Why does the Husband Not Need Permission from his Wife?

[Maia]

Late reply sorry: That is scriptural. God created everything, and pronounced it all "very good" (Genesis 1). Would God make the original humans' DNA correctly, or intentionally make it with defects? If it had defects, would he call it "very good"?

I would point out that "very good" is a very week superlative, in fact I am not certain if linguistically it would be considered a superlative. So we are not excellent, exquisite, magnificent, sterling, no, we are "very good."

Honestly, I think you're rejecting this fundamentally, on a subconscious level, simply because it grosses you out, and your other arguments exist just to find a reason for what you have already decided. I find it gross too, but that's just cultural bias. Marriage of close relatives has been common in many cultures throughout history, and people who are raised to expect it don't find it gross. We only see it as gross because you and I have been raised in cultures that see it as gross. We have to be very careful not to read scripture through the lens of our own cultural biases.

I would view it from the perspectives of genetics, even marrying a cousin can be a problem if done over generations.

 

[Ǣne]

I did not see anything hostile in her message. Husabnds are to love their wives.

I did. I could have been mistaken but she did lob shots at a large number of topics touchy to several individuals here, that had nothing to do with the OP. That indicates, to me, something other than interest in discourse. Her response to my response clearly was. And as such I will not address any of her comments any more, as she seems well enough versed in principles of logic and rhetoric and their uses (both positive and negative) that she already knows the answers to her challenges, I'm sure.

Now it is not the husband's responsibility if the wife leaves, but Scripture clearly states that the husband is to love his wife as Christ lovedd the church!

I'm not sure where you got the impression I thought a husband shouldn't love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

The difference here is that your employees come to you with the understanding that you will hire other employees. Most of our wives came to us with the understanding that she would be the only one. That complicates this whole issue when to turn around and receive a revelation from God that she is blindsided by, after she has already made the committment to us.

Most, but not all. Again, this is a cultural subtext of LDS thought, or has been in the past and was still highly normal at the time my Bride and I were married in the early 1990's. Plus, our marriage vows did not state the female to male relationship as exclusive or have any language indicating that, such as "forsaking all others" or some such. In fact, though I knew at the time it was just a thought exercise, she did state that if the Church ever brought it back she'd want it to be a sister of hers or a really good friend. At the time, I was in full rejection of the idea.

We have alredy addressed the fact that there is no "Law of Sarah" in Scriptures, and that this website here is "Biblical Families", not "Book of Mormon Families".

The idea that LDS (particularly non-MSLDS) term the "Law of Sarah" is most definitely NOT derived from the Book of Mormon. Just as there is no "Law of Oaths" named as such in the OT most believers in that collection of scripture, that I have known, agree that a "law" of that sort is described and binding.

Again, @IndianaLife made a comment, about which I commented. I do not recall requiring you to accept the premise he and I share. It is a concept he and I share, even if we may not agree about it completely, nor did I expect him to agree with me. I understand where and how he may have come to his understanding, given my long history of contact with other than MSLDS persons, and I respect where he comes from, I just offered him my understanding. I will continue to respect his Faith if he does not agree with me.

To be honest, this is exactly why I have been here for about 2 years and never commented. As @Ruth Elizabeth intimated, I came here looking for a place that would not be hostile to devout seekers of truth, having to deal with the revelation that a Faith they had been raised and believed in had, in some ways, lost its way and its leaders had begun mixing scripture with philosophies of men, and would often turn on those who did not just fall in line with every new whim of doctrine and policy that got them social currency.

I answered @IndianaLife to let him know that, though he's LDS'ish, I was a fellow Brother-in-Christ who had some idea where he came from (faithwise) even if we did not have identical beliefs, and I would be there for at least some sense of "tribe" if he felt unwelcome.

So, I will drop the term that you are offended by so much, as suggested by @Ruth Elizabeth .

And, @Ruth Elizabeth , maybe I was a bit snippy or ... less than gentle. It was unintentional. Like @Maia, I am a bit blunt at times. Maybe it's my very recent German descent, or maybe that I spent many a year in Germany and old habits come back too easily? If I was overly blunt, @Maia , I apologize.

