Seminarysnoozer
-
Posts
3421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Seminarysnoozer
-
-
Sorry if I seem brief or overly critical. Right now I have little time to think this through as well as I should but feel I should respond. Whenever a new lady attends a ward, ward members will all begin to judge her on many levels. Those with certain leadership callings will judge the lady for possible callings in their organizations. Many with prayer will think to submit her name to fulfill a position or they will pass thinking not to submit the name. Some will consider personal contact outside of church such as employing the lady to watch their children while they do other things. Some will also judge thinking before offering or condemning in a sense – they will research and “get to know the lady better”. The point being that they have prejudice purpose in getting to know her better.
There are other factors. What if she had a full sleeve tattoo on one of her arms or you observe her flirting with some of the good looking married men in the ward or even worse flirting with some of the other ladies of the ward. The only point I am trying to make is that if you see any “red flags” or think to befriend her – you are making a judgment. Sometimes the judgments may even come from direct promptings of the spirit. In this point I have use negative impressions but positive impressions are no less judgments.
I think I want to end with this final point in addressing your use of the women taken in adultery before Christ. You seemed to say Jesus refrained from judging her – but I disagree. He spoke to her directly in telling her to go and sin no more. He did judge her as someone that had sinned. We can also see that he treated her very differently than he treated others that he judged less harshly. The example is that he told her to “go”. Whereas he judged others and said come and follow me.
The difference to me is that in all cases when Jesus judged others he opened to them new opportunities and chances. He let them decide for themselves what they would do. This may be what you see as not making a final judgment. But it appears to me that you think G-d only should make final judgments. This is where I think you have everything upside down and backwards. I believe G-d always does as Jesus demonstrated – presents other opportunities and possibilities. It is us that thinks to what we should or G-d should judge others; thinking there is no other course possible. Not just in what they are choosing but what we are choosing in regards to what we observe them choosing. I would add one last thing here - G-d wants us to behave and be just like him and I believe this also means to judge like him. If we believe G-ds judgments are final then we should seek in every we we can to be like him.
We are told to not judge and yet we are told to judge. Obviously, one has to make the distinction between those two contradictory commands. Mormon 8:20 says that judgement belongs to the Lord, it is not ours. If we obey the commandment to not judge under those specific circumstances then we are being righteous. To say that the line between judging and not judging is whether it is done righteously or not is not the line between those two contradictory statements.
If the commandment is to not judge, in certain circumstances, and one follows that commandment under those certain circumstances of not judging then it is done righteously, not judging righteously. Then there are times where we can discern the situation which we also use the word judge and for which we use the word judging righteously. "Judging righteously" cannot pertain to any area where we are told not to judge. There is judging and not judging, is one division. Then within the category for which we are allowed to judge, there is the potential for doing that righteously or not. But I think it is important to realize that there are areas in which we cannot judge period - righteous or unrighteous, makes no difference we cannot judge in those areas as Mormon 8:20 clearly says for judgement is mine. It was never intended to be ours.
Before you start to claim that this is my opinion etc, realize that many prophets and leaders of the church have stated this, it is not just my "opinion". Here are a few more for you to chew on beside the Dallin H. Oaks one I already gave you which I think is the best one. Brigham Young; "I am very thankful that it is not our province . . . to judge the world; if it were, we would ruin everything. We have not sufficient wisdom, our minds are not filled with the knowledge and power of God. . . . And we must also acquire the discretion that God exercises in being able to look into futurity, and to ascertain and know the results of our acts away in the future, even in eternity, before we will be capable of judging." and Joseph Smith; "While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard. . . . He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men . . . , “not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,” those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law."
President N. Eldon Tanner; "It is not possible to judge another fairly unless you know his desires, his faith, and his goals. Because of a different environment, unequal opportunity, and many other things, people are not in the same position. One may start at the top and the other at the bottom, and they may meet as they are going in opposite directions. Someone has said that it is not where you are but the direction in which you are going that counts; not how close you are to failure or success but which way you are headed. How can we, with all our weaknesses and frailties, dare to arrogate to ourselves the position of a judge? At best, man can judge only what he sees; he cannot judge the heart or the intention, or begin to judge the potential of his neighbor."
President Monson October 2010; "None of us is perfect. I know of no one who would profess to be so. And yet for some reason, despite our own imperfections, we have a tendency to point out those of others. We make judgments concerning their actions or inactions.
There is really no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances of someone who might say or do something we find reason to criticize. Thus the commandment: “Judge not.”
And I can find you 20 more that say the same thing.
The only way to make sense of that is to say that there are areas that we cannot judge - any that would require knowing "the heart, the intentions, or the cirucmstances of someone". Our leaders clearly state that there is "no way" that we can know those things, therefore we cannot judge anything that would require such insight. It is that simple. That is why Dallin H. Oaks uses the term intermediate judgements, to signify the things that we can judge. And within those things that we can judge there is the possibility of doing it righteously or not. Of the things we are told not to judge (condemnation-type judgement) it is always unrighteous because we cannot do it, we are not capable of doing it, and to think one can is missing the mote in the eye.
-
Ascent and descent, though oftentimes involves the physical, is essentially a spiritual journey. Case in point: when we descend in humility and enter a covenant relationship with the Lord and keep our end, we ascend spiritually. We inherit paradise, whereas those who descend spiritually, inherit prison. Coincidentally, this occurs upon a physical change (mortal death). Now consider that before this mortal sphere, Adam and Eve (mankind) ascended and inherited "paradise" when they were "created" or "born" or "reborn" in Eden. Then another descent occurred when Adam fell that men might be. We are continually ascending and descending from one creation to another, continually being reborn and being exalted.
