person0

I keep finding advantages to plural marriage

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jewels8 said:

The Lord has cautioned men that they will be judged by their thoughts, idle words, and I imagine idle things they write, their deeds, and would be glad if the rocks could hide them from the presence of God at the last day, if they are guilty of certain sins.  Of the nature of those sins and what is in a man's heart, that is between him and the Lord.  I beleive that the Lord should find it offensive when men speak lightly of the benefits of polygamy, in a way that is not sacred, and in which is not conducive to the spirit of the Lord.  Today, in the Church, and in The Book of Mormon (which we should all be studying daily), it professes monogamy as the Lord's standard for marriage, and surely if there were more righteous men , there would not be so much of a need for possible polygamy.  Ofcourse no one, men or women are perfect, we all are trying, but I see this as an issue that bears a need for obvious sensitivity, which some have shown, and that is to be appreciated.  

     Jacob told the husbands of the covenant, who knew better, that they were breaking the hearts of their wives and children because of there selfish desires, and behaviors.  They were stupid, willing to embark on a path of destruction of their eternal family, disregarding the feelings of those they covenanted to protect and  cherish all for some superficial fling that means nothing.  How dumb, how tragic!    Willing to give up any chance for eternal peace and glory for something that would only brand them as a coward, a bastard and a fool.  Why would a priesthood holder sink so low and pay such a high price?   Ofcourse no one is that silly today.  (who are we kidding?)

  Ok, well, I prefer monogamy.  I don't think that  anybody should be dreaming of polygamy or polyandry.  I know I'm not.  I think the Lord's standard today is pretty clear.  A modern prophet has said to choose your love and love your choice.  The seminary or institute of religion manual has cautioned that polygamy should not be taken out of context and not alluded to as what will be practiced in eternity.  We really don't know.  We have been taught that monogamous marriages are sufficient to enter exaltation.  And our hearts need to be pure and right before God.  Joseph Smith would not allow his brother to practice polygamy because he was too eager, his heart was not right.  Joseph Smith hesitated for years to practice it.  Brigham Young at first desired the grave rather then practice it.  Please be sensitive what posts are made regarding this subject and what you choose to say about it all the days of your life, and thank you to those who do.

      

    

I agree with much of this.  There is no cause or reason to consider polygamy today.  One should not strive or seek after it.  Our commandment today is to be monogamous.  We are to be a union of one husband and one wife.  Seeking or striving after more than this while you are married to a spouse in this life is not in accordance with what we believe.  Some may be married after a spouse dies, but seeking the death of your spouse so you can do so or hoping for such is, in my opinion, VERY unchristlike and not much in accordance with what the Lord expects or wishes.

I think that you bring up some very important points that should e focused on. 

In this manner, I am going to selectively post parts of what I consider an important document in our time (and maybe some day it will be canonized, or be part of the standard works).

Quote

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

.......

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

This is taken from the Proclamation to the Family.  In it, they use the singular rather than the plural.  When one is thinking of plural marriage and such, it probably is far more difficult to think specifically of one's wife only.

With that in mind, I find it interesting that the Proclaimation uses the SINGULAR forms of the words.  I also see how it uses the term "complete fidelity."  I find that EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

Today there is a great plague of pornography on our land and even among the members of the church.  A prophet once dreamed of a great plague that spread through all the land and the great stink that arose of it.  I do not know but I could see it (personally) being a vision and prophecy of the great and horrible affliction of pornography that currently resides in our society. 

The sin is not adultery, but I think it makes it difficult for a man or a woman to fully show their fidelity within the vows of marriage.  They are probably NOT THINKING of their spouse when viewing such material.

I bring it up only to mention that this could also apply to any man who inordinately spends time thinking about polygamy or being in a polygamous marriage.  Normally, it is not pertinent to him nor his life.  Thus, to dream or wonder about how wonderful it may be or wishing that such a practice would return is probably not focusing on what is important to us here and now.

Doing so may bring hurt feelings and even break the hearts of wives and spouses.  It is not something we should yearn for or hope for.  Today, one wife is enough and we should be happy that even ONE woman would desire to spend their lives and perhaps their eternity with us.  In likewise, as a husband's heart should be fully and only for his wife in this manner, so should a wife have her heart completely devoted to her husband. 