One last thing, and this is somewhat in response to your gracious & welcoming tone @Daniel DeLuca :

I have learned a lot from this place, and have had many a question answered and many an answer confirmed here. I think a lot of questioning LDS people would do well to read many of the discussions here. There are not many places for people like me to go in regards to finding a Biblical basis to Family organization and Governance. The LDS Faith has strayed far from Biblical Marriage Principles. Recent (and not so recent) changes to policies, procedures and ordinances have begun to stray even further by redacting more and more Biblical content, context and language in favor of more socially palatable expressions.

Reading so many discussions here, that paralleled the last 35years of pondering, praying, searching, learning, translating, agonizing, screaming, crying, depression, disillusionment, anger at others for deceiving me and at myself for being deceived, and then feeling the peace that my offering to do and believe anything that God wanted me to believe was accepted, and the assurance I found in the Spirit that if I would, He would make me understand, in His own time, made me feel, when I found this site 2 years ago, like this place might be . . . well . . . a place I could continue to be learning and growing.

 

[Ruth Elizabeth]

Look at this from my perspective. This forum is the first time in my life that I have debated a flat earther. I knew they existed, but I thought it was so fringe that one would never encounter one. Yet I encountered one here. Granted he was shut down by some, however that does cause me to question what the overlap is between people who take an extreme stance on scripture, and fringe ideas.

Travel to the UK. It was the first time I ever met people who literally wore tinfoil hats and I promise you they were anything but religious. Although I disagree with the flat earth idea, it's the first time I have joined a forum, but know it was the internet I expected to run into some of that at some point.

Now you are starting to enter very dangerous territory, since this is the kind of reasoning that is used to justify religious warfare, and religious killings.

Anyone who uses scripture to justify dominance, or sufferings of others is a threat.

If we can't use the word submission without entering dangerous territory then we are in trouble because God said this:
"21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:"

Now, like you, I do believe that the bible is not always translated perfectly. For example, the german and english bible disagree on some important translations. But I know this scripture is right.

By saying for wives to submit themselves unto their husbands we are not telling them to get an abortion if their husband says so, for wisdom and morality know that is wrong. We are not saying that wives are never allowed to get a divorce, because I do believe in certain cases that should be the answer, though in many I think it is important to give the man time to repent if he really is in the wrong. There will always be exceptions to cases.

There will always be people who try to misuse and abuse a principle and we all know that is wrong. But that does not make the principle itself altogether bad. For instance you know that marriage is a good principle. But even among my friends some of them had family situations where that principle was abused and marriage seemed like a trap. Kindness and mercy are good and important principles, but even they can be abused when unrepentant rapists and murderers are set free or given little to no sentence at all. There cannot be mercy without justice.

We cannot abandon a good principle because we have seen them abused and misused. Rather it is our responsibility to learn and understand how to apply a principle correctly.

Let me put one edit in there. Of course laws of man can be corrupt as well. The people who were hiding Anna Frank were technically criminals after all, and the people who handed her to the Nazis were law abiding citizens. So some laws should be ignored. Which ones are those? Well, that can be tricky.

If you have a moral conscience it won't be as tricky as it appears. No one had to be christian to know that it was wrong to murder the Jews.

 

[Ǣne]

I like it.

Appreciated

View attachment 8535
Heh, sorry...just popped in my head. Bringing home some random rockabilly girl you met at rollerderby...'Honey! Come meet your new sister wife. Y'all should get matching tattoos!'

Good one. Long time since I've heard that song.
But matching tattoos, that's a keeper of an idea.
But I have no tats, the wife has none, and there really is, IMHO, nothing quite as beautiful as the unblemished female form.

But if she really wanted to, I'd still love and want her. Especially if she (as FW) got NCC-1701 put somewhere discreet and SW got NCC-1702?
I could go for that.

Welcome to the party.

Thanks

Though if this joint getting off track seems weird, you really could not have been lurking all that long.

I'm not surprised in the slightest. Was just trying to help get back to something resembling the subject of OP. Seems like some other posters were going somewhere and kept getting derailed by Climate Change, Lambos, et al. Again no dis against @Maia.

It is like an extended family here at the holidays where there is no proscription against religion or politics being discussed...Likely at the holidays.
Fair warning...I am the irascible crazy (oooor is he?) Uncle, so that position is taken.

