Busting “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy”

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, Mike said:

Treating me only despite my one request.

What?

53 minutes ago, Mike said:

You're using words that I didn't use

Well...yeah. That's wrong because.....???

53 minutes ago, Mike said:

and drawing conclusions that I didn't give you reason to draw. 

Maybe instead of attacking my communication style again and again you should explain this, which is really what I'm after. Which conclusion am I drawing that you didn't give reason to draw? Because really, I only had one point. That the prophets' words are the same as if God is speaking them Himself. Your statement, "I believe that those who reject polygamy do so because in their hearts and minds they are rejecting men, not God" strikes me as problematic. If you meant something different then I'm willing to accept that. Is my conclusion that your statement implies that these women are rejecting the prophets but not God inaccurate? That's what I read into it. If that isn't what you mean, say so. I'm not determined that my interpretation of your words was right if you tell me that's not what you meant.

53 minutes ago, Mike said:

But that's OK because like you say, you'll keep doing the same exact thing. 

Which "the same thing" is explaining myself, asking questions, and stating things matter-of-factually. If I call you a name or something then I'll concede I stepped out of line. I haven't done so. I think you are acting like I'm treating you badly as a tactic because you disagree with something you think I believe (which I'm not really sure what that is because you've jumped to a lot of conclusions that I don't necessarily think are accurate). Point out where I've actually been rude and I'll acquiesce, rephrase, apologize, or otherwise do my best to interact civilly. What it seems like to me, however, is that I have a view that differs from yours and in response my character is being attacked.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you were right and I was -- whatever it is you think I'm being ("treating you" is so ambiguous. What is that supposed to mean exactly?) it has no bearing on the right and wrong of the point being made -- that point being that prophet's words and teaching are God's -- per scripture. (D&C 1:38) I mean, what's your problem with my point? Do you disagree?

Certainly I'm not trying to say that someone should put their trust in the arm of flesh. Nor am I saying that trusting the voice of all men has any value. I just wonder how it is that you support a statement that implies (to me -- and feel free to correct me if I misread you) that someone can trust in God and leave men out of it entirely. "Men" are part of the equation. Do you disagree?

Edited April 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Let's see if I understand you. Marriage is illegal. A group practices it, and abuses it. Yes, most reasonable people would agree that a group's practice of an illegal thing resulting in harm to people would serve as evidence that the illegal thing should remain illegal. 

Which (if I may interject an observation) is exactly the point. Using Warren Jeffs as an example of the intrinsic evils of polygamy may be no more true than using an adulterous wife beater as an example of the intrinsic evils of heterosexual marriage. Warren Jeffs proves nothing about polygamy. He represents a single data point.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Quote

I mean several things. 1. Some views are not worth understanding.

I disagree with you on #1

I don't. As an extreme but obvious example, consider D&C 76:43-48:

Quote

[Christ] saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him. Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment—and the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows; neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof; nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again; wherefore, the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except those who are ordained unto this condemnation.

it appears that the only people who truly understand the misery and horrors of eternal damnation are those who are ordained to it. I'd say that's a view not worth understanding.

[Mike]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Let's see if I understand you. Marriage is illegal. A group practices it, and abuses it. Yes, most reasonable people would agree that a group's practice of an illegal thing resulting in harm to people would serve as evidence that the illegal thing should remain illegal. 

Sure. But would that perception be valid? I believe that is the point. The argument JaG is making, as I see it, is that this perception, based on Warran Jeffs and his cronies, concerning the validity of polygamy is invalid. Understanding this doesn't argue FOR polygamy or the legalization of it either. But a person or group abusing something does not prove that thing, itself, evil.

