It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The God Makers - Mormon Conspiracy

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Upon reading the beginnings of these posts, i must say that it is evident there must be a valid voice from one person whom by necessity was required to be baptized as Jesus commanded, and chose the most true church on earth to whom would fulfill the requirement of this baptism. Thus knowing its teachings, i will speak in truth in order to rectify any error in which was stated among the posts of this topic.

i claim no church as perfect, for all churches hold an element of the truth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the most true church on earth. Please be wise in understanding it's elements before casting judgement upon something you are unaware of. To do so is ignorance.

From the beginning of the old testament it states that man was made in "Our" image. In the new testament Jesus did state that he has walked every path man has walked. A person among this board posted that God is not Man, in which is correct. Currently God is not man and man is not God. However by logical reasoning, by simple observation of life around us in which is the very life God created in order to simulate our learning through personal experience, as it states in the church "Precept before Precept", or we learn in stages. The first step must be understood before the second step can come. The second step must be understood before the third step can come. As in any educational class on the planet, the overall purpose of a lesson or course is introduced at the onset of the class. It is the introduction. In which God did so in regards to mans purpose from the very beginning of His course; he states we are made in their likeness and image. Take that in for a moment - and then please answer me how it is logically possible to mistake who we are without complete denial or lying regarding His words simple meaning from the very beginning. To continue on understanding the first step - The old testament, beyond the introduction was for two purposes 1. To lead by example as to the purpose of male and female in which Adam and Eve were created and set forth their life together, in order that all human life may come forth. As this is a learning and testing ground, it is through bearing children and the experience of raising them that prepares us for larger responsibilities with in the creation of the eternities. It is through this example that we learn the necessity and requirement of both male and female joined in one purpose, in the eternities.

Tell me - Where was your soul born?

It is called the pre-existence through celestial procreation between Our God and His Wife. Everything was in spirit before it became physical.

i feel this needs to be greatly expanded upon as i have opened up most likely a flood gate of questions. A person among this board stated that men will have unlimited sex in Heaven. First i must say, does that sound like a bad thing? As i see the world as proof, i would believe people would be rejoicing, as it is evident humans love procreation considering the vast population upon the world... As it stands now, the U.S. society has made the most beautiful element between a woman and a man the most shameful. This is what we could consider the advesary at His best. To inhibit a man his sexual right is to ask him to submit to emasculation. Furthermore, a woman in submission, acceptance and joy to her greatest power on earth becomes literally the most beautiful woman you will ever see. So may i ask why the condemnation regarding procreation?

The only problem there is within sexual nature is the self choice to handle the most beautiful of consequences (life itself) irresponsibly.

Furthermore the old testament was:
2. to give our example and guidelines regarding righteous living - Through Moses the ten commandments were given.

The reason for step 2:

Jesus brings forth the next step - Pure Love

Step 3 before the Messiah Comes - Eternal Marriage and the conclusion of the introduction - we are indeed capable of becoming Gods, if so we choose.

Summary -
Book 1
Introduction - You are Gods
Lesson one - example of Adam and Eve
Lesson two - basic rules of engagement for living a righteous life
Book 2
Lesson - Further education to become a God - Have Pure Love
Book 3
Lesson - Eternal Marriage
Conclusion - Reiteration of introduction - You are Gods

Regarding polygamy - It is required to obey the law of the land. This being such, because the U.S. has deemed it unqualified and dictated to its people singular marriage, the Church is bound to obey for peace sake. That is the truth. However, if it be pure love you seek, i wish you to consider the amount of single mothers in our nation without responsible men in their lives to help care for their child, and ask yourself if a man is capable of taking care of more than just his wife and his family, and finds in his heart the capability to reach out in love for another's well being, Why would polygamy be bad? And if a woman be charitable and loving in her heart as asked, why would she forsake her sister?

And this is written by a woman...

Love always

P.S. So Long as it is the most Loving, it is the most good and therefore right.

Choose The Right




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelsannie
 




The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the most true church on earth.


It is more accurate to say it's the first church on earth to be proven untrue.


I am sorry but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the first and only religion that I am aware of that has actually been completely disproved by scientific evidence. I was unaware of this fact at the start if this thread. I regret the seriousness I placed on The God Makers film. But it served the purpose of starting an investigation that has undone the foundation of Mormonism.