I have a Family much like you describe. Though my brother does raise his fist on occasion. He's the hot head. I'm not if you can believe it.

Hit the bar and make yourself comfortable

The bar?
You forget, I'm of LDS origin.
Though I don't think alcohol is a sin (early Church leaders drank and even Joseph Smith was known to down a pint) my Family history is neck deep in alcoholic tragedy (divorce, jail, cripplings, death, you name it), so I'm gonna stay a teetotaler. But I have played the "Designated Driver" on many a Friday night. Call anytime if you're in the area and need a ride.

 

[Ruth Elizabeth]

We cannot abandon a good principle because we have seen them abused and misused. Rather it is our responsibility to learn and understand how to apply a principle correctly.

Ah! I think I found a better way to explain it!
The principle of a wife submitting to their husband is a good principle although many and most men misuse and abuse it. (I honestly don't believe that there is an immoral man who won't abuse his wife in some way or another and many men are immoral...) It is important to be careful as there are such men but it's not good to accuse all men who preach the principle of being bad.
Sort of like disciplining a child. Parents are supposed to raise their children up right and sometimes that requires disciplining of some sort or another. The principle itself is fine. I know I've done things that deserved my sitting in time out or whatever, as a child. But there are some parents who genuinely abuse their children in the name of discipline. Does this make all disciplining bad? No. Does some disciplining being okay excuse an abusive parent? No.

Actually you could just apply the principle of submission of children to a parent. Children should obey their parents. Are some parents evil? Yes? Does this mean that there are exceptions to obeying everything a parents says? Yes. Does that mean that all parents who require some form of obedience in their home are bad? Heaven forbid, no.

Well anyway, it's been a long ramble, but it seemed to me that, you, Maia were taking the principle itself as the bad thing. If I'm wrong, sorry about that.

 

[frederick]

Now I'm on the boat that we drop the law of Sarah debate as no one but LDS people know what we're talking about on a public thread but I wanted to make the point that if I had said that as a suggestion, or as logic, not calling it by an LDS term (and without you knowing that I was LDS) that it would have been not considered that offensive.

Thank you for posting your comments as I had not heard of the Law of Sarah previously. If it was referred to as the Example of Sarah who offered a woman to her husband rather than fighting him over the idea of polygyny, you'd likely have had no push-back. We can also look at the examples of Rachel and Leah who sought to overcome their personal problems by each offering their husband another wife. The current feminist and religious culture, which is evil and unbiblical, have robbed women of one particular opportunity to offer a solution to a problem affecting many - and that is very sad. Shalom

 

[frederick]

Reading so many discussions here, that paralleled the last 35years of pondering, praying, searching, learning, translating, agonizing, screaming, crying, depression, disillusionment, anger at others for deceiving me and at myself for being deceived, and then feeling the peace that my offering to do and believe anything that God wanted me to believe was accepted, and the assurance I found in the Spirit that if I would, He would make me understand, in His own time, made me feel, when I found this site 2 years ago, like this place might be . . . well . . . a place I could continue to be learning and growing.

Honestly, I pray you will continue to learn and grow here. Shalom

 

[paterfamilias]

Appreciated

Good one. Long time since I've heard that song.
But matching tattoos, that's a keeper of an idea.
But I have no tats, the wife has none, and there really is, IMHO, nothing quite as beautiful as the unblemished female form.

But if she really wanted to, I'd still love and want her. Especially if she (as FW) got NCC-1701 put somewhere discreet and SW got NCC-1702?
I could go for that.

Not fond of them myself and overtly dislike the trend.
That said, I have been around them and the culture more than I particularly enjoyed. Dad started getting them after his second wife died and he had a difficult time of it. Pretty much his whole upper body covered but at least it was with reproductions of his own sculptures and Neolithic cave paintings so he did not look like everyone else. He apparently even owned a tattoo parlor for a couple of years and traveled around with some famous artist at shows from time to time.
All very odd to me but then I was not a retired guy with time money and bad emotional trauma to work through and he seemed to enjoy it.

I also prefer girl over doodles.

I'm not surprised in the slightest. Was just trying to help get back to something resembling the subject of OP. Seems like some other posters were going somewhere and kept getting derailed by Climate Change, Lambos, et al. Again no dis against @Maia.

