Fether Posted January 1, 2017 Report Share Posted January 1, 2017 A simple question that has perplexed me for a long time now. Why is it that when we read over the Old Testament and learn about multiple wives we shrug it off, but when we see it in church history, there is so much upheaval over it? It's all the same doctrine. Do we (even the most faithful of saints) struggle seeing the Bible as being more fictitious than actual "recorded" history? I'm interested to hear responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LiterateParakeet Posted January 1, 2017 Report Share Posted January 1, 2017 The first thing that comes to my mind is time and distance. It's one thing to learn that David had many wives...he is no relation to me that I am aware of, and lived hundreds of years ago and on another continent, with a very different culture. It's not hard to separate myself from that. BUT . . . Church history was not that long ago and for some of us, that is our great-great grandparents we are talking about. One of my great-grandfathers was married to one of Brigham Young's daughters, but I don't come through that line (so close and yet so far, LOL!). These were people that lived in towns familiar to us (some of us still live in those towns). They ate similar foods to us (bread, ham, turkey, beef, veggies). We can even visit some of their houses, and see their clothes on display. Some who are very fortunate even have copies of their journals and can read details of their day to day lives. The pioneers are much, much closer to us in time and space. Which makes the polygamy issue so much more up close and personal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CV75 Posted January 1, 2017 Report Share Posted January 1, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Fether said: A simple question that has perplexed me for a long time now. Why is it that when we read over the Old Testament and learn about multiple wives we shrug it off, but when we see it in church history, there is so much upheaval over it? It's all the same doctrine. Do we (even the most faithful of saints) struggle seeing the Bible as being more fictitious than actual "recorded" history? I'm interested to hear responses. My attitude is a matter of "that was then, this is now," similar to the way I feel about plural marriage in the Restoration. Edited January 1, 2017 by CV75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 If I may throw a bit of a bombshell: I think that in our heart of hearts, a lot of Mormons don't really reconcile the god they worship to the god of the old testament. I think we often look to the OT for proof-texting prophecies of Christ or to contextualize the Book of Mormon and otherwise tend to deploy a sort of "different god, different rules" sort of cognitive dissonance. NeedleinA, Jane_Doe, Anddenex and 5 others 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsister Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: If I may throw a bit of a bombshell: I think that in our heart of hearts, a lot of Mormons don't really reconcile the god they worship to the god of the old testament. I think we often look to the OT for proof-texting prophecies of Christ or to contextualize the Book of Mormon and otherwise tend to deploy a sort of "different god, different rules" sort of cognitive dissonance. I agree. I'd also add that it's for the same reason that we're not too horribly squeamish about the Israelites slaughtering, well, everybody at God's behest but we'd be really uncomfortable if the Mountain Meadows Massacre were standard practice among the early saints. Just_A_Guy, Jane_Doe, NeedleinA and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fether Posted January 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 This is really how I have felt too. Does the difference between knowledge and faith play a role? We KNOW that plural marriage and the Mountain Meadow Massacre was a thing because of well kept records and not enough to disprove it. Where as we have FAITH that what is written in scripture is true, but no actual knowledge. This leaving us to have different reaction to similar events from history and scripture. im not disclosing my self because I do te same thing, but I wonder if even the most faithful of saints, the elect, still struggle with puting together history and scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 Polygamy wasn't exactly an uncommon practice throughout the world, in ancient times. But it was falling out of favor even by the time of Christ. By the time Joseph Smith began its practice, Christianity had an established, 1700 year tradition of monogamy. In short, we feel like polygamy is an ancient and barbaric practice, so we find it bothersome that it could be present in such a recent, more enlightened time. ldsister 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, Fether said: Why is it that when we read over the Old Testament and learn about multiple wives we shrug it off, but when we see it in church history, there is so much upheaval over it? It's all the same doctrine. Do we (even the most faithful of saints) struggle seeing the Bible as being more fictitious than actual "recorded" history? If I were to sum up this question I would place it under this phrase, "fear of truth." Human nature, the natural man, only desires "truth" which conforms to their personal desires, passions, and appetites. If "truth" doesn't conform to personal desires, appetites, and passions, then it isn't "truth" and I don't have to adhere to it. Human nature leans toward "itching ears." Experiences which happened in the past give the natural man an excuse to say, "not in my day,"(as a caveat, different thought than what CV75 presented, so as not to be confused) assuming a superiority of righteousness in comparison to our brethren who lived during different times. This creates an illusion, an image (mirage), that brings comfort according to a personal perception of truth. The Book of Mormon teaches, "for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old." Truth is simply "what is," and those who love truth will not "shrug" or be in any "upheaval" with any doctrine past, present, or future. Krishnamurti was an eastern philosopher that combined religion, psychology, and philosopher is in speeches. One of his presentations was on the subject of "truth", or "what is," and "illusions" created to maintain personal self comfort. An illusion is a "fantasy, an image, a romantic concept of truth, or of love or whatever, those are the very barriers that prevent us from moving further." His definition of an "illusion" is simply moving away from "what is" (truth), avoidance, in order to keep our perception, our comfort, intact. So as long as we embrace our illusions of truth, opinions, and created perceptions (itching ears) to avoid "what is", then one will never be able to observe what is actually going on, or like JAG has specified in the past, an unwillingness to ask, recognize, hard questions, and a willingness to accept a difficult, but truthful answer. If we accept "what is", things which really are, and things which they really will be, then we will not need to shrug, nor will we be in upheaval. We will be of an accepting nature. Edited January 2, 2017 by Anddenex NeedleinA and zil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) On 1/1/2017 at 0:58 AM, Fether said: A simple question that has perplexed me for a long time now. Why is it that when we read over the Old Testament and learn about multiple wives we shrug it off, but when we see it in church history, there is so much upheaval over it? It's all the same doctrine. Do we (even the most faithful of saints) struggle seeing the Bible as being more fictitious than actual "recorded" history? I'm interested to hear responses. This is nothing more than the philosophies of men overpowering the word of the Lord in our minds. Edited January 2, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmarklin Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 On 12/31/2016 at 11:58 PM, Fether said: A simple question that has perplexed me for a long time now. Why is it that when we read over the Old Testament and learn about multiple wives we shrug it off, but when we see it in church history, there is so much upheaval over it? It's all the same doctrine. Do we (even the most faithful of saints) struggle seeing the Bible as being more fictitious than actual "recorded" history? I'm interested to hear responses. No polygamy problem if you're Muslim. I think men are allowed up to four wives. That's around 1.2 Billion people. Thats a bunch of culture that obviously is not ours. But it's popular. I'm not sure why the modern church does not practice polygamy. It's very Biblical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 1 hour ago, mrmarklin said: I'm not sure why the modern church does not practice polygamy. Official Declaration-1, located at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, offers some explanations. Sunday21 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 7 hours ago, Vort said: Official Declaration-1, located at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, offers some explanations. Couple that with Jacob 2 and you have a thus saith the Lord on the Subject... Do we need more explanation then that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 10 hours ago, mrmarklin said: No polygamy problem if you're Muslim. I think men are allowed up to four wives. That's around 1.2 Billion people. Thats a bunch of culture that obviously is not ours. But it's popular. I'm not sure why the modern church does not practice polygamy. It's very Biblical. Vort and Estradling gave the answer to the LDS Church. As far as the rest of Christianity, the Christian Church adopted ancient Roman Law where monogamy was the lawful standard. This marital standard distinguished the Romans and the Greeks from the rest of Europe. mrmarklin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.