A person or group abusing something does not prove that thing, itself, evil. Your statement is true. But you can see that you've misquoted me by comparing your statement to what I actually said (above). Moreover, you jumped from my statement about such things remaining illegal to whether they are proved "evil". At the moment I stand by the statement I made concerning things that are already illegal, and yes I think the perception would be valid (speaking generally, as you allude to by saying this doesn't argue FOR polygamy or its legalization). Perhaps you can cause me to change my viewpoint by offering some examples of other things that are illegal *and* abused by persons or groups who do them anyway--things that you think ought to be perceived as not evil (again, your choice of words). 

[Mike]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

Which (if I may interject an observation) is exactly the point. Using Warren Jeffs as an example of the intrinsic evils of polygamy may be no more true than using an adulterous wife beater as an example of the intrinsic evils of heterosexual marriage. Warren Jeffs proves nothing about polygamy. He represents a single data point.

I don't. As an extreme but obvious example, consider D&C 76:43-48:

it appears that the only people who truly understand the misery and horrors of eternal damnation are those who are ordained to it. I'd say that's a view not worth understanding.

OK, I think I understand what you say. I wouldn't have thought to count experiencing the misery and horrors of eternal damnation as being the same thing as understanding another person's view(s). But I see that I didn't make that clear. So, if that light is the one under which others' would interpret TFP's remark with which I disagreed, then I must change my answer to "yes, I agree that some views are not worth understanding."

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, Mike said:

But you can see that you've misquoted me 

I didn't quote you. Did you mean to say that I've misrepresented what you've said?

11 hours ago, Mike said:

Perhaps you can cause me to change my viewpoint...

I have no such delusions.

11 hours ago, Mike said:

...by offering some examples of other things that are illegal *and* abused by persons or groups who do them anyway--things that you think ought to be perceived as not evil (again, your choice of words). 

Why would a different example (assuming I could come up with one) make more impact than the perfectly obvious one before us that we're discussing? If you believe that (and I don't want to misquote you, so I'll quote you directly), "most reasonable people would agree that a group's practice of an illegal thing resulting in harm to people would serve as evidence that the illegal thing should remain illegal", then why would a different example of something that is " illegal *and* abused by persons or groups who do them anyway" serve to convince you differently. Wouldn't your theory apply, in your mind, to the new example as well?

[Mike]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Right; I'm pointing out that we really have no idea whether Jeffs is a statistically representative sample of folks who practice polygamy, or marriage, or parenthood, or business ownership, or right-handedness, or toothbrushing, or any other habit that Jeffs shares in common with a broader group of people.  Just because a nickel is a coin, does not mean all coins are worth five cents.

@Mike I agree that people think God wouldn't sanction a situation that may breed powerlessness-but again, monogamous marriage can do the same thing; as can mere parenthood (I work in the child welfare system). So the logic does have issues.  I do agree with you that more positive anecdotal/statistical information about polygamy would be helpful; but such evidence does exist--we just aren't exposed to it much, because it tends not to reach mainstream media outlets.  Come up to Salt Lake's Capitol Hill when the legislature is in session and you'll probably find a number of polygamist protestors (even women) who would be only too happy to tell you how well their family structure works for them.  Go into the Islamic block of nations, and you'll hear much the same thing.

Our opinions are shaped by the people we listen to.

I suppose I'm often guilty of painting myself into a corner by choosing my words with less care than I might otherwise do. My carelessness often requires me to go back and take more time to explain myself. In that regard I agree that Warren Jeffs, himself, represents only a single data point, and thus a statistically non-representative sample if as I said one looks no farther than Jeffs alone. 

And yes I agree that our opinion are shaped by the people we listen to. However, I believe the people we might be less ready to listen to often represent a source a source of information that might make us change our opinions, sometimes for the better. I don't mean to hold myself up as a paragon of virtue in that regard. 

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I didn't quote you. Did you mean to say that I've misrepresented what you've said?

I have no such delusions.