The whole universe works this way, even the stars that are formed when they accumulate enough mass to start fusion, at which point they begin to give light. Adam's formation from the "dust" parallels the birth of a star. Just as we must obey laws to ascend to a higher status, so too, do cosmic bodies obey laws. Smaller bodies keep the "law" of the larger bodies (gravity, electrostatics). Moons orbit planets, while planets orbit stars, all of which, orbit a singularity at the center of the galaxy in a giant pattern. "The movement in unison of larger heavenly bodies and the lower nature of 'rogue' entities such as comets, asteroids and dust, parallel the 'oneness' of higher spiritual levels and the chaotic character of lower ones."-Avraham Gileadi
It may be a spiritual journey but does the actual status of the indvidual change?
I may watch a movie about a historical event, such as a show on World War 2, and take a "journey" in my mind about the events of that day and even witness the evils of that day but I didn't actually participate in those evils or have a change in my current status that is equal to what is experienced. I, in fact, may grow spiritually from taking such a journey. By being exposed to such evil things I might appreciate even more the freedoms we have and have been strengthened spiritually from watching such a thing. In other words, the "journey" may not directly correlate with the actual effects on the spirit self.
When children are born into this world they are protected by the atoning sacrifice of Christ so that the effects of the Fall do not change their status even though they experience the journey. Or do you believe that their spirits become fallen? How about Christ, Himself, when he descended, did His spiritual status change or just His surroundings and what he was exposed to change, what he faced changed? Or did He actually have a drop in spiritual status, making Him less than a glorious spirit being while He was here.
Often times we use words to imply that there is a covering, like the veil or even how we describe the body as the outer man as opposed to the inner man. This makes is metaphorically speaking suggest that there can be an outer covering that is different than the status of the inner. Just like if a put on a scary costume for a play does not mean that I am actually that person. Or if I go scuba diving under the water, I am still the same person but in a descended place. When an individual with Down's syndrome puts on that covering, does their spirit status take on the characteristics of that covering or does the spirit remain as it was under that covering, they are still their spirit self?
We are told that our spirit is the same spirit that leaves this world when we die. I would assume that the spirit that occupies our current body is also the same spirit that existed before we had the body as well. Or do you think there actually is a change, a descent, in the spirit as one enters the body at birth. I believe there is a descent when we sin, there can be changes to the spirit but otherwise, such as what happens before the age of accountability, the spirit remains the same pure and innocent spirit it was before even though they are in a descended place. Spiritual descent, as in the use of term refering to spiritual status, occurs with sin.
-
I think you have missed my point completely and as soon as you quoted Dalin Oakes you lost me and in essence are proving the point I am trying to make for you. Then in your final paragraph you make some very broad statements about what we can and cannot judge and why (the why being that we have no understanding of the inner man). But this is of itself a judgment and quite a final judgment at that implying that we cannot nor ever be able – That I see as a judgment – that you spend several preceding paragraphs declaring that we should not judge.
This then is the great contradiction – we can either judge or thus assess values in others and to what they are capable or we make no such assumptions and judgments. In addition I see no value is saying a judgment is final or not. To be real – I do not think a person can say – do not judge without some element of judgment.
To be honest I believe what is meant is that we do not judge without relying on G-d for clarification and validation. With my example in my previous post – I wanted to do to “them” in essence what they had done to me. I wanted to cause them harm and laugh and taunt them -- judging that I was right (meaning righteous) in my evil intension whereas they were wrong (not righteous) in their exact same intension. It really is not a matter of not judging as not being consistent. What is really meant is that we are consistent in our judgments. That we do not make exceptions for ourselves and our friends that we demand of others – especially our enemies.
But I am judging your response – as soon as you quote someone I am judging that you are exempting yourself and what you do (your examples) but what others (myself) do you judge as wrong. My only point is that everything is in essence a judgment – especially saying others should not judge.
Again, I think you are pointing out the deficiencies in our language. There are many examples in the gospel that a single word is used for multiple things, judging is one of them.
There are probably other uses but the two that we seem to keep going back and forth on are the use of the word as it pertains to 1.) our discernment of good and bad - relating to our agency to make decisions for ourself as it pertains to some kind of choice. and 2.) condemnation of another for their choice as being one that pushes them towards heaven or hell as it relates to God's final judgement.
Pulling it back to the original break off point that spawned this discusion; Lets say a 35 year old woman walked into your ward who was not married and had no children. Are you willing to say that you could "judge" her as the second type above to know why she chose not to get married and not to have children, knowing all of her desires and situation and opportunities in the past enough to give her a "final judgement" that her current situation of not being married and not having children is an evil thing that will not allow her to have an eternal family in the next life or be able to judge her that she has tried to have a family but the opportunity or ability was never an option for her and that is why she is not married. Are you willing to say that you could have, or I for that matter could have the ability to condemn her on the spot for her current situation?
From what I gather our conversations have been is that you would say yes, one could condemn such a woman as we could have access to all the variables that go into such a decision whereas I say no, we could not make such a condemnation as we are told that we cannot know all the variables to make such a condemnation.
Now that is not to say that we could not judge in general whether it is good or bad to desire or not desire to have an eternal family. That, for sure, we can judge. But again, that is a different use of the word "judge" than is condemning a person for their current choices in life and current situation. Even Jesus refrained from doing that to the adulterous woman.
Both of those are judgements yes but when it comes to saying that we should judge and that we should not judge, one can only come to reason between those two apparent contradicting commands with understanding that there are at least two different types of judgement. That is what Dalin H. Oaks explains and it makes sense to me.
-
I'm simply talking potential. We all have the same potential given to us by God. We also have agency and are and were free to do with that potential as we will. Not all will have chosen the same. But the potential is freely given.
I'm not saying we were all the same or had the same growth there. I'm not even saying necessarily that we all were even capable of growth at the same rate. I'm definitely not saying any of us could have been the Christ. I'm saying that, ultimately, we all have the same potential, everyone equally. That is given by God.
If we were all given the same potential then how does that translate to the idea that some were given much?
If you are saying the differences are in terms of growth or no growth, then the growth is where some were given more than others? That doesn't make sense to me. Not sure how you can say that growth is something "given". Again if you go back to saying it is just potential then you are not describing how some are given "much" meaning some are given not so much and yet you say we were all given the same. Please explain.
