Topic: Isn't it ironic how Mitt Romney, a fucking MORMON, keeps on preaching...
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q started this discussion 14 years ago #20,145
...about the sanctity of one-man-one-woman marriage?
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #327,792
No one cares about gay marriage except people fooled by politicians and politicians fooling them. Gay marriage is just a bullshit issue to get voters.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #327,793
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #327,794
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Yeah, but gay marriage is stirring up homophobia vs. gay rights for votes.
Yeah, but gay marriage is stirring up homophobia vs. gay rights for votes.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #327,795
This kind of thing always ends up being a hot topic during an election year. Just wait till next year and he'll be back to subjugating women and denying them a role in the church.
Besides baby oven, that is.
Besides baby oven, that is.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #327,798
What he needs is good manual labor job.
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #327,799
I wonder if The Book of Mormon also says it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven because Mitt Romney is super rich.
squeegee replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #327,801
@previous (Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU)
Rich people don't really believe that hogwash. They just pretend to so poor people will stay in line.
Rich people don't really believe that hogwash. They just pretend to so poor people will stay in line.
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #327,802
@previous (squeegee)
It's a pretty big part of Christianity. But yes most Americans think being a good Christian is hating gays, abortions, evolutions, and environmentalism. And then going to church on Sunday. And they think that makes a good Christian.
It's a pretty big part of Christianity. But yes most Americans think being a good Christian is hating gays, abortions, evolutions, and environmentalism. And then going to church on Sunday. And they think that makes a good Christian.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,839
lol, romney just says what people want to hear.
hes not even making an attempt to hide it anymore
hes not even making an attempt to hide it anymore
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,841
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,842
@327,792 (Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU)
This.
@327,793 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
In the same way Christians are known for snake handling and speaking in tongues.
This.
@327,793 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
In the same way Christians are known for snake handling and speaking in tongues.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 43 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,844
@previous (G)
That's a bullshit comparison. All Mormons used to live polygamous lives, it was in almost every one of their sacred writings. Snake handlers have always been a small group, who base their shenanigans on a few sentences in the bible.
That's a bullshit comparison. All Mormons used to live polygamous lives, it was in almost every one of their sacred writings. Snake handlers have always been a small group, who base their shenanigans on a few sentences in the bible.
Anonymous H double-posted this 14 years ago, 24 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,845
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 26 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,846
@327,844 (H)
No it's not and you're just knit picking. All Mormons don't practice polygamy. All Christians don't practice snake handling. If you want a more apt, but less funny one: all Catholics are known for Latin mass and passion plays. Better? Lighten up, man. It's only politics and religion.
No it's not and you're just knit picking. All Mormons don't practice polygamy. All Christians don't practice snake handling. If you want a more apt, but less funny one: all Catholics are known for Latin mass and passion plays. Better? Lighten up, man. It's only politics and religion.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,848
@previous (G)
I was raised a catholic and every church I ever went in had a mid-week mass all in Latin, and passion plays every year (as well as nativity plays).
I was raised a catholic and every church I ever went in had a mid-week mass all in Latin, and passion plays every year (as well as nativity plays).
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 29 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,855
@327,844 (H)
No, not all Mormons practiced polygamy--it was just a fraction of Mormons who did. The practice is prohibited in the Book of Mormon. It was only in the D&Cs for a few decades IIRC.
No, not all Mormons practiced polygamy--it was just a fraction of Mormons who did. The practice is prohibited in the Book of Mormon. It was only in the D&Cs for a few decades IIRC.
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,858
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 33 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,865
@327,848 (I)
How old are you? Where were you raised? I've tried to find Latin masses without success.
How old are you? Where were you raised? I've tried to find Latin masses without success.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,873
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,879
@327,858 (Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU)
Miss Becky you be mistaken.
> The practice is prohibited in the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.â€
The reason given in The Book of Mormon for the practice of polygamy, then, is by revelation from God in order to "raise up seed unto God.
concubines he shall have none Wives he shall have many.
Founder of the Church Joseph Smith had many wives documented at least 33 plural marriages.
Miss Becky you be mistaken.
> The practice is prohibited in the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.â€
The reason given in The Book of Mormon for the practice of polygamy, then, is by revelation from God in order to "raise up seed unto God.
concubines he shall have none Wives he shall have many.