I have a Family much like you describe. Though my brother does raise his fist on occasion. He's the hot head. I'm not if you can believe it.

I am and more than a little but I make a point of not displaying it here and ideally not much if I can avoid it.
I am the loonstic however who might see some guys attacking a single guy at a bar or a hotel after a wedding or this one time at the grocery store of all places and take off my Clark Kent glasses, expose my super dumbass costume and jump the group.
Not done that sort of thing since my kid was born though so there may be some hope for me on the hothead front.

The bar?
You forget, I'm of LDS origin.

Less forget and more not assuming your degree of jack mormonism either pro or con. But it is more a metaphorical bar anyway...and with your trekie bent, would you break ranks the once if you got the opportunity to step through a portal into the Star Trek universe in a world as myth multiverse scenario and try something like Romulan ale or toast some Aldebaran whiskey with Mr Scot in 10 Forward?

I would do the bit with the whiskey myself even though I am not as much of a drinker as I once was. It would be more about the interaction with the character though and the vibe of the shared ritual and moment.

Though I don't think alcohol is a sin (early Church leaders drank and even Joseph Smith was known to down a pint) my Family history is neck deep in alcoholic tragedy (divorce, jail, cripplings, death, you name it), so I'm gonna stay a teetotaler. But I have played the "Designated Driver" on many a Friday night. Call anytime if you're in the area and need a ride.

Unfortunate that you have been close to the ugly part of drink.

I used to be quite into it myself. In large part a collector but did the sommelier thing and was 3/4 of the way through the process of opening a distillery before some family issues took higher priority.
Would have been fun but I suspect I would still have backed off drinking in large part in time even if I had opened the plant.

Now I just have to figure out what to do with a couple hundred bottles of whiskey and well...more. Lots more.
Likely in good shape if we get into shtf situation and I need barter goods.

Glad to see you decided to join the conversation.
I may have questions here and there about Mormons.
For example...I have always like the prepper vibe that Mormons promoted but I am told that has eased off some of late. Do you know if the Fundy crowd is more or less preppery if indeed that is a word?

 

[Ruth Elizabeth]

The bar?
You forget, I'm of LDS origin.
Though I don't think alcohol is a sin (early Church leaders drank and even Joseph Smith was known to down a pint) my Family history is neck deep in alcoholic tragedy (divorce, jail, cripplings, death, you name it), so I'm gonna stay a teetotaler. But I have played the "Designated Driver" on many a Friday night. Call anytime if you're in the area and need a ride.

Well the D&C did say that it was because their enemies would try to harm them. And they were poisoned an awful lot... They could make their own wine and beer though

Less forget and more not assuming your degree of jack mormonism either pro or con. But it is more a metaphorical bar anyway...

Pubs are better than bars

Glad to see you decided to join the conversation.
I may have questions here and there about Mormons.
For example...I have always like the prepper vibe that Mormons promoted but I am told that has eased off some of late.

Define prepper?
As in canning and being prepared? Yes, very much in some areas, especially Utah. My grandma has a storage room about the size of my bedroom filled with food she has grown, dried out, and canned. Added to the cocoa powder and boxes of chocolate.
Otherwise I find Utah mormons to be preppy, bubbly, scheduled, and rich. Oh and they hug just about anyone and everyone. In my mind they pretty much embody the student body president personality.

 

[Maia]

If we can't use the word submission without entering dangerous territory then we are in trouble because God said this:

I meant more akin to subjugating an entire culture or sub group, but my language was indeed not precise.

"21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:"

Why not use the Prophet Deborah as a role model?

She was leading Israel at the time, she was a judge, she judges people, she was very judgmental. She had to kick General Barak into action, and since he could not tie his shoes without help, she had to hold his hand all the way to Canaan, telling him when to attack.

If you have a moral conscience it won't be as tricky as it appears. No one had to be christian to know that it was wrong to murder the Jews.