What part, exactly, could be described as "much" that is given that in comparison to someone else is more than what they were given?
-
Somewhere critical evidence is missing - either in the scripture witness or in the empirical record. I can understand somewhat if we think of the scriptures as symbolic but there were humans long before the time that scripture tells us that Adam existed and there is a preponderance of evidence that there was death taking place for hundreds of thousands of years on earth before the scriptures tell us that Adam fell and initially brought death for the first time. Obviously something is wrong somewhere and only one of the record possibilities even remotely allows for a possibility of humans tampering with and changing the evidence.
I agree that there is evidence missing but what also is missing is the exactness of our language.
There may be a possibility that we interchange the word death from a gospel standpoint to death from an antrhopological standpoint. In other words, just because there is organic tissue organized in forms that we call "human" does that automatically mean that there had to have been a spirit body attached to that organic material? I know it requires an open mind but when we talk about death from a gospel standpoint we are just talking about the sepration of a spirit body (body being the key word) from the physical body. If I lost a finger it would not be called "death" from a gospel standpoint even though some organic material would have died in the process of losing a finger. Or if I go in for in vitro fertalization there may be some zygotes that "die" in the process, was that the same kind of death we refer to from a gospel standpoint? Was there some spirit body (son or daughter of God) that became detatched to its corresponding physical body in that process? Or could it be that there is no spirit body (son or daughter of God) attached to the zygote sitting in the tube while it is "alive" in the tube?
Consider Adam as the first organic entity to receive a matching spirit body (son of God - spirit) and therefore becomes alive and the first "man" and therefore can suffer a "death" - meaning separation of the spirit body from the matching physical body. Before Adam, there very well could have been many DNA matching physical forms and organic material until it evolved or was manipulated enough to accept a spirit body or possibly the pre-Adam organic forms were a preparation to know when the body of Adam could be introduced into this world safely for God's purposes. If no spirit bodies attached to those pre-Adam physical bodies but were simply kept alive through the spirit creation that is in all material of the Earth, in the rocks, the water, the stem stells that are manipulated into skin cells etc, then there is no gospel use of the word "death" before Adam because he was the first to have a spirit body. And there was no "man" from the gospel definition of "man" as there was no corresponding son-of-God spirit body attached to those humanoids. From the antropology you are not going to find evidence that those entities once housed spirit bodies.
If I take a stem cell, turn it into skin cells, multiply them and separate them from the original cell and keep them alive in a lab, what spirit body is attached to those cells? If I take some stem cells and put them in a lab somewhere and the person who donated them dies, what spirit body is attached to those cells? If I donate a kidney and it sits in the container for several hours "alive" but clearly detached from my body before it is put into someone else - is the kidney dead or alive while it sits in the container? Depends on which death term one is using. It is organically alive but dead from being detached from a spirit body. If you think about it, organic material can be alive without a spirit body attached to it. Knowing that that can be true, organic material alive but not attached to any spirit body (even though the material may have its associated spirit just like a rock does) then just finding evidence of old organic material with similar DNA does not prove there was spirit separating type death before the presumed time Adam was around. The issue is a matter of defining words more than anything. What kind of death are we talking about?
-
Not to get all Clintonesque, but . . . Define "family", and define "together".
I mean, I'm sealed to my parents. We're an an "eternal family". But I live seven hundred miles away from them, and see them (if I'm lucky) six times per year. How can we be together forever, if we aren't even together in the here-and-now?
Heck, I'm sealed to my wife. We're supposed to be "together forever". But it's 4:30, and I'm at work in Salt Lake valley, and she's at home in Utah valley. How can we be "together forever" if we're not even together in this particular moment?
I know how our correlated materials have tried to simplify the matter and broaden its appeal to a 20th- and 21st-century western audience; but the parent/child sealing itself doesn't convey any ideas or promises of eternal and perpetual physical proximity. Rather, it conveys the idea of the child's being adopted into a royal lineage, which adoption makes the child the legal heir of certain blessings. (We've romanticized the idea of "adoption" over the last century; but legally at common law--the only reason you would bother with adopting a child was for inheritance reasons.)
Sure. Given that I think "together forever" is really such a nebulous thing, all I can really do is default back to the plan language of the rituals themselves. A man is sealed to his wife, and the two of them are bound by a covenant relationship. A child is sealed to his or her parents, and the parents are bound to that child by a covenant relationship. But a man's two wives are not sealed to each other, and siblings are not sealed to each other. They are bound by ties of love, respect, gratitude, pride, and the like; and surely those bonds will increase and strengthen as each party takes advantage of the inheritance that he/she has legally received by virtue of his/her sealing and place in the patriarchal order. But in my view, the sealing isn't about "togetherness" of parents and children: it's about making sure there's a legal path to attaining one's birthright.
I like your answer, it, for the most part, makes sense to me. For those same reasons, to me, it seems there is not much need for plural marriage to be continued in the next life. If the second or third wife (using your words but putting it into this context) "legally received by virture of (her) sealing and place in the patriarchal order" then there is no requriement for "togetherness" after if it is just about making sure there is a legal path to attaining one's blessings associated with the everlasting covenant. I also view that possibility in light of the idea that we perform vicarious covenents all the time and even a Savior who performs acts in our behalf that we could not do for ourselves. In other words, the stand-in mortal husband allows the second and third wives to obtain the blessings and benefit from those blessings while here in mortality and be allowed to continue with them in the next life when the stand-in husband is replaced with an eternal partner in a place where the numbers of men allow for that correction. And yes, there may be contiued relationships that go on beyond mortality, just like a brother loves his sister and that will continue in the next life for some.
Why is it that we say the "family" is the eternal unit and not "marriage" as the eternal unit? There must be some reason behind that.
-
I find our conversations interesting. However, I think the context of "Judge not and Judging" leaves a lot of room for judgment. As always I am a great believer in empirical understanding, intelligent discovery and drawing logical conclusions. The truth is that it is impossible to get through a day without exercising judgments of others. I ride a bicycle every day and I cannot assume that automobile drivers will even obey the law let alone do anything rationally. I live and could die based on my judgments of others.