Why would a different example (assuming I could come up with one) make more impact than the perfectly obvious one before us that we're discussing? If you believe that (and I don't want to misquote you, so I'll quote you directly), "most reasonable people would agree that a group's practice of an illegal thing resulting in harm to people would serve as evidence that the illegal thing should remain illegal", then why would a different example of something that is " illegal *and* abused by persons or groups who do them anyway" serve to convince you differently. Wouldn't your theory apply, in your mind, to the new example as well?

Yes, I mean that you misrepresented what I'd said.

Often when people examine an issue the more examples they can find, the better to analyze the issue. So not merely a different example but more examples can be helpful. 

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

Often when people examine an issue the more examples they can find, the better to analyze the issue. So not merely a different example but more examples can be helpful. 

I agree. I'll think on it. It might be difficult to come up with something though. Polygamy is somewhat unique.

Perhaps something from another time and government, like in Communist Russia or the like. Like the criminalization of independent commerce leading to theft would not prove that independent commerce should be illegal.

That being said, I'm not really sure a different example is required. The concept isn't that difficult. The immoral thing is the problem. If a group is forcing underage brides to marry them then the illegal thing should be forcing underage brides to marry.

Moreover, and more importantly I think, the illegality of polygamy has forced it underground, which makes the monitoring of the despicable things very difficult. It is also reasonable, in my opinion, to assume that the blame for what breeds these despicable things might more rightly fall upon the fact that it has been forced underground. To me that is a more logical conclusion than that the idea of polygamy itself breeds despicable things.

It strikes me that legalizing polygamy and codifying legal structures around it would (eventually) bring it out of hiding and help to keep out the problematic things that have occurred because a group has been forced, by the criminalization of their religious beliefs, to go into hiding and develop an autonomous mob-like mentality that stems, I believe, from their already-criminal-and-secret organization. If polygamy had never been made illegal in the first place I do not believe it logical to presume that the LDS church, assuming it would still therefore be practicing it, would be doing these dastardly things.

Edited April 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

This is going too fast for me to respond to each post, so I'm going to make a mass response to several people:  @Mike, @The Folk Prophet, @Vort, @Just_A_Guy, @LiterateParakeet.

The issue of people with polygamy... including polygamy as practiced by Warren Jeffs and polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith and polygamy as practiced by regular people in current times... is the issue of a lack of testimony in Eternal Marriage.

I will illustrate this with one simple example:

Do you think that anybody in those groups I mentioned above (both Mormon and non-Mormon) would have a problem with a widower marrying again?  If there is one who gets bothered by that it is very rare.  It is so rare that it is legal in every country, including countries who outlawed polygamy, to have widowers marrying again.  And this is the thing - they all assume that a marriage ends when a spouse dies.  So, another marriage does not bother the mortal sensibilities.  But we, Mormons, do not believe that a marriage ends when a spouse dies.  Yet, we are still in that group who are just fine with widowers remarrying.  Why?  What is different between a dead spouse and a living spouse when it comes to Marriage?  Ahh... the mortal trappings of sex and property, right?  Is it that we are caught in the mortal weakness of greed that makes us unable to accept mortal polygamy but have no problem with widowers marrying another?  So then we have a problem with polygamy in eternity - having spouses in heaven take on another spouse... yet, having widowers remarry doesn't give us that same issue... so, greed?  Okay, discuss that one.

Edited April 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree. I'll think on it. It might be difficult to come up with something though. Polygamy is somewhat unique.

Perhaps something from another time and government, like in Communist Russia or the like. Like the criminalization of independent commerce leading to theft would not prove that independent commerce should be illegal.

That being said, I'm not really sure a different example is required. The concept isn't that difficult. The immoral thing is the problem. If a group is forcing underage brides to marry them then the illegal thing should be forcing underage brides to marry.

Moreover, and more importantly I think, the illegality of polygamy has forced it underground, which makes the monitoring of the despicable things very difficult. It is also reasonable, in my opinion, to assume that the blame for what breeds these despicable things might more rightly fall upon the fact that it has been forced underground. To me that is a more logical conclusion than that the idea of polygamy itself breeds despicable things.