Almost everyone agrees yes, except for a small minority who does not forgive the Jews for killing Jesus, but they do not really factor into the discussion. But when it comes to the Nazis killing Gays I think you will find less people wanting to condemn that, there are people on the extreme right calling for gay people to be executed. It is interesting, everyone knows that the Jews were forced to wear a Star of David, less people know that Gays had to wear a pink triangle. Even the Jews have some issues with this. There was an uproar in Germany a few years ago. It was regarding a monument to victims of the holocaust. Some on the Jewish side were complaining that their suffering was being remembered together with the suffering of gays, gypsies etc. I guess, even if you share a concentration camp with other people, some people still look down on their cell mates.


The golden rule, always the golden rule.

 

[steve]

Why not use the Prophet Deborah as a role model?

In a society where men are not patriarchal you are right, the Deborah’s need to lead.

Our focus is on fixing the failures of men.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I would point out that "very good" is a very week superlative, in fact I am not certain if linguistically it would be considered a superlative. So we are not excellent, exquisite, magnificent, sterling, no, we are "very good."

I would view it from the perspectives of genetics, even marrying a cousin can be a problem if done over generations.

But why would God make Adam and Eve with genetic defects, if He could just make them without any defects, and if He foreknew that their sons and daughters would have no choice but to intermarry and pass down those defects. Is it not more logical to believe that God made them without any physical genetic defects, and that those defects occurred over time, through mutations?

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Most, but not all. Again, this is a cultural subtext of LDS thought, or has been in the past and was still highly normal at the time my Bride and I were married in the early 1990's. Plus, our marriage vows did not state the female to male relationship as exclusive or have any language indicating that, such as "forsaking all others" or some such. In fact, though I knew at the time it was just a thought exercise, she did state that if the Church ever brought it back she'd want it to be a sister of hers or a really good friend. At the time, I was in full rejection of the idea.

Well mainline LDS women do generally believe that God gave a revelation that polygyny is no longer permitted, but they are also more likely to be convinced that the mainline religion is not the true religion, and in turn, are willing to accept a different variant of LDS beliefs such as AUB or FLDS. I still don't recommend jumping to the next step without her consent. You are just in a situation, where you would have a lot less persuading to do than those coming from non LDS religions. ou might have more dificulty if you were to try to convince her that the LDS faith is wrong, and that you should join a Baptist or Pentacostal church.

Ultimately, our concern here at Biblical Families, is that people come to a right understanding of who Jesus is, and who God the Father is, so that they might receive Jesus as revealed in the Scripture that was "once for all delivered to God's Holy people" Jude 3. We don't, for example, believe that Jesus went off somewhere and had 3 wives, but rather that He ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father Heb 8:1.

I have one other word of caution I would give regarding FLDS; There have been occasions where the prophet of a given branch, has done certain things, such as the Lebarron clan, or Warren Jeffs who acquired some of his wives, by taking them from other men in the church. It does you no good to get your wife on board, only to see her become one of the prophet's wives. In addition, we here at Biblical Families do not agree with the notion that having additional wives is a requirement to go to the third heaven. God has given some men the desire to have more than one, while others, have no desire for a second wife, but recognize that God allows it. I will also say that the idea of preparing to become a god one day, is quite problematic, as God does judge people, and a religion that teaches that all people are God's children, naturally would expect future gods to judge their own children, in like manner.

 

[Ruth Elizabeth]

Why not use the Prophet Deborah as a role model?

Haha! She's great and good for a girl like you! I respect her but I always preferred stories like Ruth or Esther. Being in charge has never been something I want. My sister loves the story of Jael which I find funny, but it suits her well. The nice thing about the bible is you can see that there is more than one way to be good and to do right without people having to be cookie cutter.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Haha! She's great and good for a girl like you! I respect her but I always preferred stories like Ruth or Esther. Being in charge has never been something I want. My sister loves the story of Jael which I find funny, but it suits her well. The nice thing about the bible is you can see that there is more than one way to be good and to do right without people having to be cookie cutter.

Jael is funny! She was given that role because of Barak's hesitance. Ironically, I believe this is the only place in Scripture where is says "Do not be afraid", where the individual whom it was spoken to, should have been afraid.

Another interesting story is when Abimelech, son of Gideon's concubine asks his soldier to run him through with the sword so that people would not be able to say that a woman killed him.