To be honest I begin my judgments assuming that just about everybody else on the road are idiots and will do really stupid, bad and sometimes evil things. How raw, unpleasant and judgmental is that? I also have learned to be very forgiving of how stupid, sick and wrong others are. One time I had a pickup truck pull up alongside me then start to pull over - actually pushing (touching me) and forcing me into a drop off of over 6 feet down into a mostly empty canal. The occupants of the truck were laughing and taunting during this exercise. Not judging their evil intension sooner caused some damage to by bicycle and to my physical self – and though these are physical things to which you have argued in the past are more connected to evil than someone’s desire in their heart – I have learned to be more aware and quicker to judge of the evil intensions of harm from others. Though I believe such evil intensions come from spiritual flaws more that physical abnormalities of others – obviously from your many other posts you disagree. And though I try to consider your inputs; I have found great difficulty in applying of any empirical application.
Your suggestions are not worthless to me – they remind me of principles that should not be discarded. But I sometimes think you are overlooking application to your understandings. I think and believe G-d intends that we not just learn information but find application from what we think we are learning.
If you would be more specific in providing application to you understanding – It would help me a lot to understand what it is you are trying to say.
I think because of this very thing you have outlined Dalin H. Oaks has done a great job in explaining the idea of judging has multiple applications and so he has tried to at least delineate the differences between condemnation or what he calls "final judgements" vs intermediate judgements which are also called righteous judgements. From what I understand of that discussion, righteous judgements can never be of the "final judgement" type because the "final judgement" types require having all the knowledge of the whole situation including the motives, thoughts, desires of the heart of the person etc.
One of the "practical" ways to assure that one's judgements are righteous is to "As much as we can, we should judge people's situations rather than judging the people themselves." (according to the LDS.org gospel topic of Judging)
Here is Christ' example of not judging even when the woman was 'caught in the act'; "10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." He even said, he who is without sin to cast the first stone. So, he in essence gave permission for himself to cast the first stone, being without sin, and yet even in that setting He said 'neither do I condemn thee'.
With that example, I believe it to be extremely rare that one would have to condemn another, in other words, have to judge another. This is not the same as saying, knowing that we are in a fallen state and our bodies are not perfect and we live in this fallen world, people make mistakes and choose to do the wrong things and I will avoid the situations in which I might bring harm to myself or others because of those fallen features - that is not judging the person but the situation.
In a practical sense this may be hard for you again because you may have a hard time separating out the idea that a person can do something that is not driven by their true self - i.e their spirit self. How else, knowing that Christ was not there to judge the world (make a final judgement) could he say on the cross 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.'? He could say that because he knows there is a difference between the inner man and outer man, they are not one in the same, one does not directly reflect the other in action, thought or deed. Only God can separate out what comes from the inner man. We do not have that ability or responsibility or need.
-
FWIW, SS, if you listen to the temple sealing carefully, it doesn't set up a direct sealing between siblings either. Their formal "link" is merely that they are sealed to, and therefore happen to claim eternal blessings via the same individual.
Gospel Principles chapter 36 says; "Families can be together forever. To enjoy this blessing we must be married in the temple. When people are married outside the temple, the marriage ends when one of the partners dies. When we are married in the temple by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we are married for time and eternity. If we keep our covenants with the Lord, our families will be united eternally as husband, wife, and children. Death cannot separate us."
We are taught that families can be together forever. The basic unit is husband, wife and children. So in a plural marriage situation, if that really does exist outside mortal realms, are there multiple units using the same husband or are thy considered one family as in "families can be together forever", "united eternally as husband, wife and children"? If they are multiple units then there is no relationship between wives and yet there is a relationship between the children of one unit that is part of the family unit "together forever". But even the children from one unit will not be "together forever" with children of another unit.
One might say, well everyone who makes it into the Celestial Kingdom is sealed in some way to another. I accept that but most would say that there is a difference in being part of the Celestial family vs the bonds formed via eternal marriage. I am simply asking about the bonds that exist as part of the "families can be together forever" bond which, as gospel principles explains falls under the bonds based in eternal marriage.
-
This sounds like a silly question but I honestly do not understand this; What is the relationship between the wives in a plural marriage? Are they sealed to each other?
I have heard the term "sister wives" but I don't know if there really is some special relationship between the wives that would be part of an "eternal family" type relationship. We do not believe in same sex marriage, so this could not be a marriage-associated relationship. They are not actually sisters with each other - so the relationship would not be like sealing a children to the parents type relationship. What relationship if any really exists between the "sister wives" from an eternal perspective. I don't think there is anything 'sealed' between them. I could be wrong. I think the term "sister wives" is just a cute way to describe the relationship they have with each other but I am not aware of any legal or church designated association.
The programs on TV about polygmay like "Sister Wives", as the name suggests, seems to focus on that particular relationship - between the wives, even though, as far as I can tell, that relationship was never a focus or purpose of plural marriage in the first place. It has become a secondary, cute but bizarre, 'purpose' for polygamy. I don't think there was ever any intended sharing of the intimacies of one marriage with another between the wives so they really shouldn't be having any relationship one with the other any more than a "Sister" in the church would have with another "Sister". I realize the "Sister wives" show is nothing really like the polygamy families in the early church but it still raises the question of whether that was a relationship that was pursued and thought to continue into the next life or not, and if it is what is that relationship called - outside the colloquial name?
-
What I am not interested in is quote mining from the Journal of Discourses. And, specifically, arguing with you about the need for plural marriage -- primarily because unlike Traveler, I don't enjoy beating a horse to death and we've been through this many times. I find your views of polygamy highly biased by your distaste for it. You are free to that bias, but I see your arguments as flawed by that bias and don't see much use in the "nuh uh", "uh huh" sort of back and forth that is likely to come of it. Moreover, I find your points of view contradictory to decades of teachings concerning polygamy (with the exception of the aforementioned quote mining). It was very clearly taught that plural marriage was the order of heaven by many prophets and apostles. They taught that monogamy was flawed. They taught that polygamy was superior. You disregard those things because it does not favor your position. I could quote them to further debate. You would refute them with some other quote, and back and forth and so on? Seems like a waste of time to me.
