Monday, July 24, 2006


Polygamy is in the Bible. Polygamy is found throughout history. These facts prove that marriage's definition includes plural marriage. Polygamy is a far older traditional marriage than anti-polygamy.
Guess what? I believe in polygamy– My heart just breaks when I see Latter-day Saints and others condemn it as a perversion or a threat to the institution of marriage. I think we have forgotten our past and that again and again it has been shown to be the Lord’s model for marriage–when undertaken at His behest. We, as Latter-day Saints, are hypocrites if we in the same breath express our testimony of Jospeh Smith and our condemnation of polygamy.


muggsey said...


This is in response to the preceding hogwash that you are trying to sell.

For those of us who live in the "real world" we can easily see your straight "party line." Your mantra reflecting the almost angelic quality of Joseph Smith and those who said they were his heirs have kept to the line ever since D.& C. 132 was first issued.

It was only due to the possibilities of reprisal by the U.S. Government did Utah renounce polygamy. And don't try to tell us that polygamy is not still a common practice, even among those hypocritical LDS proponents of monogamy.

If there was need for polygamy there would not be objection from the masses of America. If there was no recorded fraud associated with men taking second wives and then not supporting them then perhaps polygamy would be more tolerable. Instead you have found that it is a very profitable to ensure that the U.S. taxpayer from Bangor, Me. to Seattle, Wa., to San Diego, Honolulu, Fairbanks, Brownsville, Tx. to Miami are paying the upkeep of YOUR responsability, your wives, whom you bed and the children born of that relationship. Your lifestyle is a fraud from the get-go.

ATAR_i said...

The Lords model for marriage - I don't think so. Joseph Smiths excuse for diddling his parishoners daughters and their mothers is more like it.

Your original prophet made a nice little convenient prophecy to justify his appetite for females other than his wife. Just deal with it.

barlow said...

It is assumed, quite wrongly, that polygamy is "unnatural" so that even if we are convinced by the arguments of pro-polygamy sociologists we face the real hurdle of convincing people that they will benefit from plural marriage. There is a myth in the minds of most that polygamy is something "terrible" for women and an excuse for "promiscuity" for men. It is assumed that polygamy is pro-men and anti-women. Nothing could be further from the truth.

muggsey said...

Spoken like a "true" MAN. Hey big-shot flex your muscles and impress someone. Hey Big Rooster! Get up on the fence and crow!!! Your poor enslaved women and children deserve a break from such a toad as yourself and priesthood buddies.

ATAR_i said...

Well, if poly amore is so darn great - why don't your women get a few manly men on their nights off from you. They can be married to a few men, perhaps widen the gene pool and keep you on your toes.

Some sort of goose and gander comment races to my mind.


If it's so darn great - why did you have to hog tie the women to the 'righteous lifestyle' by holding their salvation hostage.

My guess - cuz it aint so great for the women and need a bit of an incentive.

Hey, jump into bed with as many women as you want, if they want to be your sister wife great. But if you blackmail them with their very salvation YOU WILL NEVER EARN MY RESPECT, MY ACCEPTANCE, MY AKNOWLEDGEMENT OR ANY SORT OF REASONABLE BELIEF ON MY PART THAT SHE IS NOT FORCED.

unrestrained said...

well said atar_i....

muggsey said...


onthestreet said...

Amen means "so be it", and Ahman: annihilation, all things being swallowed up in the Lord. Therefore, all that you describe, the Lord knows and hears, and has put the same upon you.

You, Tar, are forced and face many contradictions, and your salvation is held hostage, swallowed up.

Yes, Celestial Marriage needs a bit of an incentive, as you put it, and that incentive is Celestial and eternal glory. The woman is the glory of the man, and a thousand women is the lotus, the crown.

The entire Christian world accepts your Lord, Jesus Christ, as the bridegroom of millions, and you are an enemy to it.

Anonymous said...

All this arguing about Celestial Marriage reminds me of pyramid schemes. Those at the top tell how wonderful the scheme is. The losers at the bottom are rotten apples that didn't work hard to make the scheme work. People at the top tell how those at the bottom are liars and disgruntled.

Look at the math--it doesn't work without lost boys. Fundy and street can call it beautiful, and just like being king of the pyramid scheme, there is still the inevitable side of ugliness to this; lost boys, child brides, put-away wives.

ATAR_i said...

OTS, you are creepy.

onthestreet said...

Mt. 10: 34.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36. And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household.

Yes, there's your "lost boys", and "put-away brides", by God's very Word.

"Cain, if thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted".

muggsey said...


Thank you again for the unsolicited lesson in language arts, not as if I care, I'm not impressed.

One BIG problem you face is that you are inconsistent in your doctrine and, judgemental regarding the salvation of people you don't even know.

Are you going to show up at YFZ and baptize your live folks to ensure that all the dead folks in the surrounding cemeteries have a second chance to go through the pangs of life on earth again? No thanks, don't bother. I didn't believe you this time and I wouldn't believe you in the future if you came in holding hands with Joseph Smith. Beside, I won't be in the grave, I'll be at HOME with My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So if you baptize someone in my behalf of what value is it? Come to think of it, of what value is this action anyway. Dead folks can't make decisions. In addition, how do you know that the name on the tombstone is the same as the person who was buried there or, what if the grave is empty. You baptized someone in behalf of someone who didn't exist. When they croak on world #2 are you gonna have to baptize someone for them again? Kinda repetetative isn't it? Bet you'll get a lot of folks with wrinkled skin from being dunked so many times.

fttc said...


How do you explain KJV 1 Cor. 15:29;

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

ATAR_i said...

I'll have to read the context. Not that I'm thrilled to jump into this discussion, but my curiosity is piqued.

onthestreet said...

There is no "going through the pangs of life on earth again", or "croaking" in world #2" at the glorious resurrections, for it is pang-free and glorious. But you have to go through prescribes preparations, purifications, sanctifications, and redemption processes to achieve it. Else you only continue in the grave, and when you do come forth unprepared, for you it is only pangs again, and croaking.

ATAR_i said...

Lord have mercy - you'd think Christ died for nothing the way OTS talks.

I personally think his sacrifice was awesome - and his grace is sufficient for me.

However, perhaps you should build your own temple (oh yeah you did, and make a holy of holies, oh yeah you did, and make an altar (or furnace) for sacrifice - oh yeah you did that too).

Let's just call it back to the past: 'livin' in the Old Testament'. - now I'm really starting to think your muslim.

The covering from head to foot
Multiple wives
Women have no power
You can act any way you want to those not in your religion - everyone is your enemy.

muggsey said...

fttc 7/30 2:25 1 Corinthians 15:29

The argument here seems to be: "If, as some of you Corinthians claim, there is no resurrection from the dead, then why do you go to the trouble baptizing for the dead? Only those who have hope for life after death would attempt to influence the eternal fate of those who have died. Your thinking on the subject is contridictory. You claim that there is no resurrection, but your actions betray that you believe there is something beyond this life."

Other Bible students think the Corinthians believed life in the Spirit made the body unnecessary. Baptism for the dead in this view ensured the dead would enjoy the same spiritual life as would the living but without a body

TBM said...

But ... they baptized for the dead? Something like Mormons do, but Christians don't any more?