It strikes me that legalizing polygamy and codifying legal structures around it would (eventually) bring it out of hiding and help to keep out the problematic things that have occurred because a group has been forced, by the criminalization of their religious beliefs, to go into hiding and develop an autonomous mob-like mentality that stems, I believe, from their already-criminal-and-secret organization. If polygamy had never been made illegal in the first place I do not believe it logical to presume that the LDS church, assuming it would still therefore be practicing it, would be doing these dastardly things.

I can't disagree with anything above. Everything you've written seems valid to me. 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This is going too fast for me to respond to each post, so I'm going to make a mass response to several people:  @Mike, @The Folk Prophet, @Vort, @Just_A_Guy, @LiterateParakeet.

The issue of people with polygamy... including polygamy as practiced by Warren Jeffs and polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith and polygamy as practiced by regular people in current times... is the issue of a lack of testimony in Eternal Marriage.

I will illustrate this with one simple example:

Do you think that anybody in those groups I mentioned above (both Mormon and non-Mormon) would have a problem with a widower marrying again?  If there is one who gets bothered by that it is very rare.  It is so rare that it is legal in every country, including countries who outlawed polygamy, to have widowers marrying again.  And this is the thing - they all assume that a marriage ends when a spouse dies.  So, another marriage does not bother the mortal sensibilities.  But we, Mormons, do not believe that a marriage ends when a spouse dies.  Yet, we are still in that group who are just fine with widowers remarrying.  Why?  What is different between a dead spouse and a living spouse when it comes to Marriage?  Ahh... the mortal trappings of sex and property, right?  Is it that we are caught in the mortal weakness of greed that makes us unable to accept mortal polygamy but have no problem with widowers marrying another?  So then we have a problem with polygamy in eternity - having spouses in heaven take on another spouse... yet, having widowers remarry doesn't give us that same issue... so, greed?  Okay, discuss that one.

You bring up good and interesting points. Greed may be at the heart of the matter. But at the same time I'm prone to consider the tender feelings that may be involved, at least for many people. Let me offer my son's feelings as an example. In a nutshell he can't get over his feelings that for me to marry another woman (should his mother die before I do) would be tantamount to adultery. This dovetails with his belief that just because she isn't here doesn't mean that she isn't somewhere still loving me and yearning to be with me. It becomes harder for him to consider two or more wives in a polygamous relationship. 

I'm recalling something @Eowyn brought up in another thread about her feelings wishing her husband would court her like he used to do, or something to that effect. And so it strikes me that if she had to share him so to speak with two or more other women, her feelings could become compounded because he would be physically be with her even less of the time. I'm only using her remarks to illustrate what I suspect might be the feelings of many women, and so if you're noticing this, Eowyn, I hope you won't think I'm speaking for you or putting words in your mouth. 

A third look at feelings is the way 1+1 works so nicely in most relationships: Parent-child (one at a time vs. Parent-many children all at the same time as in conversations before bed), one man-one woman, best friend-best friend, "two's company, three's a crowd", etc., etc. In other words when I'm with my Sweetheart I can't be with anyone else, and if I'm with my "second wife" I can't be with my Sweetheart--somebody always gets left out. I mean even in God the Father's relationship with his Only Begotten Son there's no room for anyone else "in between them"--or so it feels to many people. 

 

[eddified]

@anatess2 there is also the case of a widow remarrying, which is acceptable in this life but not the next. This doesn't really fit in with what you are saying right ?

[Just_A_Guy]

16 minutes ago, Mike said:

You bring up good and interesting points. Greed may be at the heart of the matter. But at the same time I'm prone to consider the tender feelings that may be involved, at least for many people. Let me offer my son's feelings as an example. In a nutshell he can't get over his feelings that for me to marry another woman (should his mother die before I do) would be tantamount to adultery. This dovetails with his belief that just because she isn't here doesn't mean that she isn't somewhere still loving me and yearning to be with me. It becomes harder for him to consider two or more wives in a polygamous relationship. 