The bottom line is, we have no idea on most of these things. There is specific evidence of the way it worked though, and a Journal of Discourse quote or two isn't going to change that. You can disagree all you want, but the historical record makes it fairly clear that wives did not choose their husband's other wives. The husbands found their own - consistently. Wives getting revelation for their husbands may have happened. It was certainly not "the rule".
Ok, thanks. I understand you now. As I thought, your view is that pleural marriage is supperior to monogomy.
You are right, as to that issue we probably would go back and forth. It was supperior when the law was given but clearly now is not supperior as one would be excommunicated from the church if one practiced polygamy. So, again, to say it with such a blanket statement without focus on the circumstances is wrong. And that is all that I am saying. It cannot be stated with no regard to the circumstances as you wish it to be. It is not always superior, that is a false belief. I am not arguing the idea that at that time it was the superior thing to do for those called to do it. But for now I will side with President Hinckley; "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God." Clearly making it not superior to monogomous marriage, now.
(By the way, I never said that the wife chooses the other wife - If I did, I didn't intend to and don't believe that anyways).
-
Let me be a little more clear as to my sentiments about polygamy as some claim they know my sentiments well, I don't want to give a false presentation of my real sentiments.
I believe that there was a time when plural marriage was part of the law of God for His people and that all those who obeyed the law will receive blessings accordingly. Just as I feel with all laws of God, including things like animal sacrifice and cirumcision etc., all those who willingly obeyed those laws as they were given for those people at those times will be blessed for their obedience as they should be.
I also believe that their are laws given for specific times and circumstances and just because a law was given for a specific time does not necesarily mean that it is an eternal practice or that we should aspire to live such a law if we don't currently live it now any more than one would now aspire to living the law of animal sacrifice. I believe to hope for the law that once was or to consider it a "better way" just because it was once done should not be the case for every law given in the past. One should consider the circumstances and the reasons, many of which we will not fully understand in this life. Otherwise we have no basis to say that it is something that is continued or a higher law for which we hope to have or live by in the future. There are some times where that might be the case such as the united order. I do not look at polygamy as I do the united order. And some might interpret that as being wrong. WIth that, I think it is wrong to look at polygamy as a future higher law that we simply were not able to abide but in the future will be called to do so unless that is revealed to be the case.
President Hinckley; "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage."
It is possible that things which were laws of God change. They may be permanently stopped or a lesser practice is started until we are capable of practiciing the higher law such as with the United Order. J. Reuben Clark; "In light of the fact that we are not now required to live the law of consecration and the further fact that we have the welfare program which, as President Clark said, if put “thoroughly into operation … we shall not be … far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order,” I suppose the best way to live the principles of the law of consecration is to abide by the principles and practices of the welfare program." In that light we can safely hope for the time that we can fully live that law. But that approach, I don't think, is the way the church views pleural marriage, we don't see monogomous marriage as a lesser form of a higher practice. (I could be wrong, it has happened before).
My strong feelings are mostly directed towards the idea that because it was once a law it must be a better way of doing things and therefore must be what happens in the world to come. To feel that way about every law of God across the board without consideration of the details is wrong.
-
Snoozer, I'm not going to argue with you about plural marriage. I'm well aware of your strong sentiments concerning it. But your agenda driven selectivity in using Journal of Discourses quotes shows pretty quickly the pick-and-choose approach to pushing your ideas across. As we well know, the Journal of Discourses does not define doctrine, and there are contractions, and problematic statements that we do not understand throughout. We could go back and forth all day quoting Brigham Young to "prove" our points. I'm not interested. You're free to your view.
I appreciate what you are saying here. But this is a forum in which we are given the opportunity to express our beliefs and to discuss why we believe that way. To say I'm not interested in that makes me wonder why you participate in the discussion in the first place. If all you want is established doctrine about the church and no further discussion then just go to LDS.org and read on your own. You are free to your view and I am free to my view, now that we got that out of the way we can discuss the issues, if you don't want to, fine, don't read any further.
What I get out of this forum is the opportunity to express questions and thoughts that would otherwise remain as personal ponderings. There have been numerous times that I have expressed a belief and by responses to those statements it has caused me to dig into the issue further and has either changed my view or allowed me to understand the issues better. I have grown by the process. The process, requires making quick singled-out, focused statements to express the heart of the matter in a specific way. Because of the limitations of the forum I am not going to give you my whole understanding of the issue everytime I write something, that would be ridiculous. So, it has to come across as focused statements. If you think my interpretation of the statement is wrong, fine, say so. But to say that one cannot pick specific statements without including in a greater picture presentation, I think limits the forum process, it can't be done. I don't have enough time or effort that I would want to devote to such a process. I think it is wrong to dismiss an idea just because it is presented as a single idea, especially when we have already established the context.
I think it is important, when talking about polygamy, to understand the circumstances in which it was used which may be different from today. If one thinks polygamy is a law like paying tithing or something of that sort then one would also dismiss the discussion about the circumstances. But if one views polygamy like the commandment to only gather so much manna at a time unless it is the day before the Sabath, then a discussion of the circumstances is valid. What you have established is your strong belief that polygamy is an eternal, unchangeable, universal law irregardless of circumstances, at least that is what you are seemingly saying by not wanting to listen to any discussion of why it might be a commandment that was given for a specific time and place. If one believes the commandment was given for a specific time and place, under specific circumstances that are no longer at play now then that becomes a valid part of the discussion of the opening post which was about how one would react to it being reinstituted today.
-
You're right except for the "need" part. Good luck supporting the idea that all the polygamous marriages were done out of need on everyone's part. That's a pretty big stretch. Beyond that, though, ALL temple marriages are done with leadership approval and based on worthiness. The special circumstance was that God allowed it -- rather, God commanded it.