 

[paterfamilias]

Pubs are better than bars

Vastly

Define prepper?
As in canning and being prepared? Yes, very much in some areas, especially Utah. My grandma has a storage room about the size of my bedroom filled with food she has grown, dried out, and canned. Added to the cocoa powder and boxes of chocolate.

It is quite a spectrum really.
There are loons like me

Who has made it into a hobby as well as simply having a bunch of extra food...can hear Noah building his boat right now in real time and the election or economic changes etc will make no difference whatsoever if you listen to crazy people like me.

I think of a prepper as starting with having at least a month worth of extra shelf stable food, extra batteries and flashlights, water filtration and what not as the minimum to qualify. Just sensible emergency preparedness. The canning and description you gave of a bedroom sized room full of food sounds middle of that spectrum but I would want in the best possible spirits to talk to her about water and heat sources and so forth...see what plans and or hands on experience she had. Oes she have ideas or techniques I don't know..inquiring minds etc.. Then there are loons like me who think in terms of the lights going off and never coming back. I don't remotely think everyone needs to get on board my boat to stretch the analogy but a father has no choice but to work to ensure his children's future, regardless of what problem he sees on the horizon.
So I am the nut who thinks in terms of moving to remote a area and learning not just off grid living but preelectrical living as well as all the traditional Bert Gummer'esque crazy prepper guy stuff.
It is not all as looney as one might think. My current fascination is focused on dusting off what I know about hydrogeology and learning about converting scrubby dessert into good pastures and how to recharge you aquifer via rain water harvesting on a large scale.

Otherwise I find Utah mormons to be preppy, bubbly, scheduled, and rich. Oh and they hug just about anyone and everyone. In my mind they pretty much embody the student body president personality.

That sort of a thing as well as the older generation having the over sized pantry full of home canned goods are part of why I am fond of some of them I have encountered.

They make for a great contrast to my own suspicious and moderately grumpy nature, which can be pleasant in such an overtly black pilled world.

Am I correct though in that the canning and prepping part of the culture seems to be fading?

 

[Ǣne]

I was going to expound on my thoughts here in the hopes that you and I can come to some mutual understanding...not necessarily agreement...but as it got longer and longer, I deleted the 1st 100 pages and decided I'll be a bit more succinct.

Well mainline LDS women do generally believe that God gave a revelation that polygyny is no longer permitted, but they are also more likely to be convinced that the mainline religion is not the true religion, and in turn, are willing to accept a different variant of LDS beliefs such as AUB or FLDS.

Strangely enough, you are correct. LDS women (in general not necessarily individually) do tend towards the all-or-nothing approach, kind of a "baby with the bathwater" thing.

That whole thing with the "revelation" about ending polygyny always bothered me. The talk at the time and even still is very...measured... and deliberate. There was no "revelation" per se, but things were termed and related to imply "revelation" without expressly declaring it, more of a "I FEELZ God would rather me to slow this down and stop it rather than risk losing the Church's property to the US Gov't" thing than a "Thus saith the Lord" thing.

I still don't recommend jumping to the next step without her consent.

Nor do I.
I only stated such permission was not required.

There's often a wide distance between "Can I?" and "Should I?".

You are just in a situation, where you would have a lot less persuading to do than those coming from non LDS religions. ou might have more dificulty if you were to try to convince her that the LDS faith is wrong, and that you should join a Baptist or Pentacostal church.

Not so much that the LDS Faith has some issues where they're wrong but moving to an entirely new denomination and dropping many of our core cherished beliefs, "True Dat."

This though, is not what I am advocating.

Ultimately, our concern here at Biblical Families, is that people come to a right understanding of who Jesus is, and who God the Father is, so that they might receive Jesus as revealed in the Scripture that was "once for all delivered to God

As is mine. Most objection I have seen from non-LDS'ish Christians to LDS'ish doctrine stems not only from a misunderstanding of the LDS Doctrines by said persons but a misunderstanding by the general LDS members and an atrocious and deliberately divisive explanation of them by both LDS leadership and those in opposition to LDS in general.

You are, of course free to agree with that or disagree (as I think is the likely) or to delineate your definition of Faith in Christ how you wish.