Founder of the Church Joseph Smith had many wives documented at least 33 plural marriages.
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 14 years ago, 36 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,887
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #327,916
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 23 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #328,049
@327,855 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
It's been edited. The very prophet Joseph Smith himself had many wives. Where do you get this information?
It's been edited. The very prophet Joseph Smith himself had many wives. Where do you get this information?
Anonymous H double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #328,051
@327,846 (G)
No. Plural marriage was one of the main tenets in Mormonism. Snake handling was never the same for Christianity.
With Christianity, you never had to handle snakes to go to heaven. With Mormonism, they believe that you don't get into the highest levels of heaven without having at least three wives. There are also many more Mormon polygamists, than snake handlers.
No. Plural marriage was one of the main tenets in Mormonism. Snake handling was never the same for Christianity.
With Christianity, you never had to handle snakes to go to heaven. With Mormonism, they believe that you don't get into the highest levels of heaven without having at least three wives. There are also many more Mormon polygamists, than snake handlers.
Anonymous H triple-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #328,053
@327,855 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Don't feel bad. A lot of mainstream Mormons, are taught this faulty history as well. Many don't know about how he took other men's wives, or deciphered the golden plates by looking at a rock in a hat.
Don't feel bad. A lot of mainstream Mormons, are taught this faulty history as well. Many don't know about how he took other men's wives, or deciphered the golden plates by looking at a rock in a hat.
Anonymous H quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #328,054
Number of snake handlers
In 2001 there were about 40 small churches that practiced snake handling, most of them considered to be holiness-Pentecostals or charismatics. In 2004 there were four snake handling congregations in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, Canada. Most, if not all, use the King James Version of the Bible, and consider other translations to be demonic or false.[citation needed] Like their predecessors, they believe in a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. Most Church of God with Signs Following churches are non-denominational, believing that denominations are 'man made' and carry the Mark of the Beast. Worshippers attend services several nights a week. Church services, if the Holy Spirit "intervenes", can last up to five hours; the minimum is usually ninety minutes.
In 2001 there were about 40 small churches that practiced snake handling, most of them considered to be holiness-Pentecostals or charismatics. In 2004 there were four snake handling congregations in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, Canada. Most, if not all, use the King James Version of the Bible, and consider other translations to be demonic or false.[citation needed] Like their predecessors, they believe in a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. Most Church of God with Signs Following churches are non-denominational, believing that denominations are 'man made' and carry the Mark of the Beast. Worshippers attend services several nights a week. Church services, if the Holy Spirit "intervenes", can last up to five hours; the minimum is usually ninety minutes.
Anonymous H quintuple-posted this 14 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #328,055
Number of Mormon polygamists
Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church, such as the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). These polygamist sects are generally located in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and other parts of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Even though polygamy is generally illegal in all 50 states and in all three countries, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion.
Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church, such as the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). These polygamist sects are generally located in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and other parts of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Even though polygamy is generally illegal in all 50 states and in all three countries, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #328,069
@previous (H)
You actually take religion and politics seriously, dontcha? Would you relax a little if I told you won the argument and you look pretty today?
You actually take religion and politics seriously, dontcha? Would you relax a little if I told you won the argument and you look pretty today?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #328,127
@previous (G)
Yes, ridiculing people for caring about facts and knowledge. You are worse than leonidas. At least he has a mental illness to hide behind. What's your excuse?
Yes, ridiculing people for caring about facts and knowledge. You are worse than leonidas. At least he has a mental illness to hide behind. What's your excuse?
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #328,136
@328,049 (H)
@328,053 (H)
Of course Joseph Smith had a shit-ton of wives, but it was publicly denied in most places at the time, and only added to the D&Cs in a later edition (in the 1850s). It's not true that polygamy was sanctioned in the BoM--it was written before polygamy was condoned by the Church. The only direct references to polygamy called it "wicked," "abominable" and against the commandments of God (Jacob 1:15, 2:24, Mosiah 11:2), though yes, there are some other vague sections that have been used to support the idea that polygamy was condoned... I think the weight of the verses are against this. A good, if dated, book is Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" (hardly a mainstream pro-Mormon book) which discusses the pains Smith took to hide the practice for most of his life. See http://www.pbs.org/mormons/timeline/timeline2.html for a brief timeline including the addition of polygamy to the Church teachings.