The Lord did not make Adam and Eve, Barbie, Claire, Diane, Fergie, Georgette, Henrietta, Jane, Korine, Laurette, Marmie, Noel, Odel, Phillis, Queenie, Roseanne, Tiffany, Umeo, Victoria, Willia, Xania, Yamie, and Zyphilia. 

He just made Adam and Eve. 

Today, we need to focus on the here and now and our commandments for us currently.  Perhaps some might marry again if death takes a spouse, but if married currently, we need to focus ONLY ON OUR SPOUSE.  No dreaming of having another spouse or someone other than the one that we are supposed to be with today.  We want complete and total faithfulness in a marriage.  That means total fidelity to our spouse who is hopefully the one we love.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Lord did not make Adam and Eve, Barbie, Claire, Diane, Fergie, Georgette, Henrietta, Jane, Korine, Laurette, Marmie, Noel, Odel, Phillis, Queenie, Roseanne, Tiffany, Umeo, Victoria, Willia, Xania, Yamie, and Zyphilia. 

Um, you forgot Irma, and Sally - which is probably the real reason we don't have plural marriage anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the men who have thought plural marriage might be great fun, consider that the future would more likely mean plural husbands rather than wives. There are more females than males in universities, with many seeing a 60/40 split. Increasingly, good-paying jobs require intellectual and intuitive skills--areas where women excel. Also, with the rise of #metoo, as well as longstanding gender grievance against males, it may be a generation or two before there is perceived equity. All this leads to the conclusion that there will be more capable females than males for the next several decades. Fortunately, women tend to be less crass than men, and will not likely embrace the burden of supporting multiple men.  :fireball:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Hey, I can balance 44 wives and still find time to play 12 hours of video games a day! 

Take notes @person0. This is how you rock polygamy bro. 

@MormonGator you think you have it all balanced, when it's really us who do the balancing. You have so much time to play video games because it keeps you out of our hair 😜

@person0 I would do the exact opposite of what Gator says if you want to get things done right. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, zil said:

I'm sorry folks, but it is so blindingly obvious that to believe that women can have more than one husband in the eternities is driven by something utterly contrary to everything taught in the Church.  It has no more foundation than the great and spacious building of Lehi's dream.

I agree 100%, but the sealings are all valid until they are broken.

Actually, now that I think of it, that is not correct; the sealings are not valid until they are ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  Well, there you go, an easy fix to that argument.  We just have to wait and see which sealings get ratified 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

For all the men who have thought plural marriage might be great fun

I don't see any post in this thread that indicates anyone here legitimately thinks it would be fun.  Having surgery is beneficial, but it isn't fun.  Grandpa rapidly downing three bottles of milk of magnesia is beneficial, but isn't fun - for him at least 😁.  I explicitly was discussing benefits.  How do parents get little children to take nasty medicine?  By buying the cherry flavored kind and telling them over and over again it will make them feel better and get better; then, if that doesn't work, by opening their mouth and forcing it down one way or another,  watching victoriously their kids get better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, person0 said:

I don't see any post in this thread that indicates anyone here legitimately thinks it would be fun.  Having surgery is beneficial, but it isn't fun.  Grandpa rapidly downing three bottles of milk of magnesia is beneficial, but isn't fun - for him at least 😁.  I explicitly was discussing benefits.  How do parents get little children to take nasty medicine?  By buying the cherry flavored kind and telling them over and over again it will make them feel better and get better; then, if that doesn't work, by opening their mouth and forcing it down one way or another,  watching victoriously their kids get better!

I had in mind the generic guy who thinks, "Plural marriage...woo hoo!"--not any particular post or poster on this string. :detective:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is amazing to me how calmly many of my colleagues feel about an arranged marriage. Many of my colleagues are from cultures where arranged marriage is common. Older colleagues were told who they would marry. Three sons would often marry 3 sisters. Younger colleagues are taken to meet a variety of approved women. I have spoken with students, bright people in their mid 20s, whose parents are in the midst of finding them a mate. People can get used to anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

It is amazing to me how calmly many of my colleagues feel about an arranged marriage. Many of my colleagues are from cultures where arranged marriage is common. Older colleagues were told who they would marry. Three sons would often marry 3 sisters. Younger colleagues are taken to meet a variety of approved women. I have spoken with students, bright people in their mid 20s, whose parents are in the midst of finding them a mate. People can get used to anything. 

