Posted on 02/21/2006 10:02:21 AM PST by Colofornian
Why are you calling it love then? I think it is disgusting.
Also, restornu,
I did NOT say anything about you. I said "they" meaning those who would defend it. That would apply to Moslems, fundamentalist Mormon groups etc. etc.
Even when polygamy was practiced by the mainstream LDS Church, it was hidden from the public for many years. To this day, I don't think the GA's have admitted how many Mormons were actually practicing it. There was not ONE branch of my family that DID NOT participate in polygamy.
"Jesus replied, 'You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.'" (Matthew 22:29-30)
I'll take Jesus' words over His rearrangers of His words any time. There is no marriage in heaven; and if you claim the technicality that He only meant there are no more marriages after departing this earth, then you are thereby assuming that angels in heaven are married.
I guess when one quotes Scripture, that's "preachy"; but when one spouts mere personal or obscure religious sect worldviews, it's not.
It was linked to a reply to me CC #54
Well then you are stretching when you assume that I was thinking of you in my post.
You need to quit taking things so personally. Did you report me for abuse again?
is it possible you could answer my question where you insulted women for marring an older man the rest of this stuff shows you have choosen the latter part!
Colofornian there are the choices,
1- to either be a seeker of truth,
2- or like so many who’s program is to rearrange the facts to suit their personal agenda
"...It's part of our LDS culture..."
I'm still trying to determine what that acronym means.
~ Blue Jays ~
Here is a link you might find amusing
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/humor/culture3.htm
Some excerpts:
In Salt Lake City, Utah everyone is into researching their family tree. Even the big department stores sell genealogy supplies. A newcomer to Salt Lake City, and a non-researcher, got a job as a clerk at one of the big department stores. She received her introduction to genealogy one day when a customer came into the store and asked " Where do I find the Family Group Sheets?" The new clerk, with a shocked look on her face, answered, " Family Group Sheets ? All we carry are the King, Queen, double and twin size sheets."
Contributed by Helene
I understand as I live near the holy ground: Kirtland.
Well then, you won't have far to go when Christ returns, now will ya? ;-)
Latter Day Saints...
All right. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I've had 3 posts where I addressed age disparity: Posts 37, 44, and 54. I never made any entire-ballpark statements along the lines of "all women who marry much-older men were not in love" (or had some love component about it).
In posts 37 and 44, when I wrote some sentences about age-disparity among general marriages, I didn't even bring up the subject of love. That leaves only post 54 where I addressed marital love; and nowhere there was I writing about generic women. There, I wrote only about four very-specific plural-wife teens aged 14 to 16 (I would not even call them women--they were minors!).
May I again remind you these were arranged marriages, or are you going to continue to gloss over that? What if you were the ninth wife to a man in a four-month period, bringing a grand two-year total to 17 just for those 2 years alone! What if it had been arranged by your father? What would then be your opinion of this? Would you carry on about the love dimension?
What if you were wife No. 20 or 21 to a man, and he married your sister in the same month?
We're not talking about normal one-on-one marriages here! As I already emphasized in post 44, the issue is not simply age-disparity; it's age-disparity in the context of accumulating mass wives in an era when men (and sacrificial teens barely into their puberty) would do much to please a living prophet.
The crippling problem hurts not only the addicted individual but the spouse, children and the community at large, Roe said.
......This is what happens when you can't get drunk.
There are two choices, 1- to either suppress the truth that Joseph Smith conned a 14 yo into marrying him by promising "salvation and exaltation" for her, her father's household, "and all her kindred" [see post 54 for exact quote]; 2- or like so many who think it's their job to be the prophets' unpaid P.R. reps, continue to inject some romanticized notion of "love" where the historical evidence indicates otherwise.
Does Joseph Smith have the power to confer mass salvation and godhood (exaltation)?
I keep hearing some say 19th century prophets were, after all, mere men when discussing some of their personality traits, etc. But new wife motives? No. They were never anything other than what any ordinary immortal, divine superman would do in that situation.
Kitland is kind of a creepy town. Especially after Lundgren.
She must have been really little and lightweight. Or it was a heavy-duty widescreen laptop.
1- to either be a seeker of truth,
2- or like so many who’s program is to rearrange the facts to suit their personal agenda
***
There are two choices,
1- to either suppress the truth that Joseph Smith conned a 14 yo into marrying him by promising "salvation and exaltation" for her, her father's household, "and all her kindred" [see post 54 for exact quote];
First off your question #1 is couch in a choice two method
or like so many who’s program is to rearrange the facts to suit their personal agenda
You just had to add conned you never have a clean question you always have to soil it!
Now you could after asking a question say what you think but you don’t you rearrange the facts!
There is NO suppression about Joseph Marring Helen Mar Kimball Colofornian!
I understand the Lord’s doctrine!
1- It was not unusual to marry at a young age in those days!
2- This marriage ordinances was for eternity
3- To remind that Plural marriage was a commandment from God
4- It was the Lord purpose and these types of marriage has take place in two dispensations and most likely in each of all of the dispensations from the beganning of time on earth!