I'm recalling something @Eowyn brought up in another thread about her feelings wishing her husband would court her like he used to do, or something to that effect. And so it strikes me that if she had to share him so to speak with two or more other women, her feelings could become compounded because he would be physically be with her even less of the time. I'm only using her remarks to illustrate what I suspect might be the feelings of many women, and so if you're noticing this, Eowyn, I hope you won't think I'm speaking for you or putting words in your mouth. 

A third look at feelings is the way 1+1 works so nicely in most relationships: Parent-child (one at a time vs. Parent-many children all at the same time as in conversations before bed), one man-one woman, best friend-best friend, "two's company, three's a crowd", etc., etc. In other words when I'm with my Sweetheart I can't be with anyone else, and if I'm with my "second wife" I can't be with my Sweetheart--somebody always gets left out. I mean even in God the Father's relationship with his Only Begotten Son there's no room for anyone else "in between them"--or so it feels to many people. 

 

I think these are valid points.  Even some of the women who lived polygamy in the 19th century, and went on tours back east defending the practice, admitted that the nature of polygamous marriages (particularly the "romantic" facet of such relationships was very different than monogamous ones.

Om the other hand, "romantic love" as a prerequisite for a successful marital relationship; is something of a new-ish development in society.  Though we prefer not to say so out loud, it is arguable that to some degree Mormon polygamy represented a rejection--or at least a tempering--of romantic love, and a re-emphasis on factors that had previously been seen as more integral parts of the marriage relationship:  common values, mutual admiration and respect, hard work, commitment, sacrifice, personal virtue, stability, and--yes--child rearing.

I like romantic love as much as anyone, but this "romance uber alles" mantra of modern society is getting just a touch excessive; and if our polygamous history reminds us that marriage should be entered with the head as well as the heart--well, that's OK by me.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think these are valid points.  Even some of the women who lived polygamy in the 19th century, and went on tours back east defending the practice, admitted that the nature of polygamous marriages (particularly the "romantic" facet of such relationships was very different than monogamous ones.

Om the other hand, "romantic love" as a prerequisite for a successful marital relationship; is something of a new-ish development in society.  Though we prefer not to say so out loud, it is arguable that to some degree Mormon polygamy represented a rejection--or at least a tempering--of romantic love, and a re-emphasis on factors that had previously been seen as more integral parts of the marriage relationship:  common values, mutual admiration and respect, hard work, personal virtue, stability, and--yes--child rearing.

I like romantic love as much as anyone; but this "romance uber alles" mantra of modern society is getting just a touch excessive; and if our polygamous history reminds us that marriage should be entered with the head as well as the heart--well, that's OK by me.

Although I am drifting away from the OP topic per se, I would add that I can see how the modern-day emphasis on romance for it's own sake can actually make it harder in some cases for a young couple to make their marriage succeed. 

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, Mike said:

You bring up good and interesting points. Greed may be at the heart of the matter. But at the same time I'm prone to consider the tender feelings that may be involved, at least for many people. Let me offer my son's feelings as an example. In a nutshell he can't get over his feelings that for me to marry another woman (should his mother die before I do) would be tantamount to adultery. This dovetails with his belief that just because she isn't here doesn't mean that she isn't somewhere still loving me and yearning to be with me. It becomes harder for him to consider two or more wives in a polygamous relationship. 

I'm recalling something @Eowyn brought up in another thread about her feelings wishing her husband would court her like he used to do, or something to that effect. And so it strikes me that if she had to share him so to speak with two or more other women, her feelings could become compounded because he would be physically be with her even less of the time. I'm only using her remarks to illustrate what I suspect might be the feelings of many women, and so if you're noticing this, Eowyn, I hope you won't think I'm speaking for you or putting words in your mouth. 