Oh, @mordorbund, Sunday21 has found your people! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a little sister who never asked where babies came from. So when she was about eight years old, Mom took her aside and explained sex to her. My baby sister was appalled. She swore she would never do something so nasty. Seeing as how she's married with two children, apparently her resolve wavered.

When we are immature, reality can seem harsh and even evil. As we grow up, we grow into reality, and what previously seemed awful can come to seem acceptable, even desirable.

If plural marriage is indeed a feature of eternity, as seems likely, then obviously it is a good thing. Railing against it only demonstrates our own immaturity. Now there is no shame in being immature. By definition, that's how we all start out. But by the same token, we should not cling stubbornly to our immaturity and use it as how we define ourselves.

It has long seemed to me that the best way for most people to approach the topic of plural marriage is not to approach it at all. Just leave it alone. Let it sit there, unmolested, while you go on your merry way. If and when the time comes that the topic needs to be dealt with, you can deal with it then. Until that time, learn what God has for you to learn and don't sweat the rest. And if people want to talk about plural marriage, let them. You don't need to participate. There are far too many wonderful things in life to take up your time and your thoughts without surrendering yourself to bashing your head against the concrete wall of plural marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 12:23 AM, lostinwater said:

If someone wants to break the law by practicing polygamy, that is their business.  It's illegal, but at least it's them making the choice.  

But polygamy, when controlled and imposed upon people by religious leaders under the pretext of it being God-ordained, has a remarkably consistent record.  It leaves a wake of pain, suffering, abuse, jealousy, and manipulative favoritism a mile wide.  Pretty close to 100% of the time.  

Recommended Reading (note the titles)

Breaking Free by Rachel Jeffs

The Polygamist's Daughter by Anna LeBaron

Escape by Ann Marie Lee

The Witness Wore Red by Rebecca Musser

Those books are about the FLDS, but you pick up on a lot of the dynamics in polygamist relationships in them.  i'd share ones about early Church polygamist experiences, but i those would not be  approved sources, so i will refrain.

 

On 10/22/2018 at 3:08 PM, Morgaine said:

The problem with plural marriage is jealousy. I feel that it's better for a household to have a heavy workload but enjoy a monogamous relationship, than to bring other wives in the picture and ruin that bond by bringing in opportunities for jealousy to arise. All you have to do is read books written by wives of polygamist relationships and they all speak of the favoritism and jealousy that is amongst the women. 

Better to get a maid/caregiver/nanny to do the work only and appreciate the completeness of having one wife.

I don’t doubt that there is HUGE potential for plural marriages to go wrong in some particularly ugly ways; or that even the *good* ones entail some very tough emotional choices and sacrifices.  And I further agree that even faithful LDS women wrote of some of these, and passed others down via family lore to their descendants.

But one should probably bear in mind Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s observation that “well-behaved women seldom make history”, and consider that in a parallel vein happily-married women rarely publish tell-all bestsellers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, my wife has severe rheumatoid arthritis and initially the idea of having another hand to help out with domestic duties is attractive to me.

But then my sister-in-law is temporarily staying with us and already there are conflicts over discipline of children and more (we have custody of two of her kids). There is more stress with her here than without. I think that's about as close to experiencing polygamy as one can get, and it's tough, and that's without having to deal with intimacy/jealousy/romantic love issues thrown in too.

I think that law must have been a much more difficult law to live than many of us realize.

Edited by jerome1232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t doubt that there is HUGE potential for plural marriages to go wrong in some particularly ugly ways; or that even the *good* ones entail some very tough emotional choices and sacrifices.  And I further agree that even faithful LDS women wrote of some of these, and passed others down via family lore to their descendants.

 But one should probably bear in mind Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s observation that “well-behaved women seldom make history”, and consider that in a parallel vein happily-married women rarely publish tell-all bestsellers.

Thank-you.

So i'm all for sacrifices - for good things.  But there's an awful lot of people asking you to sacrifice for terrible things.  And to the extent that they can convince you that what they are requesting is God-sanctioned, they gain a tremendous amount of leverage to get people to violate their consciences.  And that leverage is often, and even usually, exercised at some point - with catastrophic consequences.  And polygamy is one of those things that burns like battery acid on the consciences of most of the people i know.   