It was never a majority of, let alone all, Mormons that practiced polygamy, even in the time period the Church publicly supported it. It was perhaps a quarter; see http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2011/07/polygamy-by-numbers-how-many-mormons-were-really-involved.html for quotes from a historian. As with most societies in which polygyny is an ideal, it's just not practical for everyone to practice it, usually just the wealthiest or most fervent believers (this is also the case in fundy Muslim societies, for instance--most marriages are actually monogamous). There were also only ~40 years during which polygamy was publicly supported by the Church, so it's not surprising it wouldn't have taken firmer root. Of course the practice predated and continued after the times it was officially allowed.
I'm not denying that polygamy was a big part of the Mormon past, just taking issue with the idea that this was practiced by everybody and in all of the scriptural writings. This really isn't Mormon propaganda like you suggest, just secular scholarship.
Sorry so long... it's an interesting subject to me and one I've read about a fair amount.
@328,053 (H)
Of course Joseph Smith had a shit-ton of wives, but it was publicly denied in most places at the time, and only added to the D&Cs in a later edition (in the 1850s). It's not true that polygamy was sanctioned in the BoM--it was written before polygamy was condoned by the Church. The only direct references to polygamy called it "wicked," "abominable" and against the commandments of God (Jacob 1:15, 2:24, Mosiah 11:2), though yes, there are some other vague sections that have been used to support the idea that polygamy was condoned... I think the weight of the verses are against this. A good, if dated, book is Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" (hardly a mainstream pro-Mormon book) which discusses the pains Smith took to hide the practice for most of his life. See http://www.pbs.org/mormons/timeline/timeline2.html for a brief timeline including the addition of polygamy to the Church teachings.
It was never a majority of, let alone all, Mormons that practiced polygamy, even in the time period the Church publicly supported it. It was perhaps a quarter; see http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2011/07/polygamy-by-numbers-how-many-mormons-were-really-involved.html for quotes from a historian. As with most societies in which polygyny is an ideal, it's just not practical for everyone to practice it, usually just the wealthiest or most fervent believers (this is also the case in fundy Muslim societies, for instance--most marriages are actually monogamous). There were also only ~40 years during which polygamy was publicly supported by the Church, so it's not surprising it wouldn't have taken firmer root. Of course the practice predated and continued after the times it was officially allowed.
I'm not denying that polygamy was a big part of the Mormon past, just taking issue with the idea that this was practiced by everybody and in all of the scriptural writings. This really isn't Mormon propaganda like you suggest, just secular scholarship.
Sorry so long... it's an interesting subject to me and one I've read about a fair amount.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,139
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
From PBS link:
"July 12 1843: Smith announces revelations about two new practices. First, the dead can be baptized. [This practice is disclosed as a part of three different revelations.] Second, polygamy, or plural marriage, is not only permissible but in certain cases required. The second pronouncement, in particular, causes great division among Mormons, with Brigham Young stating he would rather die and Joseph Smith's wife Emma expressing opposition even though the revelation (now Section 132 in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants) expressly directs Emma Smith to accept plural marriage.) And although the doctrine will not be publicly announced for nearly a decade, rumors quickly spread, increasing anti-Mormon feeling. Joseph Smith will eventually have more than 25 wives, while Young will come to embrace the doctrine, take 20 wives, and father 57 children."
So we have Buried Golden Plates written in a "reformed Egyptian" language; All provided by an Angel. Plates are nowhere to be found.
So looking further I find: The history of Mormon polygamy (specifically polygyny) began with Joseph Smith, Jr., who stated he received a revelation on July 17, 1831 that "plural marriage" should be practiced by some Mormon men who were specifically commanded to do so. This was later published in the Doctrine and Covenants by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).Despite Smith's revelation, the 1835 edition of the 101st Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, written after the doctrine of plural marriage began to be practiced, publicly condemned polygamy.