There is a real place called Israel and there are real Jews. There's the wailing wall from ancient Jerusalem and lots of evidence for the history of the Bible. When it comes to the Book of Mormon it is the complete opposite.



According to The Book of Mormon, the family of Lehi (a wealthy Hebrew merchant and prophet), the family of Ishmael, and Zoram traveled from the Middle East circa 600 BC to the Americas by boat. Some time after the death of Lehi (in the Americas), Nephi (Lehi's fourth son) overheard that his brothers were plotting to kill him, so he (Nephi) and his followers left and went into the wilderness. The followers of Nephi called themselves Nephites, though made up of several groups, such as the Jospehites, Jacobites, and Zoramites. The followers of Laman (Lehi's oldest son) were called Lamanites, though made up of Ishmaelites, Lemuelites, and various other groups of Nephites.[1]

wiki

The Book is dedicated to the Lamanites. If the premise of the book is a lie. Then it's all bunk. They never existed and it's a proven fact. There is mDNA, Y Chromosome DNA and linguistic evidence that proves the American Indians are exclusively Asian in origin. They've even further refined the American Indian origin very recently, down to six ancestors, it's completely Asian. No Jewish or middle eastern ancestory - period.
news.yahoo.com...



Thomas W. Murphy is a Latter Day Saint anthropologist and writer. Murphy earned his Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Washington in 2003, and he is now the chair of the Department of Anthropology at Edmonds Community College in Washington State. Murphy concluded that "DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans" and he has likened the Book of Mormon to inspirational fiction.

wiki

So let's get this straight, a Mormon anthropologist concluded from the evidence that the Book of Mormon is inspirational fiction. Hardly the most true church on earth anymore, now is it? I wonder how long it will take to sink in. I bet there will be a massive falling away as the conclusiveness of this new evidence sinks in. Repent from the false Gospel of a charlatan and throw away the Book of Mormon.

Jesus is waiting.






[edit on 3/20/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   


Why would polygamy be bad?


First off, I find it very intriguing that you try to rationalize it. But to answer the question it would be bad because unlike the False Book of Mormon the Holy Bible is against it.

2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,(1 Tim 3:2)

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. (Titus 1:6)

In the Old Testament David and Solomon were wrong and paid a heavy price for it. God warned against it.

"17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray"
(Deuteronomy 17:17)

How many wives did Old Joe have?


Smith was married to 23 other women along with Emma.
Evidence exists that at least nine of Joseph Smith's wives were civilly married to other men while being religiously sealed (married) to Joseph Smith. Additionally, sealings took place years after his death by proxy in the 1850s in Utah. Some Smith biographers state that the women Joseph Smith was sealed to but not civilly married to were practicing polyandry (the practice of a woman having more than one husband at one time),[60][61] however polyandry would require at least an attempt at a legal civil marriage. One writer even claims that, while most of these "polyandrous" marriages were with the first husband's consent, others were done behind the first husband's back.[62] The same writer states Smith used warnings of eternal damnation and promises of eternal rewards to secure consent to his proposals.

wiki

Ok so not only was the author of the most perfect religion a polygamist he also married other mens wives There is a word for that too.

Adultery.

[edit on 3/20/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Hello Big

You keep bringing up DNA evidence and it deserves to be addressed for the sake of all other readers. I was a bit reluctant to get started though, since most people are quite unfamiliar with the process of DNA testing and its abilities as well as limitations and it will probably take quite some explanation.

Most people are just content to sit back and accept it when someone with academic credentials says "the DNA evidence is..." without trying to get an explanation. As a matter of fact, trial lawyers avoid giving detailed explanations of the DNA evidence to juries since it will probably just confuse the average person and therefore detract from their argument.

Just for reference, while I'm not a geneticist by profession, I did graduate with a B.S. in Biochemistry from the University of Washington (Seattle) in 2003. DNA manipulation, sequencing, and testing were a significant part of the classroom curriculum and labs. I was also a research assistant for 1 1/2 years in the Natural Products Biosynthesis Lab working on identifying and sequencing the genes which coded for an antibiotic produced by a certain bacteria. Although my DNA work was with bacteria and not humans, the techniques are essentially the same once the DNA has been extracted.

