick the saints out, many of the men tried to persaude the mobs to not run them out or they created small militias of their own and were either killed or imprisoned. Some men were also killed during the extream conditions as the crossed the plains trying to get to Utah.

Many of the people at this time were either women or small children, all without husbands and fathers. So, to take care of the women and children, men who had not died took on more wifes to take care of them as commanded by the Lord.

That doesn't quite match what I've read. Have you heard of the Law of Abraham, also known as the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, and the Celestial Plural Marriage? These were first secret practices, then revealed in a local newspaper while the Mormons were still living in Nauvoo, Illinois. To quote the Journal of Discourses: "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy..." That certainly sounds like a theological justification for polygamy, to me.

It was not a sexual marriage as you or I would think of a marriage today. It was a way to make sure that people who did not have a whole family were provided for and taken care of.

Then how do you account for the fact that Brigham Young, one of the founders of your Church, had 55 wives, and 56 children? It certainly sounds like there was a strong sexual element involved, to me.

When the Lord saw that their were enough men to provide for the women, he commanded that the Saints stop the polygamy.

That would be about 1890, wouldn't it? The time the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could deny all office and even the right to vote to any Mormons practicing or even believing in the Law of Abraham. Then came the Edmunds-Tucker Act, giving the feds the right to dissolve your Church. The Mormon banning of polygamy had no theological basis, as you state. It was called The Great Accomodation of 1890, and the fourth president of your Church, Wilford Woodruff, suspended polygamy indefinitely.

No offense meant (truly), but I find it surprising that you don't know these matters. They're by no means secret today, and have been discussed in a horde of books. It's all public knowledge--and not pop knowledge, either, but well-researched.

EDIT: I am, by the way, glad to see that you don't espouse the Law of Abraham's viewpoint. (Though I don't see anything wrong with consenting sexual units based on forms of polygamy involving multiple mates of either sex.) I still will be curious what you think of the theological basis for it, however, after you read up on it. I can't think of anything similar as a movement in modern times.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:19 pm

Xanidu wrote: When the Lord saw that their were enough men to provide for the women, he commanded that the Saints stop the polygamy. This is the way it has been ever since to the current date. My opinion is that it was necessary at the time. I myself do not really like the idea of more than one wife because I would feel unfaithful to the one married for love.

With all due respect, I read newspapers sometimes and even watch TV news when I have spare time. If Lord commanded to stop polygamy at some point when "there were enough men to provide for the women" which I assume happened long time ago, then a number of Mormons either were busy providing for their family at that time and did not hear it or they ignored the command for some reason (perhaps a noble one). I heard the polygamy still exists in some places, does it not?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:23 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I heard the polygamy still exists in some places, does it not?

I'm not sure if this is simply hearsay.... but apparently polygamy is practiced in a remote town in the British Columbia interior. It is called Bountiful, and the population is predominently Mormon.
For whatever it might be worth you can read more about it [url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly1.htm"]here.[/url]

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:59 pm

I find it amusing my question has been the only one that has not been addressed so far yet. Being the only one so far, I believe, that has been to the "holy ground" of the Mormons, I figured mine would have been answered. Huh. Weird.

As far as pologomy, I actually practiced that for a while. Along with some girls who wanted more than one partner themselves. I think that kind of leads into a whole seperate topic though. I don't particularly see anything wrong with it, if all people involved happen to want to be involved with it, then it is a mutual decision based on want on all sides.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:48 pm

@Dragon Wench

You are right, it is not hearsay.

phoenixnewtimes.com | Special Reports

@Margus

quote:
As far as pologomy, I actually practiced that for a while.

:laugh: It was not polygamy.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:54 pm

Oh blah, multiple partners. I'm drunk, whats the difference between having multiple girlfriends and multiple wives? Multiple pieces of paper and about $120k saved in wedding costs?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:15 pm

Magrus wrote:Oh blah, multiple partners. I'm drunk, whats the difference between having multiple girlfriends and multiple wives? Multiple pieces of paper and about $120k saved in wedding costs?

Good thing you're liquored up, because it will dull the pain as you're slowly dismembered.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:32 pm

:laugh: The only differences are based on out-dated and biased laws, dreadfully expensive and stuffy ceremonies and self-righteous pomp. There is no "sanctity of marriage", it's a delusion for people wanting relationship security. Look at divorce rates. I need no paperwork, parties, or "holymen" to fashion a long-term commitment with a lover.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:53 pm

You are anarchist-mormoniac, I knew it. :speech:

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:58 pm

Am not. I reject outright any and all organized religion as corrupt and based on greedy, power hungry humans preying on those who like to be told what to do and believe. I view those involved in the work of those religions the same as older men who take advantage of young girls. I also refuse to conform to societal, religious and legal expectations set by people who I view as deluded or corrupt. Which is to say, most every expectation I run into in a public manner. Hmm, well, I suppose I would kind of fit as an anarchist then, huh?

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:06 pm

Where is Xanidu??? I thought he was on the mission...

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:35 pm

Xanidu wrote:We believe that it shows respect to the Lord and invites the Spirit to reside with the missionaries and the people who they teach. Why would the Spirit want to be with someone who does show respect to the Lord?

Makes sense, yes. Well, truth be known, I think even while naked you're a representative of the gods, but that's between me and my fellow wiccas. Even though it is still hard for me to "dance naked around the fire" as my GF says. Anyways, I'd honestly allow them to wear light shirts and jeans, in a social, young way to be at the same time clean (because they do sweat, poor ones) and preaching the word. Tell your priest I've told you that

(I mean it)

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:36 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:Where is Xanidu??? I thought he was on the mission...

Xanidu 2: The mission.

Nay, nay, its a double post, and a s- post. Forget it.

wing · Post by **wing** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:16 pm

fable wrote:I wasn't addressing your post, Mags. I was referring to Wing's pair of responses. Thought it was pretty obvious, just tried to avoid naming names. Next time, I'll be more direct.

sorry

heres another question. what exactly did you mean by "services" when you replied to my first question? i dont completely understand.