That's because there is no scriptural basis for it.

D&C actually condemns it, in requiring any woman to be a plural wife must be a virgin and not "vowed" to another man. (v 61)

That does not leave any room for polyandry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2019 04:01PM by RPackham.

Thank YOU for chiming in Sir Richard!

It's been a while.

I am still hugely indebted to You and your fabulous Web page early on...

http://packham.n4m.org/index.htm

Hope all is well with You and Yours in your neck of the woods!

This moment also gives me the opportunity to Wish You a Wonderful rest of the year along with an upcoming Fun Halloween and Happy Thanksgiving and Happy Holiday Season to You all...as well as hoping Mother Nature grants You a White Xmas!!!

Being the terminal nostalgic that I am...I'm also sending this link along to you as well...a little corny perhaps...but still one of my faves...Enjoy Sir!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsxBCb03JCo

Good to see you still chiming in Richard. I actually rarely come on here but glad to see some familiar names.

Bill

You see, it's not mentioned in the New Testament because evil men edited it out. However, even though the fullness of the gospel was restored in the BoM, when JC spent a few days "teaching and preaching" in the New World, it somehow slipped his mind that you can't get into Super VIP Heaven without plural wives.

Joe made his gospel even more sexist and abusive but because it happened long ago and his successors convinced their country that they weren't the love child of melomaniac and millenarian madmen.

Yet, the BoM is "the most perfect book in the world, and contains (get this) the fullness of the Gospel." Fullness, except for all the things that Mormon presidents and apostholes have had to sneak in over the years because of unidentified evil men doing God-knows-what to the scriptures. But the BoM contains the "fullness." Somehow.

Fullness is like voting, like endowing, like sealing isn't it? They have their milk and their meat but their milk is weak (all the GA cream scraping) and their meat is soylent green - a lie. They are eating their ancestors and thinking it is profound and spiritual.

I"m not sure of a verse either, but the idea is that there are two marriages, one for the physical and then celestial marriage. Joes 50 something wives were celestial, meaning that he wasn't responsible for child support, alimony, inheritances, etc. All these women kept their own names and were free to marry any man for physical pleasure they wanted.

That was the story of Zina-Diantha-Huntington-Smith-Young. Mr. Huntington was just the sperm bank, her offspring supposedly belonged to Smith celestially, And Brigham was in the picture just for fun? But Brig did finally get tired of Zina and told her to go home to her real husband.

Zina's real husband actually had the name Jacobs. So her name is even longer!

ordinances for the dead can be deleted because the Book of Mormon contains exactly NOTHING that supports any of it. (Of course, if they want to stop claiming that the Book of Mormon contains the "fullness of the gospel" I guess all bets are off.)

I think any thinking Mormon should realize by now that there is a distinct possibility that everything associated with their temples is entirely optional and extra credit. It's a simple and obvious fact that everything that has been deleted during the past 30 years was, prior to deletion, regarded as essential and integral to the ordinances. So if those things were expendable, why not everything else. They only started to be viewed as optional AFTER they were deleted.

It's manifestly ridiculous. The dead work is entirely nonsensical. Nobody can even explain why the entirely symbolic act of plunging the physical body of [living human being A] would be required for or of any benefit whatsoever to the spirit of [dead human being B].

If there are spirits in the spirit realm, can't there be a spiritual version or manifestation of something like water? All the pictures and illustrations of the spirit world show flowers, meadows and waterfalls and such. Why not dunk the spirits into spirit water? Can't they practice handshakes using their spirit body hands?

It's moronic in the extreme.

Speaking of dead dunking, dontcha think that if Jesus was going to destroy all those cities when he was crucifried, he would preach baptism for the remission of sins for dead folks that he just killed, since...you know...it was fresh in the minds of the survivors?

Dead processing requires lots and lots of discretionary income. Not enough senines.

I am loathe to disagree with Sir Richard (props!), but Joseph Smith built a polyandry loophole into D&C 132:

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.


In other words, if it has been "appointed unto her by the holy anointing", then it is NOT adultery for her to be with another man. Gee, I wonder who would have had the authority to appoint it by the holy anointing?

What does holy anointing entail?

Good question. I wonder if it might be a reference to the 2nd Anointing, but I also doubt that Joseph Smith wanted to pin himself down with a clear definition (why provide clear definitions, when you can simply make it up as you go).

Interesting theory. If true I wonder how many second anointers are private polygamists?

Damn, Fac3, that is an excellent observation. I've never read that verse in that way, but it does indeed create a loophole.

What an asshole JS was, having God say that it would be okay to sleep with married women.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What an asshole JS was, having God say that it
> would be okay to sleep with married women.

Based upon Joe's judgements of worthiness and authority. Cult leaders from before and after have used this loophole.

There are times when imprecise language reflects stupidity, other times when it is a politically wise means of saying something in a way that people don't catch. The verse you cite is an example of the latter. It does not explicitly endorse polyandry but it can be used retrospectively to justify such behavior.

I am astonished again that the other men who wrote and revised the D&C put up with this. They knew full well what that statement meant and why it was essential to keep it in the D&C. It is things like this--the extent of, and number of people involved in, the evil--that turn my stomach.

+1

In other words, if it has been "appointed unto her by the holy anointing", then it is NOT adultery for her to be with another man.

What we don't know probably explains the Rusty-Wendy-Sheri triangle.