No wonder with the wacky twists & turns & loaded with wtf? this religion as well as just about any other man made up religion, makes no common sense whatsoever
From PBS link:
"July 12 1843: Smith announces revelations about two new practices. First, the dead can be baptized. [This practice is disclosed as a part of three different revelations.] Second, polygamy, or plural marriage, is not only permissible but in certain cases required. The second pronouncement, in particular, causes great division among Mormons, with Brigham Young stating he would rather die and Joseph Smith's wife Emma expressing opposition even though the revelation (now Section 132 in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants) expressly directs Emma Smith to accept plural marriage.) And although the doctrine will not be publicly announced for nearly a decade, rumors quickly spread, increasing anti-Mormon feeling. Joseph Smith will eventually have more than 25 wives, while Young will come to embrace the doctrine, take 20 wives, and father 57 children."
So we have Buried Golden Plates written in a "reformed Egyptian" language; All provided by an Angel. Plates are nowhere to be found.
So looking further I find: The history of Mormon polygamy (specifically polygyny) began with Joseph Smith, Jr., who stated he received a revelation on July 17, 1831 that "plural marriage" should be practiced by some Mormon men who were specifically commanded to do so. This was later published in the Doctrine and Covenants by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).
No wonder with the wacky twists & turns & loaded with wtf? this religion as well as just about any other man made up religion, makes no common sense whatsoever
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,179
@328,127 (L)
I can't afford to get my back up over who's the smartest asshole in the room or what Mitt Romney had for breakfast. Weak heart. You might want to get your blood pressure checked out as well. You seem a little high strung.
I can't afford to get my back up over who's the smartest asshole in the room or what Mitt Romney had for breakfast. Weak heart. You might want to get your blood pressure checked out as well. You seem a little high strung.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,522
@previous (G)
Yes. It is not your fault that you are a fucking retard. Blame it on your heart. Your heart makes you stupid and wrong.
Yes. It is not your fault that you are a fucking retard. Blame it on your heart. Your heart makes you stupid and wrong.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 9 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,554
@previous (L)
LOL. I was wrong when I thought conceding would help you mellow @328,069 (G). Winning an argument two days ago would calm most folks down. But I guess you're too clever and well adjusted for that. Not high strung at all.
LOL. I was wrong when I thought conceding would help you mellow @328,069 (G). Winning an argument two days ago would calm most folks down. But I guess you're too clever and well adjusted for that. Not high strung at all.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,556
@previous (G)
“You concede nothing to me and I have to concede everything to myself.â€
A corruption of Thomas Hardy, Jude the Obscure
“You concede nothing to me and I have to concede everything to myself.â€
A corruption of Thomas Hardy, Jude the Obscure
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,578
@previous (F)
What happened to you to make you feel the need to be so pretentious? Did daddy not give you enough praise? You won. Try enjoying it for a while. I'm sure you're a cool guy under all that butthurt.
What happened to you to make you feel the need to be so pretentious? Did daddy not give you enough praise? You won. Try enjoying it for a while. I'm sure you're a cool guy under all that butthurt.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,582
@previous (G)
Call it my little gesture toward the social unconscionable, but I like to think I'm teaching a certain number of people to read. Now if that sounds pretentious?
Call it my little gesture toward the social unconscionable, but I like to think I'm teaching a certain number of people to read. Now if that sounds pretentious?
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,584
@328,136 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy
58 Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.
59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.
60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.
66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy
58 Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.
59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.
60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.
66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.
Anonymous H double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,585
@previous (H)
Early teachings and practice
See also: List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Many early converts, including Brigham Young,[30] Orson Pratt, and Lyman Johnson, said that Joseph Smith was teaching plural marriage as early as 1831 or 1832. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Smith's ninth wife[31] claimed that Smith had a private conversation with her in 1831 when she was twelve.[32][33]
“ [At age 12 in 1831], [Smith] told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. ... In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a Wife ... [In 1842 age 23] I went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing ... for time, and all Eternity. I did just as Joseph told me to do[.] â€
Pratt reported that Smith told some early members in 1831 and 1832 that plural marriage was a true principle, but that the time to practice it had not yet come.[34] Lyman Johnson also claimed to have heard the doctrine from Smith in 1831.[35] Mosiah Hancock reported that his father was taught about plural marriage in the spring of 1832.[36]
William Clayton, Smith's scribe, recorded early polygamous marriages in 1843, including unions between Smith and Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth.[37][unreliable source?]