Just keep in mind that my Testimony of The Christ as the one and only Way, Truth an Life, and that none comes to the Father but through Him is not negotiable or diminishable by any man that decides to narrow or broaden his own perspective to invalidate or impugn my Faith. When I began questioning, the first question I had was about Christ. The experiences I had in seeking Him and the very personal and loving response He so graciously condescend to give to me (a nobody, a po' boy who grew up in podunk mostly barefoot in hand-me-downs & my first bathroom an outhouse) placed me on a footing of stone that I can never deny or relinquish.

I have one other word of caution I would give regarding FLDS; There have been occasions where the prophet of a given branch, has done certain things, such as the Lebarron clan, or Warren Jeffs who acquired some of his wives, by taking them from other men in the church. It does you no good to get your wife on board, only tosee her become one fo the prophet's wives.

Not considering any FLDS or other Fundamentalist splinter group. They usually suffer from advanced cases of what Joseph Smith warned about Church Leaders exercising "unrighteous dominion" by virtual of nothing else but their ecclesiastical authority or priesthood. The MSLDS Church suffers from this as well, but has rarely taken it that as far as many of those "fundy" groups have.

No offense to any fundamentalist here. I just disagree with you about the authority structure and the limits (or lack of) of the authority of the ecclesiastical leaders. There may be many of them good and wise with much good to teach and that should be considered, but ultimately, I just believe they have exactly ZERO authority in the Family. And if they try to exercise that authority, "woe to the priesthood of that man" and they now have <ZERO.

The following is a topic for another discussion and one maybe not even appropriate for this Forum; I only include it to complete a correlating thought, but my long term research into Joseph Smith's attempts at building a Church has convinced me that before his death, he was attempting to organize it so that it would operate without a "One Man Rule". This was, of course, changed when Brigham Young assumed control of the Church, and Brigham, as a staunch authoritarian, reorganized the Church hierarchy to mirror his organization of the European Missions he oversaw as President of the then Quorum of the 12. He was able to do this by cleverly leaving out some key words of Joseph's directive on church organization and deemphasized Joseph's ideas of a Patriarchal Priesthood. This, along with the desperate nature of the Mormon "exodus", I think, led to the current state of the MSLDS and other flavors of LDS strong preference for a "One Ring to Rule them All" model of church.

And, yes, the darker implications of that quote are deliberate.

But, suffice it to say, my current understanding of God's will for believers, Families, Priesthood, Gospel and Teaching is Patriarchal.

In addition, we here at Biblical Families do not agree with the notion that having additional wives is a requirement to go to the third heaven. God has given some men the desire to have more than one, while others, have no desire for a second wife, but recognize that God allows it.

While I understand the origins of the Fundamentalist Mormon belief in that doctrine, I think there are issues with where some of them take it.

Maybe, Polygyny is a "superior" form of marriage (and consequently more difficult but offering more blessings if approached and executed correctly), or maybe it will afford special privileges awarded by God, but I do not share the idea that it is required for the "Third Heaven". In my opinion, that doctrine is dubious, at best.

I will say, there are some caveats there that I think are not relevant to anyone else but those of an LDS flavor or someone with a genuine interest in understand it without a major flameout. To those people, I'd be happy to discuss it. I will respect your opinion even if you don't mine, but I ask that you do. I recognize my knowledge and understanding are not perfect and so will earnestly listen to what you have to say.

But, no, such a thing is not within my belief structure as you stated it, nor can I see it as being rationally compatible.

I'm hoping some of my responses will help you understand where I come from and where I'm trying to go.

I honestly just want to return to my Father in Heaven and feel the arms of a Loving Savior again and know that in some small way, even if it was flawed, I have pleased him, as a good steward of that which he has place in charge of. I'm just coming to Him from a different starting place than you have. I hope you can understand that about me, and about my other Brothers and Sisters who have an LDS influence in their lives.

 

[Ǣne]

Honestly, I pray you will continue to learn and grow here. Shalom

That's the general plan.
I have been greatly edified by much that has been discussed on this site.

 

[paterfamilias]

My bad...choice of words: Ephebophilia. I had to look that up. I get into trouble when I assume I know the meaning of a word, and it turns out, not so much.

 

[OttoM]

True, but not a good place to go.
We strictly avoid the idea of less-than-legal age marriages on this site.

Agreed - deleted.