Really, polygamy was one of the things that sat heavy on my shelf.  And learning *how* it was practiced snapped it in two.  i only say that to provide some context for my next statement, which is that i don't believe that God wants (or ever wanted) polygamy.  Not in the time of Joseph Smith, and not in the bible either.  And that it is one of the things that people said God said because they wanted it.  

But that's just my opinion - and i don't claim that it is anything more than that.  If any mod  needs to delete this comment, feel free - definitely understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i don't believe that God wants (or ever wanted) polygamy.  Not in the time of Joseph Smith, and not in the bible either.  And that it is one of the things that people said God said because they wanted it

If you believe Joseph Smith was a liar, then this is a tenable hypothesis. Otherwise, not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vort said:

If you believe Joseph Smith was a liar, then this is a tenable hypothesis. Otherwise, not.

Thank-you @Vort

Good point.

Well, in fairness, i'm a liar, if the definition is someone who has lied.  Beyond that, i'm probably speaking things that aren't true even though i think they are.  

So sometimes i lie and know it but do it anyways because of whatever reason, sometimes i say things that aren't true without knowing it (which i guess is sort of lying too), and hopefully most of the time, say things as the are.  

Anyways, i don't want this to become about me.  But i only mention all that because as you said, a lot of my "no, that's not right"  only makes sense with the additional context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lostinwater said:

Well, in fairness, i'm a liar, if the definition is someone who has lied.  Beyond that, i'm probably speaking things that aren't true even though i think they are.

True for us all, but that is not what I mean.

Joseph Smith did not just say one time, "This is from God." He said it repeatedly to those around him. He rebuked his wife with those words. He recruited among the early Brethren by telling them that it was a revealed principle. He produced documented revelations he said were directly from God, condoning and even commanding the practice. Plural marriage was no one-time self-deception. Joseph Smith staked his reputation and his very eternal life on the principle. So if plural marriage is not of God, then Joseph Smith cannot reasonably be seen as anything but a liar and a conman. There is no reasonable alternative.

For the record, I do not believe that Joseph Smith was a liar or a conman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vort said:

True for us all, but that is not what I mean.

 Joseph Smith did not just say one time, "This is from God." He said it repeatedly to those around him. He rebuked his wife with those words. He recruited among the early Brethren by telling them that it was a revealed principle. He produced documented revelations he said were directly from God, condoning and even commanding the practice. Plural marriage was no one-time self-deception. Joseph Smith staked his reputation and his very eternal life on the principle. So if plural marriage is not of God, then Joseph Smith cannot reasonably be seen as anything but a liar and a conman. There is no reasonable alternative.

 For the record, I do not believe that Joseph Smith was a liar or a conman.

Thanks.  

i guess i've given up on the all-or-nothing paradigm in general.  i find that most things in the world are neither as bad as their detractors want us to believe, nor as good as their promoters want us to believe.  And i know that at least when i operate in the world in a way that doesn't keep that in mind, i become either very mean, or very vulnerable.  

i don't think Joseph Smith was a liar or a conman either.  i operate among many ex-members.  They *hate* Joseph Smith.  To them, he's a scummy lying pedophilic conman - and they'll tell everyone who will listen (and even those who won't :)).  But having read a bunch of his history - trying to keep my sources varied - i can't agree with that.  He suffered tremendously, and did a lot of good, not the least of which is creating something which i consider as being objectively good in so many ways.  And at least from what i've observed, organizations generally reflect the motives of the person who put them in motion.  

So even though i disagree with polygamy completely, and honestly, don't believe a lot of the things he said, i don't think he was a liar (in the sense you mean) or a conman either.  Not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.

So i'm all for sacrifices - for good things.  But there's an awful lot of people asking you to sacrifice for terrible things.  And to the extent that they can convince you that what they are requesting is God-sanctioned, they gain a tremendous amount of leverage to get people to violate their consciences.  And that leverage is often, and even usually, exercised at some point - with catastrophic consequences.  And polygamy is one of those things that burns like battery acid on the consciences of most of the people i know.   