A third look at feelings is the way 1+1 works so nicely in most relationships: Parent-child (one at a time vs. Parent-many children all at the same time as in conversations before bed), one man-one woman, best friend-best friend, "two's company, three's a crowd", etc., etc. In other words when I'm with my Sweetheart I can't be with anyone else, and if I'm with my "second wife" I can't be with my Sweetheart--somebody always gets left out. I mean even in God the Father's relationship with his Only Begotten Son there's no room for anyone else "in between them"--or so it feels to many people. 

 

Sure.  Of course feelings is the main reason it bothers our sensibilities.  And the feelings doesn't have to be unrighteous.  But, when it comes to Godly things, we can't put our feelings higher than God's gospel.  So, regardless of what your son feels about it (as illustrated by the travails of Emma Smith when faced with the same dilemma), when God commands you to take another wife, the feelings become irrelevant, the testimony of Eternal Marriages become very very relevant and important and required.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think these are valid points.  Even some of the women who lived polygamy in the 19th century, and went on tours back east defending the practice, admitted that the nature of polygamous marriages (particularly the "romantic" facet of such relationships was very different than monogamous ones.

Om the other hand, "romantic love" as a prerequisite for a successful marital relationship; is something of a new-ish development in society.  Though we prefer not to say so out loud, it is arguable that to some degree Mormon polygamy represented a rejection--or at least a tempering--of romantic love, and a re-emphasis on factors that had previously been seen as more integral parts of the marriage relationship:  common values, mutual admiration and respect, hard work, commitment, sacrifice, personal virtue, stability, and--yes--child rearing.

I like romantic love as much as anyone, but this "romance uber alles" mantra of modern society is getting just a touch excessive; and if our polygamous history reminds us that marriage should be entered with the head as well as the heart--well, that's OK by me.

Coming from the Philippines where the "old fashioned reasons" for getting married are still in existence, especially with divorce being illegal, I reject the notion that those old fashioned reasons are not romantic love.  I posit that modern media (I'm looking at you, Disney!) has changed the concept of romance into something more of a physical connection (all the biological indicators of sexual attraction) rather than a spiritual one.

An almost perfect example of what I'm talking about is presented in that movie, The Imitation Game where Joan Clark looks at her relationship with Alan Turing as more romantic and valuable than others because of their "meeting of the minds" whereas Alan Turing looks at his relationship with Joan Clark as worthless because of his lack of sexual attraction.

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, eddified said:

@anatess2 there is also the case of a widow remarrying, which is acceptable in this life but not the next. This doesn't really fit in with what you are saying right ?

Of course it does.  Nobody has a problem with widows having multiple husbands either.  So, as you can see, people only have a problem with polygamy if both husbands are still alive or both husbands marry her when they're all dead.

Edited April 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Coming from the Philippines where the "old fashioned reasons" for getting married are still in existence, especially with divorce being illegal, I reject the notion that those old fashioned reasons are not romantic love.  I posit that modern media (I'm looking at you, Disney!) has changed the concept of romance into something more of a physical connection (all the biological indicators of sexual attraction) rather than a spiritual one.

An almost perfect example of what I'm talking about is presented in that movie, The Imitation Game where Joan Clark looks at her relationship with Alan Turing as more romantic and valuable than others because of their "meeting of the minds" whereas Alan Turing looks at his relationship with Joan Clark as worthless because of his lack of sexual attraction.

That may well be; but I am a little skeptical of the primacy of even of this "meeting of the minds" you speak of--at least, to the extent that it translates into concepts like "passion", "soul mates", "love at first sight", et cetera.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That may well be; but I am a little skeptical of the primacy of even of this "meeting of the minds" you speak of--at least, to the extent that it translates into concepts like "passion", "soul mates", "love at first sight", et cetera.