I don't need luck, just Brigham Youngs words. If God commanded it, it is a need. Good luck separating "need" from commandment!!
As Brigham Young explains, the "need" (used the word necesity) from the man's standpoint is that if he has a talent (living a Celestial worthy marriage) then it should not be hidden and if hidden when asked not to be hidden, it will be taken away as the parable of the ten talents suggested. So, for even the man who takes on the calling of plural marriage when plural marriage is commanded, it becomes a needful thing for his salvation.
Brigham Young; "Now, where a man in this Church says, “I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever."
-
The required revelation to bring a second wife in (particularly by the first wife) thing is a strange idea. That's they way they do it in some of the break-away LDS sects, but that was never an official part of how it worked. Yes, a revelation that the principle was true might have be in good order. Beyond that, it's like any other marriage, where the parties must be willing. Revelation that they're the "right one" may be all fine and dandy. But certainly not necessary to the righteous enactment of "the principle" as they called it.
I know I'm addressing more than you meant. Just sharing my thoughts on it though, by way of discussion.
I disagree, it is not like any other marriage. The reason to take on a second wife was because there were not enough worthy men for which a woman could enjoy the blessings that come from living the principle of eternal marriage while here on Earth. With that in mind, the parties involved would have to consider which women would not otherwise have the ability to enjoy the blessings of eternal marriage covenant while on Earth. This relationship was not based in "falling in love" with someone they meet in the sense of a romantic relationship. It was more along the lines of a missionary tracting and being inspired to find the one person on the street who may accept the gospel. It was an inspired calling to help the sister who would otherwise not enjoy the blessing of that covenant but in every way was worthy of it.
Maybe Brigham Young's words will help with the understanding of this, from Journal of Discources; "As far as this pertains to our natural lives here, there are some who say it is very hard. They say, “This is rather a hard business; I don't like my husband to take a plurality of wives in the flesh.” Just a few words upon this. We would believe this doctrine entirely different from what it is presented to us, if we could do so. If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives. The women are entitled to salvation if they live according to the word that is given to them; and if their husbands are good men, and they are obedient to them, they are entitled to certain blessings, and they will have the privilege of receiving certain blessings that they cannot receive unless they are sealed to men who will be exalted."
He then goes on to explain that a man who does not want to take on plural wives at that time is kind of the like the parable of the ten talents, the one who takes his one talent and hides it, in the end he will be left with none because he did not use his talent to his fullest. In other words, the practice of plural marriage at that time was for the ones who had that "talent", the ability to allow women who couldn't otherwise receive the blessings of eternal marriage covenant with God in their earthly life. The same kind of blessings and punishments would apply, for example, to one who has been called to the work of being a missionary but does not pursue it fully and fails to spread the word and harvest those that are ready to be harvested. It was an inspired work based in spiritual needs not based in romantic interests. That is what, unfortunately, the world has misconceived about the practice of polygamy, that it somehow was based in romantic relationships and not a calling from God under inspired direction.
We don't have to consider this a part of the eternal plan if it was, at least in part, based on the ratio of women to men who were ready to receive the blessing of the covenent but needed a stand-in, a vicarious representative as we do with many ordinances, to allow them to receive the blessings on earth, as in the eternities one could imagine the number of men and women within the Celestial Kingdom to be fairly equal. Consider the idea that more young men die before the age of 8 then women and that total number far exceeds the number of people who have gone through the temple in mortality. Of course, I don't know this for sure, but I think it is very possible that the ratio of men to women in the Celestial Kingdom is fairly equal as it is balanced by the higher mortality rates of young boys compared to young girls. There will be no need for polygamy in the Celestial realm but there will be a need for eternal marriage. Unfortunately, I think the discussion of the need for the covenant of eternal marriage for women who didn't have the opportunity to receive it while in the mortal realm gets superimposed on the "need" for plural marriage and in some people's minds becomes one in the same as they cannot separate out those two things. Plural marriage is not necessary if every worthy woman had a worthy man to take to the temple. WIthout that, there is no other need for plural marriage that I am aware of.
-
I think the generalization that men who do practice polygamy are just in it for a good looking young second wife is absolutely disgusting and does those who practised it in the past a disfavour, I wish one could look past cultural biases and not place such base accusation against those who may very well be great godly men.
You're right. This is why I have been reinforcing the idea that it was done, when it was done under specific circumstances, with leadership approval. The approval was based in worthiness and need on everyone's part. It is interesting to me that I get the response "what gave you that idea?" even now that we have historical insight as to how it was done.
-
How can there be a righteous judgement if one does not know all the applicable circumstances? Do you realize that there is a gross rhetorical flaw to you logic? There can be no righteous judgement without proper understanding of circumstances - unless the circumstance is meaningless and cannot contribute to a righteous judgement.
Also - will the apostles of Christ be judges? Did you know that to act as judge is to act as G-d. Even in modern times the robes worn by a judge in a courtroom are representative of being a g-d?
It is not my logic, read Dallin Oaks talk "Judge not and Judging" . When you throw in the word "proper" of course that leaves room for interpretation.
-
My great-grandmother was not "given" to her husband. My great-grandfather met his second wife, and courted her. My great-grandmother insisted that she meet the first wife, and that they had a good relationship before she would consent to marry my great grandfather.
My great-great grandfather, when he married his third wife (my 2nd great grandmother), also met her at some point, courted her, and then married her. I do believe though, that my great grandfather's would have needed permission from the First Presidency to be sealed to subsequent wives.
Yes you are right. From LDS.org; "Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage."
I guess what I was trying to say is that even if they "initiated the process themselves" it was looked at as a calling to do so, a responsibility, like going on a mission etc.
-
Uh...you do realize that discernment and judgment are synonyms.
In a general sense, but that was my issue, the failure to separate out the types of judgement. There is the Final Judgement type judging, condemnation that even Christ at times was not willing to make and then there is the type related to spiritual discernment of which we are allowed to make under certain circumstances that Dallin H. Oaks calls "intermediate judgements".