Really, polygamy was one of the things that sat heavy on my shelf.  And learning *how* it was practiced snapped it in two.  i only say that to provide some context for my next statement, which is that i don't believe that God wants (or ever wanted) polygamy.  Not in the time of Joseph Smith, and not in the bible either.  And that it is one of the things that people said God said because they wanted it.  

But that's just my opinion - and i don't claim that it is anything more than that.  If any mod  needs to delete this comment, feel free - definitely understand.

It’s hard for me to make sweeping generalizations about the practice (as opposed to the theory) of polygamy in any particular religious subculture (or, for that matter, about the prevailing practice of “serial extramarital monogamy” in our modern secularized culture).  

Certainly, any case of a person telling me God wants me to do anything is potentially problematic.  It becomes more so if the thing the person says God wants, happens to be particularly self-serving; even more so if the course of action is contrary to my own interests as a whole; and yet more so if I believe God actually wants something different but the person insists I should do things their way because they know the will of God better than I do.  

But suffice it to say, I don’t see the second, third, or fourth conditions as being met in most historical cases of pioneer-era LDS plural marriage.  Joseph Smith, and most other pioneer men of the era, knew full well that there were less-complicated means of attaining sexual release than marrying women and supporting multiple families.  Plural marriage was not necessarily a net negative to women of that era once one moves beyond emotional bonds and adds economic and other factors into the mix (that seems to be a one of the main propositions of the OP). And many of the wives of the LDS leadership, at least, attested that their suitors encouraged those women to seek their own revelation from God (and these women were no shrinking violets.  They included such veritable battle-axes as Eliza Snow, Zina Huntington, Martha Hughes, and Augusta Cobb).

I would agree that polygamy is something that is wrenchingly hard to do well, and spectacularly destructive when done poorly.  It also poses a challenge to the notion of “romantic love” that has been the ideal of western marriage for the past two centuries.  I know that at least five of the six first LDS presidents, experienced divorces or their extralegal equivalents (Taylor, I’m not sure about).  IIRC, Joseph F. Smith’s first marriage ultimately dissolved due to the same dynamic some here have expressed a fear of—his wife was sterile and, try as she might, couldn’t bear the reality that Smith was successfully siring children with other women.  I have two polygamous divorces in my own family tree.  I still remember stumbling in a local history of a “first wife” in pioneer American Fork who out of jealousy locked a younger wife out of the house one winter’s night, resulting in the younger wife literally freezing to death right there on her own doorstep.  Jacob’s and Abraham’s polygamy strikes me as at least as much a matter of making lemonade out of life’s lemons, as about being an attempt to fulfill some divine ideal ab initio

The more I look at scripture and at LDS history, the more it occurs to me that there is a difference between being a great person versus being a refined one—and that the majority of the people we lionize probably fell into the former, not the latter category.   I suspect it takes both greatness and refinement to make a polygamous household work well; and my suspicion is that while modern society may be improving in its refinement, much of its former greatness is slipping away.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, and this is true of any history not just the history of polygamy, most stories that make it into the history books are the dramatic ones. People tend not to write or read stories about boring, everyday people whose lives were fine, but uninteresting. The history that tends to be recorded is the earth shaking, the tragic, the excesses. It's easy to judge all those who practiced polygamy in early church history by the lurid stories of those who handled it poorly, because those are far more eye catching and interesting to read than the stories where it worked or where problems existed, but no serious issues occured. That's why people tend to read stories of Hitler, Napoleon, and Caesar and not of John Doe who died at 77 and loved his wife and kids.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

Plural marriage was no one-time self-deception.

If plural marriage had anything to do with men wanting sex with more women, or other improper and deceptive reasons, I imagine Joseph would have likely embraced the practice of 'spiritual wifery' and people like John C. Bennet would not have been excommunicated.  Likewise the practice would never have needed to end as there is no federal law against what would be considered adultery, only state laws.

EDIT:  It appears JAG already covered this.

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But suffice it to say, I don’t see the second, third, or fourth conditions as being met in most historical cases of pioneer-era LDS plural marriage.  Joseph Smith, and most other pioneer men of the era, knew full well that there were less-complicated means of attaining sexual release than marrying women and supporting multiple families.  Plural marriage was not necessarily a net negative to women of that era once one moves beyond emotional bonds and adds economic and other factors into the mix (that seems to be a one of the main propositions of the OP). And many of the wives of the LDS leadership, at least, attested that their suitors encouraged those women to seek their own revelation from God (and these women were no shrinking violets.  They included such veritable battle-axes as Eliza Snow, Zina Huntington, Martha Hughes, and Augusta Cobb).