I've seen that video before regarding DNA and the Book of Mormon. While I lived in Ireland, I used to receive the visits of some Presbyterian missionaries who brought it to me. As there were very few Mormons in the area where I was, I can only suppose they got it especially for me. We also had some lengthy discussions regarding the whole "Faith vs. Works" issue as well.

I'll admit that the video is fairly impressive in its presentation. The documentary style and "expert testimony" from Mormons (or ex-Mormons rather since they admit to no longer practicing the faith) did give me some second thoughts and sent me researching some more.

The video is rather weak in some areas though. Mainly that throughout the entire video, there really is no evidence presented. The so-called "evidence" is only the testimony of academics stating over and over that the DNA evidence shows that no Jewish population has a close resemblance to Native American populations and that the ancestors of Native Americans came from Asia. Not once are we told what tests were performed, who was tested, what genetic markers were being searched for, or who were the control subjects for comparison.

It becomes evident through the video that none of the experts interviewed has conducted research specific to the topic of the video which is the possibility of ancient Israelite DNA in Native Americans. The merely state that they "work with DNA". In fact, the principle "Mormon" expert, Thomas Murphy, is an Anthropology professor at a community college in Lynnwood, WA. Although I'm sure he has the capacity to understand DNA testing, I can be reasonably certain that he is not engaged in DNA research at a community college.

If you would like to see a good documentary with real evidence and explanation of the findings, I would recommend checking out the one done by Nova on the Lemba people of Africa whom DNA showed to have Israelite ancestry. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the documentary anywhere online available for viewing, but here's the PBS website: www.pbs.org...

Very interesting is that anthropological and linguistic evidence made it seem very unlikely that they had Israelite ancestry since they are completely negroid in appearance and speak an african language, yet they retained oral traditions that proclaimed their semitic roots.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Returning to the Book of Mormon DNA video, the assertions regarding DNA evidence are based on some inaccurate assumptions. Let's start first with the assertion that the Book of Mormon claims that all inhabitants came from the descendants of a small group of Israelites that left the Middle East in 600 B.C.

The video points out that the location where this party landed is said to be uninhabited and cites 2 Ne. 1:8:

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.


The video claims that the "land" referred to here is all of North and South America when in fact there is no supporting evidence for that. The party landed in a densely forested area in Central America in around 590 B.C. and it is entirely conceivable that the area was uninhabited. After all, when the people of Israel were led out of Egypt and told to go forth and possess the land, we know that Jehovah was not talking about all of Asia.

It is true, however, that many Latter-day Saints have the impression that the Americas were completely populated by the descendants of Lehi and I once thought that myself. The teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other early leaders also seems to indicate that they thought there was no one else in Americas at the time of Lehi's arrival.

However, a careful reading of the Book of Mormon reveals the presence of other peoples encountered as the initial group grew and migrated. External presence is clear even though the other nations are not named specifically in most cases (those called Amulonites being an exception). There is an excellent paper which lists the multitude of evidence from the text of the Book of Mormon that the descendants of Lehi encountered others in the New World and it can be found at the following site: farms.byu.edu...

The confusion is probably largely because the writers of the records that became the Book of Mormon called themselves Nephites and referred to all others as Lamanites (after Laman who was the eldest of Lehi's sons and rebelled against Nephi's leadership after Lehi's death). This is evidenced in Jacob 1:13-14

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.
14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.


I suppose this is somewhat akin to the Jews calling all others "gentiles". It gives the impression that there are only two groups of people and that they are descended from the same family.

It is curious that Joseph Smith himself believed and taught that the Americas were completely uninhabited before Lehi's arrival and that the Native Americans had all sprung from Lehi. To me, it is another point of evidence against his authorship of the Book of Mormon. If it was his creation, it seems that he would have known that he was clearly writing down evidence that the Nephites and Lamanites were interacting with other peoples, and yet he somehow fooled himself? More believable to me is that he translated the record as he claimed and fell into the same trap of assuming that it indicated that the continent was uninhabited just the same as many other readers of the Book of Mormon have done.

Also contrary to the claims in the video, the LDS Church does not hold the position today that all Native Americans are descended only from the family of Lehi. For decades Church leadership has acknowledged that the Book of Mormon makes no such claim. The fact that Native American DNA is primarily of Asian extract is not contrary at all to Book of Mormon claims.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Following up a little more, it is true that the introduction of the Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians. I personally am not sure who wrote the introduction or when it started to be included with the Book of Mormon, but it is easy to see how that could be taken to be the Church's official position.