This is how we got to this point in the discussion. This whole discussion came about beause I made the statement that we could not judge a particular women about why they could or not have children. This was in response to the statement that some women choose not to have a family so why cant they hold the priesthood. Then, Traveler responded with the statement that it isn't that hard to understand God's judgements. And then I said it depends on what kind of judgement one is talking about, the condemnation, final judgement type we are not given the spiritual discernment ability for that type of judgement and then gave explanations for what that means which you and, in part, Traveler are not seeing. So, as it pertains to this thread, the statement that some women could not have children and therefore they should be able to hold the priesthood, that specific type of judgement, I think falls into the category of one that we do not have spiritual discernment over. We cannot see all the circumstances, as Dallin H. Oaks states.
Dallin H. Oaks; "Even the Savior, during His mortal ministry, refrained from making final judgments. We see this in the account of the woman taken in adultery. After the crowd who intended to stone her had departed, Jesus asked her about her accusers. “Hath no man condemned thee?” (John 8:10). When she answered no, Jesus declared, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). In this context the word condemn apparently refers to the final judgment (see John 3:17).
The Lord obviously did not justify the woman’s sin. He simply told her that He did not condemn her—that is, He would not pass final judgment on her at that time. This interpretation is confirmed by what He then said to the Pharisees: “Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man” (John 8:15). The woman taken in adultery was granted time to repent, time that would have been denied by those who wanted to stone her.
The Savior gave this same teaching on another occasion: “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47)."
Discernment and condemnation (that particular kind of judgment) are not equal. Jesus discerned the sin of the adulterous woman but could not condemn. How could one, in similar light, saw that one woman could not have children and therefore should not desire to have children but should desire to hold the priesthood? We don't have the ability to understand all the variables and circumstances that would make such a judgement - that one woman would have no chance of having an eternal famliy or not - that would fall into the category of condemnation.
-
That is not what I am talking about, and not what Traveler is talking about.
What Traveler seems to be saying, if I read it correctly, is the simple idea that judging righteously requires the spirit. And, rightly said, the spirit may speak any truth required to us. As the spirit directs, so are we justified. Therefore, the more in tune with the spirit we are, the more capable we are of righteous judgment.
If the spirit whispers to us, "That is a bad man...stay away." I think it fair to assume that the man is, indeed, a bad man. Without the spirit, regardless of the outward appearance, we run the severe risk of being wrong on our judgments.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. What am I sure of, however, is that the discussion has nothing to do with whether women ever held the priesthood.
Well now you are talking about spiritual discernment, not judgement.
I have not argued anything about that righteous judgement requires the spirit, I agree. What I disagree with is the idea that one can know all the circumstances, the thoughts of the person (as God uses thoughts to judge us in the final judgement), what is given to the person (as in where much is given much is required), all those things, as Dallin Oaks has stated.
If you read Dallin Oaks talk about that he also states that one of the requirements for righteous judgement is stewardship. In other words, we are only supposed to place righteous judgement on people that we have some kind of stewardship over.
Dallin Oaks; "Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, “What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?” The bishop answered, “You do nothing. I may need to do something.” That wise answer illustrates my point about stewardship in judging."
-
I dunno. It could be read that way. From a certain perspective it sort of says she has to give permission, but if she doesn't she's a sinner and the approval is no longer required.
The way I understand it, the second wife has to be "given" by inspiration so who your wife would be giving permission to is not you but God. In other words, the additional wives beyond the first are not something a man would go out and date and go on the hunt for, as it is portrayed in certain cable TV shows recently. It is more like a calling and like most callings (except things like going on a mission) we don't go asking for them, they are given under inspiration. So, if the wife doesn't approve it is like turning down a calling.
-
I know that the LDS Church no longer practices plural marriage but that at times God has required it from His people. So hypothetically, if tomorrow the prophet received a revelation that God wanted the saints to practice the principle of plural marriage again (and any legal obstacles were cleared away) how would you respond?
If there was no obvious reason for it, like some virus that kills half the men or a war that results in changing the ratio of men to women, I would have to seek some inspired understanding of it to accept it. I really doubt it would return just because legal blocks are out of the way. I have no testimony or knowledge of polygamy being something that is practiced and lived outside of the mortal time as I believe it was used for certain mortal circumstances and for Gods purposes on Earth and not intended as an eternal condition. Laws can change but principles don't. I think polygamy was a law for a certain time and the blessings associated with obeying the law will pertain to those that obey the laws of their time but it is not an eternal principle (to my knowledge).
There is no way to comprehend such a need in the eternities and so it could only be accepted by Faith as it really has no logical reason to be used after this life, even when people try to find some logical purpose in the practice for after this life - I have never seen one that makes sense to me and I don't expect to. Unless it is revealed knowledge by our current leaders that, for certain, God lives in polygamous relationships, that should never be someones underlying reason to accept polygamy. The only reason, that I could see, to accept polygamy is by faith. The reason I say it this way is because I have had contact with people who currently practice polygamy and their argument always goes back to their belief that God lives that way. In my thinking, that should not be the only reason for it in mortality (even though I think that is a false belief).
-
Check your JST.
" Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."
As with most words in the scriptures and gospel there are multiple applications and meanings.
Dallin H. Oaks; "I have been puzzled that some scriptures command us not to judge and others instruct us that we should judge and even tell us how to do it. But as I have studied these passages I have become convinced that these seemingly contradictory directions are consistent when we view them with the perspective of eternity. The key is to understand that there are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make, and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles. I will speak about gospel judging." ..."Thus, we must refrain from making final judgments on people because we lack the knowledge and the wisdom to do so. We would even apply the wrong standards. The world’s way is to judge competitively between winners and losers. The Lord’s way of final judgment will be to apply His perfect knowledge of the law a person has received and to judge on the basis of that person’s circumstances, motives, and actions throughout his or her entire life (see Luke 12:47–48; John 15:22; 2 Ne. 9:25)."
I was refering to this type of judgement, final judgements, the person is good or bad type judgement. You two, Folk Prophet and Traveler are refering to "intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles."