[edit]Jacob Cochran
LDS historical sources indicate that as early as 1832, Mormon missionaries were converting followers of polygamist religious leader Jacob Cochran, who went into hiding in 1830 to escape imprisonment for supporting polygamy. Mormons held two conferences at Saco, Maine, the center of Cochranism, on June 13, 1834,[38] and August 21, 1835. At the latter conference at least seven newly-ordained Mormon apostles were in attendance,[39][40][41] including Brigham Young. Young became acquainted with Cochran's followers as he made several missionary journeys through Cochranite territory from Boston to Saco,[42] and later married Augusta Adams Cobb, a former Cochranite.[43][44] Others who spent time among the Cochranites were Orson Hyde and Joseph Smith, Jr.'s younger brother, Samuel H. Smith.[45]
Among Cochran's marital innovations was 'spiritual wifery'. Ridlon wrote in 1895, "tradition assumes that [Cochran] received frequent consignments of spiritual consorts, and that such were invariably the most robust and attractive women in the community."[46] Some new Cochranites remained polygamists, and moved from the east coast to the Mormon community of Kirtland, Ohio.[47] Rumors of polygamy associated with Mormons began to become public, enough to be denied in Mormon publications[48][49][50] and mentioned in Mormon scripture in 1835, which noted:
“ "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."[51]
Early teachings and practice
See also: List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Many early converts, including Brigham Young,[30] Orson Pratt, and Lyman Johnson, said that Joseph Smith was teaching plural marriage as early as 1831 or 1832. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Smith's ninth wife[31] claimed that Smith had a private conversation with her in 1831 when she was twelve.[32][33]
“ [At age 12 in 1831], [Smith] told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. ... In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a Wife ... [In 1842 age 23] I went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing ... for time, and all Eternity. I did just as Joseph told me to do[.] â€
Pratt reported that Smith told some early members in 1831 and 1832 that plural marriage was a true principle, but that the time to practice it had not yet come.[34] Lyman Johnson also claimed to have heard the doctrine from Smith in 1831.[35] Mosiah Hancock reported that his father was taught about plural marriage in the spring of 1832.[36]
William Clayton, Smith's scribe, recorded early polygamous marriages in 1843, including unions between Smith and Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth.[37][unreliable source?]
[edit]Jacob Cochran
LDS historical sources indicate that as early as 1832, Mormon missionaries were converting followers of polygamist religious leader Jacob Cochran, who went into hiding in 1830 to escape imprisonment for supporting polygamy. Mormons held two conferences at Saco, Maine, the center of Cochranism, on June 13, 1834,[38] and August 21, 1835. At the latter conference at least seven newly-ordained Mormon apostles were in attendance,[39][40][41] including Brigham Young. Young became acquainted with Cochran's followers as he made several missionary journeys through Cochranite territory from Boston to Saco,[42] and later married Augusta Adams Cobb, a former Cochranite.[43][44] Others who spent time among the Cochranites were Orson Hyde and Joseph Smith, Jr.'s younger brother, Samuel H. Smith.[45]
Among Cochran's marital innovations was 'spiritual wifery'. Ridlon wrote in 1895, "tradition assumes that [Cochran] received frequent consignments of spiritual consorts, and that such were invariably the most robust and attractive women in the community."[46] Some new Cochranites remained polygamists, and moved from the east coast to the Mormon community of Kirtland, Ohio.[47] Rumors of polygamy associated with Mormons began to become public, enough to be denied in Mormon publications[48][49][50] and mentioned in Mormon scripture in 1835, which noted:
“ "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."[51]
Anonymous H triple-posted this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,586
@328,136 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
30 percent is a fairly high number. Quoted from your own link.
At present, perhaps the best estimates of the number of polygamous families among late-nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints range between 20 and 30 percent. Nevertheless, studies of individual communities show a wide variation in the incidence of plurality. Using 1880 census data, geographer Lowell C. “Ben†Bennion found the lowest percentage of polygamous families—5 percent—in Davis County’s south Weber and the highest—67 percent—in Orderville. He found 15 percent in Springville. In a study of St. George, historian Larry Logue found nearly 30 percent of the families polygamous in 1870 and 33 percent in 1880. (Alexander’s centennial history of Utah, quoted in Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity, 65 and 192)
I spoke with a historian last week about these numbers, and was reminded that statistics themselves are fungible (and that the actual numbers for polygamy were likely higher in the late 1870s and 1880s, when many polygamists went underground to avoid arrest). The real issue is: what question are we trying to answer with the number?