While that statement reflects the older view of the Native Americans among Latter-day Saints, it is not scripture and is not supported by the text of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, I believe it contributes to the lingering notion in the minds of many Latter-day Saints that the Native Americans are 100% Israelite. As we saw in the video, Mormons who believe that are quite disillusioned when the DNA evidence shows conclusively that American Natives are predominantly of Asian origin.

For at least several decades however (and before DNA evidence came to light), several church leaders have expressed a view of the Book of Mormon that included non-Israelite peoples. For example, in 1957, the apostle Elder Richard L. Evans (from the governing body known as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) prepared material for a secular audience and described the Book of Mormon as:

part of a record, both sacred and secular, of prophets and peoples who (with supplementary groups) were among the ancestors of the American ”Indians.”

Richard L. Evans, "What Is a 'Mormon'?" in Religions of America, edited by Leo Rosten (London: Heinemann, 1957)

In fact, it is apparent as well that the Book of Mormon does not relate history on a continental scale. There are cities mentioned as well as the time it took to travel between them on foot and where they were in relation to each other (mentioned in the accounts of wars) that help us get an idea of the size of the region. It is apparent that the territory could not have been greater than about 200 mi. x 200 mi.. (The geographical features described match fairly closely with northern Guatemala and the Mexican states of Chiapas, Tobasco, and Veracruz. There are also promising linguisitic links between place names in this area and Hebrew and Nahuatl words. See www.ancientamerica.org...)

If one were to search for DNA links, this would be the most promising area to search, but there are still significant challenges to finding something conclusive. I think I'll wait until tomorrow to get started on that.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by enchantress62
 

The thing is, Christians have every right to have an opinion about things. Having an opinion on controversial subjects or being outspoken about things does not make one 'Unchristian.' Yes, we are told not to judge others. But we are also told to judge all things. Mormonism is a thing.


Hi AshleyD,

Of course Christians have the right to their opinions, and I'm sorry if my post sounded like I didn't believe that to be the case. What I was trying to get across is that none of us should be pointing fingers and saying, "you guys are evil cause you belong to this religion that is proving it's self to be less then ideal. Christians get this all the time, that's what I was trying to point out to Bigwhammy. I see it all over ATS, ppl using terms like "Brainwashed, ignorant followers, etc..." when addressing the Christian beliefs, and I'm not above this myself. I've had to pull myself back a lot here and take a look at things from the Christian perspective in order to stop myself from getting caught up in Christian bashing. The thing is although there are defenantly things about the Mormon church that are creepy to me doesn't mean that all the ppl that practice it are creepy ppl. Hell I'm Wiccan and Christians think I'm a devil worshipper. The fact that Wiccan's don't believe in the devil means nothing to Christians. It's not their belief so therefore it doesn't count. It's the same for you guys when the Atheists point at you and say "I don't believe so therefore what you believe isn't important to me" I guess what I'm getting at is that in an ideal world I'd wish for everyone to sit still and listen to each other with an open mind then compare notes without all the judgement. Just wishful thinking!



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tamerlane
 


There's new evidence since the video -

Indian DNA links to 6 'founding mothers'


NEW YORK - Nearly all of today's Native Americans in North, Central and South America can trace part of their ancestry to six women whose descendants immigrated around 20,000 years ago, a DNA study suggests.

Those women left a particular DNA legacy that persists to today in about about 95 percent of Native Americans, researchers said.

The finding does not mean that only these six women gave rise to the migrants who crossed into North America from Asia in the initial populating of the continent, said study co-author Ugo Perego.

The women lived between 18,000 and 21,000 years ago, though not necessarily at exactly the same time, he said.

news.yahoo.com...



[edit on 3/21/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by enchantress62
 


Thanks for clarifying. I must say it is a pet peeve of mine when I see Christianity getting dragged through the mud and Christians criticized all over the board. When we defend ourselves or the faith, we are accused of being hypocrites (if we dare sink to a fraction of the level of our accuser), threatened (if we answer a question about our beliefs), delusional (if we talk about God), etc.