The reason to make the distinction is that intermediate judgements do not require knowing the all of the person's circumstances, motives and actions throughout his or her entire life that would be used in the "final judgement" which Traveler is trying to equate the idea that if we can make some judgement then we must be able to know all about the circumstances etc. Well, that is not true because he is grouping these two types of judgements.
-
If I were to provide you with a scripture that showed that a mortal human was given the spiritual guift to read and know another's thoughts - would you believe the scripture and that it is possible for men, through the spirit, to know the thoughts of others?
Sure there are times where there is reason to know the thoughts of others and God provides that gift for specific reasons and instances but in general as President Monson states we are not capable of understanding all the circumstances (including thoughts but not exclusive to thoughts) that would be needed to make judgement on someone.
Most of the time when the full view is offered, i.e. - removal of the veil for a moment, those things seen and revealed are often times not given to everyone. For example, when Moses could see the bigger picture, it was hard for him to put it in mortal words and he did not write for us everything he saw.
Mortality doesn't allow us to see the bigger picture fully and because of that as well as not having authority to do so, we are not capable of correctly judging others.
What if you were a bystander, for example, when Nephi killed Laban and took the plates. You would be willing to say that, as a bystander, one could know all the circumstances that surrounded that event, Nephi's thoughts, his communication with God, the understanding of what it means in the future to have those plates etc.? The outward judgement is that Nephi is a murderer. We know the circumstances better but not even fully with communication from God by way of the descriptions in the scripture. But we have no way of really weighing out which man should die so that a whole nation does not perish in unbelief. You and I cannot walk down the street and say - that person should be killed so that a whole nation does not perish in unbelief.
We are given small insights but not to the level which would be required to judge a person. Even in the setting of a Church disciplinary council it is done under inspired direction - meaning the members of the council will be inspired to decide one way or another, not based in their own mortal judgements and it is done to help a person so that the decision doesn't become a final judgement. It is done to avoid the concequences of a bad final judgement.
Do you not believe the words of the prophet on this matter; "There is really no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances of someone who might say or do something we find reason to criticize. Thus the commandment: “Judge not."?? When the prophet says "there is really no way..." why are you trying to find some way?
-
I am inclined to think that G-d’s judgments are not so difficult to understand as it is for someone without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to understand any of mysteries of G-d. I submit it is no more difficult to understand and foresee the judgments of G-d than it is to understand G-d and his plan of salvation or even to have an actual testimony of Christ and his church. In short if we truly understand anything of G-d or divine nature – we will understand the judgment of G-d. Being born of the spirit and one with G-d does not exclude us from knowing, even in advance, that his judgments are just. And once we understand his judgments are just and true – our judgments will follow in kind.
That is not what the scriptures tell us and it is not what President Monson said. God's judgements are, in part, based in a person's thoughts. You believe that through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost we can know another person's thoughts and what is in their heart to judge them as God does? I do not think that is within our capacity and this is why we are asked to forgive all, 70 times 7.
Sure we can talk about the basic structure of what is right and wrong but to put all the variables in such as what is in a person's heart and all their idle thoughts (i.e - the thoughts that nobody knows about except God!!) is not within our capacity or under our authority to do so.
Even if someone knew in a general sense that God's judgements are just and true (as you have stated) that does not give that person the ability to know the heart of any given person or all of their circumstances. We either believe in where much is given much is required or we don't. We either believe that all of us have to do the exact same thing in this life or we don't. We believe that the test for each of us is different and based in various circumstances that we cannot detect while in this life. If everyone was taking the same test and placed under the same grading scale, then there might be a chance to say what you are saying, that simply knowing right from wrong allows us to judge another. That simply is not the case. We all have different circumstances, different gifts, challenges, abilities etc. that does not allow us to compare one to another in an across the board grading curve. All the variables are not to our understanding, even when someone has a full testimony that God's judgements are "true and just".
1 Samuel 16; " 7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."
Matthew 23; "27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Alma 12; " 14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence."
D&C 137; " 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."
Marvin J. Ashton; "Human measurement, of course, is subject to human fallibility. .... We also tend to evaluate others on the basis of physical, outward appearance: their “good looks,” their social status, their family pedigrees, their degrees, or their economic situations. ...
When the Lord measures an individual, He does not take a tape measure around the person’s head to determine his mental capacity, nor his chest to determine his manliness, but He measures the heart as an indicator of the person’s capacity and potential to bless others.
Why the heart? Because the heart is a synonym for one’s entire makeup. We often use phrases about the heart to describe the total person. Thus, we describe people as being “big-hearted” or “goodhearted” or having a “heart of gold.” Or we speak of people with faint hearts, wise hearts, pure hearts, willing hearts, deceitful hearts, conniving hearts, courageous hearts, cold hearts, hearts of stone, or selfish hearts.
The measure of our hearts is the measure of our total performance. As used by the Lord, the “heart” of a person describes his effort to better self, or others, or the conditions he confronts."
And if you don't believe me that is fine but at least believe the Prophet, President Monson; "Said the Savior, “Judge not.”1 He continued, “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”2 Or, to paraphrase, why beholdest thou what you think is dirty laundry at your neighbor’s house but considerest not the soiled window in your own house?
None of us is perfect. I know of no one who would profess to be so. And yet for some reason, despite our own imperfections, we have a tendency to point out those of others. We make judgments concerning their actions or inactions.
There is really no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances of someone who might say or do something we find reason to criticize. Thus the commandment: “Judge not.”"
There you go, the Prophet said there really is no way we can know the heart, the intentions, or the circumstances - take it, believe it!
Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Also, I don't think we have any great idea of the time it took for Adam to be kicked out of the garden and into this world. Moses; " 29 Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken;"
How do we know that the "will send him forth" didn't take 100,000 years? His age may be measured by the time he finally was out of the Garden, so he wasn't 100,000 years old per se. The process of sending him forth may be a lot more complicated than what it seems to be by the story. Bottom line is we don't have all the info.