Numbers don’t tell the whole story. “I think the answer that explains more is to say that polygamy was always practiced by the elite, though that’s an unfortunate term,†said this historian. “Consequently, the statistical number across the board for Mormons may be relatively few, but that belies its importance. Religiously, it was a very big deal.â€
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2011/07/polygamy-by-numbers-how-many-mormons-were-really-involved.html#ixzz1yMU7EZU5
30 percent is a fairly high number. Quoted from your own link.
At present, perhaps the best estimates of the number of polygamous families among late-nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints range between 20 and 30 percent. Nevertheless, studies of individual communities show a wide variation in the incidence of plurality. Using 1880 census data, geographer Lowell C. “Ben†Bennion found the lowest percentage of polygamous families—5 percent—in Davis County’s south Weber and the highest—67 percent—in Orderville. He found 15 percent in Springville. In a study of St. George, historian Larry Logue found nearly 30 percent of the families polygamous in 1870 and 33 percent in 1880. (Alexander’s centennial history of Utah, quoted in Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity, 65 and 192)
I spoke with a historian last week about these numbers, and was reminded that statistics themselves are fungible (and that the actual numbers for polygamy were likely higher in the late 1870s and 1880s, when many polygamists went underground to avoid arrest). The real issue is: what question are we trying to answer with the number?
Numbers don’t tell the whole story. “I think the answer that explains more is to say that polygamy was always practiced by the elite, though that’s an unfortunate term,†said this historian. “Consequently, the statistical number across the board for Mormons may be relatively few, but that belies its importance. Religiously, it was a very big deal.â€
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2011/07/polygamy-by-numbers-how-many-mormons-were-really-involved.html#ixzz1yMU7EZU5
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,588
The first polygamist mentioned in the Bible is Lamech, whose two wives were Adah and Zillah (Gen 4:19)
This section on promote's polygamy and there are no verses in the law or Old Testament Bible that clearly forbid this practice.
Moving forward a few years:
In the 16th century, there was a Christian re-examination of plural marriages. The founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God.
This section on promote's polygamy and there are no verses in the law or Old Testament Bible that clearly forbid this practice.
Moving forward a few years:
In the 16th century, there was a Christian re-examination of plural marriages. The founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God.
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 14 years ago, 50 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,606
@328,584 (H)
Yes, that's the bit from the Doctrine & Covenants I was talking about, which was included neither in the original teachings of Joseph Smith nor in the Book of Mormon.
I'm not denying that polygamy was a big part of the church's history, just that it was something "everyone" practiced or a huge part of their scriptures. It's a much more interesting history than that.
Yes, that's the bit from the Doctrine & Covenants I was talking about, which was included neither in the original teachings of Joseph Smith nor in the Book of Mormon.
I'm not denying that polygamy was a big part of the church's history, just that it was something "everyone" practiced or a huge part of their scriptures. It's a much more interesting history than that.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,609
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Its difficult to find where and when it was outlawed by Christians - Regular Christians that is. Murky. Mormons had no choice to all of a sudden discover it was wrong lolol. Join the USA or fail. As anywhere to have multiple wives means having the income to afford.
In my book that would also mean a two In laws per wife.
Its difficult to find where and when it was outlawed by Christians - Regular Christians that is. Murky. Mormons had no choice to all of a sudden discover it was wrong lolol. Join the USA or fail. As anywhere to have multiple wives means having the income to afford.
In my book that would also mean a two In laws per wife.
beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,613
@previous (F)
And the demographics of it are bad too. Came across a theory once that the excess of young males in polygamous society can tend to feed into violence and terrorism.
And the demographics of it are bad too. Came across a theory once that the excess of young males in polygamous society can tend to feed into violence and terrorism.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,614
@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/polygamy/lostboys.htm
"In the last 4 1/2 years, more than 400 teenage boys have been excommunicated, many for seemingly minor infractions such as watching a movie or talking to a girl."