Then a Christian makes a thread and all we hear is, 'Live and let live!' 'Where's the love?' 'What's it to you?' To infinity.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I'm not sure how this recent work on Indian DNA changes the argument presented in the film. It does not prove that the Native Americans were of 100% Asian extraction. It states simply that almost all Native Americans (95%) have one of only six individuals (ultra-great grandmothers) in their ancestry.

It doesn't indicate either that these six were the only females that contributed their genes to the ancient population of the Americas. This is even stressed within the article:

The finding does not mean that only these six women gave rise to the migrants who crossed into North America from Asia in the initial populating of the continent, said study co-author Ugo Perego.


It shows that these six women lived so far back in time (and had sufficient luck) that their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was transmitted throughout the entire continent through the propagation of their daughters. There are probably numerous other women whose DNA is also present in all Native Americans, but somewhere along the ancestral line they had only a son or sons who survived to pass along chromosomal DNA but not the mitochondrial DNA that is present in the egg that only a daughter can pass on. The chromosomal DNA gets crossed during meiosis when the egg and sperm are being formed and become a combination of the parents' DNA. Therefore, it cannot be traced to single individuals the way that mitochondrial DNA can. (On the male side, it is the Y-chromosome that is analogous to mitochondrial DNA and is passed on without change, except for rare mutations, to the sons since women have no Y chromosome. Actually it is only the short half of the Y chromosome that is unchanged since the longer half does cross with the X chromosome.)



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Let's see how this could be applied in relation to the Book of Mormon account.

Just after 600 B.C., a small colony of Israelites consisting of about 20 individuals from two families arrived in Central America. About half were female being about 10 women. There were likely also some more women who arrived a little further north only a few years later in the party led by Mulek. This was also a small group so that may have been 10 more women making about 20 carrying mitochondrial DNA from the Middle East.

Estimating the population of the Native Americans at that time is very difficult. Estimations for the population at the time of Columbus range from 8.4 million to 112.5 million. (Population History of American Indigenous Peoples A commonly accepted estimate is about 50 million. If we push back about 2000 years to about 600 B.C., it seems reasonable to suppose that the population was perhaps half that number or 25 million. The key factor to allowing higher populations, the practice of agriculture, was already widely established throughout the New World, so there is little reason to suppose that populations were extremely smaller in 600 B.C. than in 1500 A.D.. I'll go a little lower still to 20 million to make the math easy, and about 10 million of these would have been women. Therefore about 1 in 500,000 women possessed Middle Eastern mtDNA.

I'll assume now that the Middle Eastern women could procreate at about the same rate as Native American women, so the ratio would remain about the same as population increased. There would always be much more chance of getting Native mtDNA rather than Middle Eastern mtDNA with so many more Native women around. The concentration would be higher near the area of first settlement of the Israelite colonists, but the Book of Mormon shows that they were intermingling from a very early stage and diffusion would occur over the next 2000+ years. Then comes the arrival of Europeans.

The arrival of Europeans is an important event to consider. This had an incredible effect on native population dynamics. As most people know, native populations were decimated, partly because conflict and massacre by the Europeans, but much more so from contact with European disease. For more on how and why see www.newscientist.com... -settlers-brought-with-them.html

With a population of about 50,000,000 natives in 1492, and 1 in 500,000 carrying Middle Eastern mtDNA, there would have been only 50 women with the DNA marker. Conservative estimates state that native populations were reduced by at least 80% after European contact with some tribes completely vanishing. The hardest hit areas were those where settled tribes lived in cities and villages with higher population densities such as throughout Central America. Statistically, this would have left only 10 women in the New World with mtDNA from the Middle East. However, considering that they were more concentrated in the worst hit areas, it is entirely possible that the carriers of Middle Eastern mtDNA completely died off, or were reduced to such a small number that there was no surviving daughter to continue the line of transmission. In that case, the search for Middle Eastern mtDNA would be futile.

But even supposing that the carriers of Middle Eastern mtDNA survived the arrival of European disease at approximately the same ratio in the population, it is still a very daunting task to try to find them. 500,000 Native American women would have to be tested to have a likelihood of finding one carrier. It may never be found. Or perhaps it was found and comprises part of the remaining 5% that aren't linked to the "Founding Six". It would certainly be a daunting task for any researcher to attempt.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
The article on Indian DNA is still interesting from another perspective aside from what it might have meant to the Book of Mormon question. It shows how theories keep getting adjusted with new evidence and it gives a good indication that we are still far from having all the answers, and that the answers we do have might just change.