5- Helen Mar Kimball was in women hood at 14 and had many children and so it would only stand to reason she would have had a child from Joseph if the marriage was for time!
Unless you have more to confirm you are engaging I gossip!
2- or like so many who think it's their job to be the prophets' unpaid P.R. reps, continue to inject some romanticized notion of "love" where the historical evidence indicates otherwise.
What are you implying here Colofornian?
Does Joseph Smith have the power to confer mass salvation and godhood (exaltation)?
NO
I keep hearing some say 19th century prophets were, after all, mere men when discussing some of their personality traits, etc.
But new wife motives? No.
They were never anything other than what any ordinary immortal, divine superman would do in that situation.
You lost me!
Now you still haven’t answered my question Colofornian?
So why are you discriminating on age if that is what they agree on!
There are times it has nothing to do with power or whatever else you might conclude sometimes it is just plain LOVE!
You are belittling other people because you mocked other peopel Love! with your cute saying "Bring 'em young"!
you know nothing about the various SOULS that come into this earth....
Your algorithm are limited to one dimensional
Bring 'em young
Indeed, in the olden days, Brigham Young did "Bring 'em young"--as did Joseph Smith Just that statement of Bring 'em young
Is what I am talking about AGE! First if was a slur as if the age of a man and women made it illicit!
In the case of this professor YES!
But where you don’t know the hearts and minds of people than it is your mind that process the worst!
Just like this Thread Topic was the “Porno Professor” you made a leap to plural marriage!
SO YOUR WHOLE AGENDA TO POSTING THIS THREAD WAS TO MOVE IT TOO PLURAL MARRIAGE AND YOUR TAWDY ACCUSATIONS!
YOU SAY THIS IS ABOUT TRUTH, BUT IT IS REALLY ABOUT YOU REARRANGING THE FACTS FOR YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA!
So alcohol is now the messianic escapist savior Mormons (& other religious folk) have missed out on? I don't think so.
No, I think what's unique about Utah is not the inhibited inbibing of that region; I think it's the "catch-22" bondage of sinful habits that's reinforced by LDS doctrine.
Allow me to explain:
Step A: John Doe commits a potential "pet" sin.
Step B: John D confesses the sin in prayer to Elohim (or much less likely to another person). He repents of it & vows to head in the other direction (which is, by the way, the literal meaning of repentance--a "u-turn").
Step C: John D think he's returned to Ground Zero (Step A) by repeating it.
Step D: John D reads a deceased LDS prophet's book, THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS (Kimball), who says a person never really/truly repented of a sin unless he never commits that sin again. John D reviews his track record: "Yup," he concludes. "I guess repeating my sin (Step C) wiped out Step B. The prophet says I never really repented. Should I confess this sin (Step C) again? Yes? No? Yes, if it's truly a lifetime commitment. No, if I can't make that commitment stick." The crucial thing to understand here is, every sin for the LDS person now involves a follow-up of making a lifetime commitment to never commit it again!!!
(Imagine living in a spider web where each and every sin [of commission and omission] warrants a lifetime decision-making commitment! That's not to gloss over the cancerous nature of sin or make provisions for it! But I can't imagine becoming anything more self-absorbing than having to treat every single sin of commission and omission as a detailed blow-by-blow lifetime commitment! The prime issue is not my future earthly sinlessness; no, the key is the cross and the forgiveness and the power to overcome sin that accompanies such mercy and grace).
Step E: John D is at a juncture: “If I commit this sin again--even by mere thought—I’m treating my previous steps as 100% empty gestures devoid of any spiritual meaning or impact. So rather than repeat the repentance route, fraught with sharade/sham potentialities, I’ll stake out another pathway. My will power, with God’s help, might be able to maneuver me into a position where I’m poised to never commit that sin again. I want to be true to my conscience and my god. I won’t offer up potentially empty repentance until I’m confident I won't compound my sin.." (He wants to be worthy. But seeking that "poised" position is poisonous. It's an impossible posture to assume minus repentance--the real meaning of that word being to move in the other direction.)
Step F: John D --not understanding that the true trail of repentance often involves two steps forward and one step back (sometimes prodigal trail-blazers double back on an entire section of the trail before taking a key u-turn)--(again, note "repentance" is a direction word, not a "no-sin zone") he gets bogged down in "Catch-22."
So where did this theology jump the trail? When Jesus told the thief on the cross that he was forgiven, that forgiveness was dependent upon His own blood shed at that locale. It wasn't dependent upon what that thief did or did not do in the future--were he somehow able to extricate himself from that cross. God doesn't forgive us based upon our future faithfulness or sinlessness. He forgives us based upon His own character of being gracious and merciful coupled with a historical event that put us right with him--Calvary. And we can no more extricate ourselves from our sin patterns (real repentance or not) than the thief could deliver himself from that cross. It's a matter of trusting a Person and power beyond our own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.