"In a polygamous community, there are only so many women to go around. Older men don't want to compete with young men for wives. The boys have to go."
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/polygamy/lostboys.htm
"In the last 4 1/2 years, more than 400 teenage boys have been excommunicated, many for seemingly minor infractions such as watching a movie or talking to a girl."
"In a polygamous community, there are only so many women to go around. Older men don't want to compete with young men for wives. The boys have to go."
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,629
@328,582 (F)
You are smart and good looking and you are a valuable person. People like you and want to love you. (I can see you really need to hear that and I feel concerned for you now.)
You are smart and good looking and you are a valuable person. People like you and want to love you. (I can see you really need to hear that and I feel concerned for you now.)
squeegee replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,633
I'd rather just have the concubines.
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,650
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,651
@previous (H)
Fairy tales have value. In Scientology you end up learning about outer world Aliens, that made this all possible.
Fairy tales have value. In Scientology you end up learning about outer world Aliens, that made this all possible.
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,652
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,653
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,667
@328,554 (G)
What a coward. You still can't admit to yourself that you are wrong. You build up a massive fantasy world where facts don't matter and you are always right.
What a coward. You still can't admit to yourself that you are wrong. You build up a massive fantasy world where facts don't matter and you are always right.
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,760
@327,802 (Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU)
> It's a pretty big part of Christianity. But yes most Americans think being a good Christian is hating gays, abortions, evolutions, and environmentalism. And then going to church on Sunday. And they think that makes a good Christian.
@327,792 (Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU)
> No one cares about gay marriage except people fooled by politicians and politicians fooling them. Gay marriage is just a bullshit issue to get voters.
Wow 2 intelligent posts from Leonidas.
> It's a pretty big part of Christianity. But yes most Americans think being a good Christian is hating gays, abortions, evolutions, and environmentalism. And then going to church on Sunday. And they think that makes a good Christian.
@327,792 (Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU)
> No one cares about gay marriage except people fooled by politicians and politicians fooling them. Gay marriage is just a bullshit issue to get voters.
Wow 2 intelligent posts from Leonidas.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #328,771
finland !E.2uE3Aybc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 day later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #329,182
Religion and Politics are both businesses. /thread
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #329,240
@328,667 (L)
Um, no. I admitted I was wrong like, a week ago. Maybe you're projecting. You need to relax and have a coke, bud. This shit isn't that important.
Um, no. I admitted I was wrong like, a week ago. Maybe you're projecting. You need to relax and have a coke, bud. This shit isn't that important.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #329,267
finland !E.2uE3Aybc replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #329,268
@previous (L)
Uhh... not always. But this is your thing. Just to interject, in the real world (not applied to online conversations like this) the determination to be right even when one is wrong (not saying you are, because I could give fuck-all about this thread, or mitt mormon) is part of an ego trip or something else. I dunno.
Uhh... not always. But this is your thing. Just to interject, in the real world (not applied to online conversations like this) the determination to be right even when one is wrong (not saying you are, because I could give fuck-all about this thread, or mitt mormon) is part of an ego trip or something else. I dunno.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #329,269
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 20 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,430
@329,268 (finland !E.2uE3Aybc)
> the determination to be right even when one is wrong
Not what I said, was it? "Winning" isn't important. Educating yourself, learning facts, knowing things in important.
> the determination to be right even when one is wrong
Not what I said, was it? "Winning" isn't important. Educating yourself, learning facts, knowing things in important.
Anonymous L double-posted this 14 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,431
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,465
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,468
finland !E.2uE3Aybc replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,470
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,527
@329,468 (L)Your class and cleverness increases with each reply. Thank you for showing us you're a really a 12 year old with a chip on their shoulder. Your humiliation is now complete.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,534
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,547
@previous (L)Hilariously, yes. In a way. But really you humiliated yourself by being a huge aspie cunt about being right. Life is funny.
Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,556
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 56 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #329,558
@previous (L)
Look deep within and you'll realize the source of your shame is insecurity and your grandma insisting she bathe you until you were 19. I shall pray for you.
Look deep within and you'll realize the source of your shame is insecurity and your grandma insisting she bathe you until you were 19. I shall pray for you.