And therein lies the problem.  "Passion", "soul mates", "love at first sight", et cetera seems to only apply in this day and age to "knees turn to jelly" physical attraction which is the FIRST impression.  I posit that it applies just as much to a woman meeting a distinguished righteous man with vast resources, a strong loyal army, and great physical prowess that she - to use @Mike's phrase, "falls in love" with... and similarly, a man meeting a distinguished righteous woman with vast resources, a landed title, gentility, and femininity that he "falls in love" with.

These days, aspiring for those things are called gold-digging and not romance.

Edited April 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I suppose I'm often guilty of painting myself into a corner by choosing my words with less care than I might otherwise do. My carelessness often requires me to go back and take more time to explain myself.

Welcome to the club. The reason we do this is that we don't realize our carelessness until after someone misunderstands us. Frustrating, but that's life. This also points up how we should not try to hold historical figures to narrow interpretations of what they said, or of what we think they said.

[Mike]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And therein lies the problem.  "Passion", "soul mates", "love at first sight", et cetera seems to only apply in this day and age to "knees turn to jelly" physical attraction which is the FIRST impression.  I posit that it applies just as much to a woman meeting a distinguished righteous man with vast resources, a strong loyal army, and great physical prowess that she - to use @Mike's phrase, "falls in love" with... and similarly, a man meeting a distinguished righteous woman with vast resources, a landed title, gentility, and femininity that he "falls in love" with.

These days, aspiring for those things are called gold-digging and not romance.

Help me out here because I'm having trouble with a connection between [being in love with someone] and [distinguised, vast resources, an army, physical prowess, landed title]. It reminds me of explanations I've heard which relate to what some consider evidence from Evolution. 

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

Help me out here because I'm having trouble with a connection between [being in love with someone] and [distinguised, vast resources, an army, physical prowess, landed title]. It reminds me of explanations I've heard which relate to what some consider evidence from Evolution. 

It's basically an answer to the question of "Why do you love him/her?".  In the olden days it was things like - protection, security, etc. for females... gentility and fertility (not necessary nobility) for males.  Today, the answer to the question of "Why do you love him/her" revolves around sexual attraction.  Hello... gay marriage.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Do you think that anybody in those groups I mentioned above (both Mormon and non-Mormon) would have a problem with a widower marrying again?

I have known several people, mostly women, who do indeed have a problem with a widower remarrying. Ironically, all are LDS. But then, perhaps it's not ironic at all, since Latter-day Saints make up almost all those who believe marriage survives death.

A beloved aunt died a few years back; my surviving uncle has recently started seeing someone. Three of his four children, including both daughters, are mightily unhappy about it. These cousins feel that their father is being less than faithful to their beloved mother (who really was an angel of a person). I love these cousins, whom I occasionally see. What can I say to them? Nothing. They have to work out their own feelings and reactions, and my uncle has to figure out how to deal with things.

I do think "the spectre of eternal polygamy" comes into play here. However, unlike Sister Pearson's non-logical, emotion-based conclusion that plural marriage is itself false and reprehensible, I think that the problem is people not thinking about things correctly. I believe this is greatly exacerbated by our ignorance of what marriage is and what it should be. The very existence of discussions about "homosexual marriage" demonstrate this.

[Mike]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It's basically an answer to the question of "Why do you love him/her?".  In the olden days it was things like - protection, security, etc. for females... gentility and fertility (not necessary nobility) for males.  Today, the answer to the question of "Why do you love him/her" revolves around sexual attraction.  Hello... gay marriage.

I'll probably be accused of being shallow-Mike. My wife and I have often played a game where we try to explain to one another why we love one another. We usually come up with, "I got nothin'; I just love you". Oh, and sometimes (even after 40 years), "You just turn me on."

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

 ... I think that the problem is people not thinking about things correctly. I believe this is greatly exacerbated by our ignorance of what marriage is and what it should be. ...

Don't you think, however, that even examples from Apostles such as Elder Richards G. Scott and his wife illustrate how deep these feelings are--even from people who I would think to name among the last who misunderstand marriage. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Mike