It was only a few years ago that it was conventionally accepted that immigrants from Asia crossed the Bering Sea 10,000 - 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age based on archaeological evidence. That's what I learned in Anthropology 105 my freshman year of college. Now, according to this article, it has been pushed back to at least 18,000 - 21,000 years ago, since it states that the haplotypes identified are not found in Asia and are presumed to have originated in Beringia (the area of the Bering Sea land bridge). That also assumes that mutation rates in mitochondrial DNA have remained fairly constant through all this time.

One good point that this article shows is that DNA testing on the Native American populations is far from being complete with all the questions answered. Even this work described in the article seems to be preliminary. Also, from what I can tell, most (possibly all) DNA work on Native American populations has focused on mtDNA. There could still be quite a bit of research done with the Y chromosome that could add much more information to the story.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelsannie
 





A person among this board stated that men will have unlimited sex in Heaven. First i must say, does that sound like a bad thing? As i see the world as proof, i would believe people would be rejoicing, as it is evident humans love procreation considering the vast population upon the world... As it stands now, the U.S. society has made the most beautiful element between a woman and a man the most shameful. This is what we could consider the advesary at His best. To inhibit a man his sexual right is to ask him to submit to emasculation. Furthermore, a woman in submission, acceptance and joy to her greatest power on earth becomes literally the most beautiful woman you will ever see. So may i ask why the condemnation regarding procreation?



The word used was constant not unlimited.

It is not mans God given right to have unlimited sex and it doesn't matter if that sex is with numerous wives as the Bible forbids polygamy.Therefore there is no condemnation regarding procreation,just condemnation against acts that go against the Laws of God.

Anyone in the position of submission,be they man or woman,can never be beautiful.The fact that you take away that persons rights means there will always be a level of resentment.
And acceptance doesn't come into it.If you are made submissive you don't have a choice do you?

If married couples want to have children it should be because both of them want to.There is no argument against this.
God may want us to have families,but he doesn't want us living a lie.He doesn't want us to be forced into anything because you can't love when in such a state.







However, if it be pure love you seek, i wish you to consider the amount of single mothers in our nation without responsible men in their lives to help care for their child,



Would these be the same responsible men who left a woman alone and with child??





Why would polygamy be bad?


You mean apart from the Bible and Mormon scriptures forbidding it??

The attitude of taking in single women/mothers would be admirable if it didn't involve marriage and was just a form of protection.
You don't need to marry a woman to protect her and once married the husband can easily turn round and say he has every right to have sex with her.And what happens if one of these wives meets someone else? Will she be allowed to divorce her husband? An even better question is,as polygamy means marriage to multiple husbands as well as wives,do you believe a woman is allowed to marry more than once? After all,men need protection too! And there are plenty of single fathers in the world today as well!





[edit on 22-3-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by enchantress62
 


Thanks for clarifying. I must say it is a pet peeve of mine when I see Christianity getting dragged through the mud and Christians criticized all over the board. When we defend ourselves or the faith, we are accused of being hypocrites (if we dare sink to a fraction of the level of our accuser), threatened (if we answer a question about our beliefs), delusional (if we talk about God), etc.

Then a Christian makes a thread and all we hear is, 'Live and let live!' 'Where's the love?' 'What's it to you?' To infinity.


I feel your pain! lol I guess it's more exciting to fight about beliefs instead of discussing them. What's interesting to me is that ppl set up threads and the discussion is great as long as the majority agree on the general belief, but in my mind I think we grow more when we challange each others belief systems, I just wish we could do it without making each other out to be the bad guy! I'm as guilty of this as the next person and it's something I've been looking at closely lately.

I don't know anything about the Mormon's except what others have told me, but I do live amongst them and they seem nice in a stand offish kind of way. They wont give my family the time of day. lol Sometimes I wonder if they somehow know we're Wiccan even though we don't advertise it. I do know that there was a big controversy about them a few years back when some of their Paligamy groups were exposed and I think one or more of the men participating was thrown in jail. But, in all fairness everyone of our religions have had weird ppl distort our beliefs for selfish and criminal purposes.




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join