Thank-you.

To be honest, my issues do not stem from the concept of polygamy in it's strictest sense.  There are plenty of terrible things people choose (i mean, even really irredeemable ones, like, say,  anchovies on pizza :) ) that i just cringe at and move on.   If Brother so-and-so wants to go to Sister so-and-so and ask her out on a date, court her, and then say, "Will you be my ump-teenth wife at age 19, and help my other wives take care of all the 36 children....but if you don't, that's entirely fine".  i mean, i can't imagine what's going through her mind if she said yes, but it would be her decision. 

However, this is not at all how it was practiced.  You had religious authorities telling women on the basis of their priesthood authority (using implicit or explicit threats of consequences should they disobey) whom God wanted them to marry.  Very young girls/women marrying much older men, and everything in between.  HUGE difference.  

i'm quite convinced that the practice would disappear completely if things were allowed to run their course. 

And i'm not so sure about other less-complicated ways.  Or maybe less complicated, but with far more severe social and religious repercussions.

Anyways, in the end, it all comes back to what one believes the men who practiced it were.  Either a awful trial that's beyond a person's understanding or a debauched and unnecessary travesty that God weeps to see.  And i don't know that that point can be argued - at least not with positive effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Anyways, in the end, it all comes back to what one believes the men who practiced it were.

Even if we were to presume that most men practiced it improperly and unrighteously, it doesn't mean that God didn't inspire and command it.  Consider King David, he 'despised the command of the Lord' in regards to polygamy; he went so far as to bring about a man's death to have his wife; and he was and will be punished for it.  God commanded the law of consecration and the saints failed miserably, therefore tithing was introduced.  God, through Moses, delivered the Israelites from Egypt, and they couldn't help themselves but to complain, and eventually even start worshiping an Idol.

If I told my 4 year old to make breakfast for the family, it would probably end up similar to this:
image.png.408bd6b54a14819a7e6564034952568a.png

1 Samuel 15 is an excellent example of God's chosen improperly following his command.  God's people's success at correctly following His laws is unrelated to the veracity of the commands themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, person0 said:

 Even if we were to presume that most men practiced it improperly and unrighteously, it doesn't mean that God didn't inspire and command it.  Consider King David, he 'despised the command of the Lord' in regards to polygamy; he went so far as to bring about a man's death to have his wife; and he was and will be punished for it.  God commanded the law of consecration and the saints failed miserably, therefore tithing was introduced.  God, through Moses, delivered the Israelites from Egypt, and they couldn't help themselves but to complain, and eventually even start worshiping an Idol.

 If I told my 4 year old to make breakfast for the family, it would probably end up similar to this:
image.png.408bd6b54a14819a7e6564034952568a.png

1 Samuel 15 is an excellent example of God's chosen improperly following his command.  God's people's success at correctly following His laws is unrelated to the veracity of the commands themselves.

Thank-you.

i've said my piece (probably a few pieces too many).  But i need to respond because i don't think i phrased that last sentence of mine very well.  It doesn't come down to the men.  What i meant to convey is that It comes down to whether or not one believes God commanded it.  

i don't, others do.  i respect if others believe God did.  That said, that respect does not extend to the utilization of coercive or manipulative tactics - however well meaning - to get people to participate in the practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.  

i guess i've given up on the all-or-nothing paradigm in general.  i find that most things in the world are neither as bad as their detractors want us to believe, nor as good as their promoters want us to believe.  And i know that at least when i operate in the world in a way that doesn't keep that in mind, i become either very mean, or very vulnerable.  

i don't think Joseph Smith was a liar or a conman either.  i operate among many ex-members.  They *hate* Joseph Smith.  To them, he's a scummy lying pedophilic conman - and they'll tell everyone who will listen (and even those who won't :)).  But having read a bunch of his history - trying to keep my sources varied - i can't agree with that.  He suffered tremendously, and did a lot of good, not the least of which is creating something which i consider as being objectively good in so many ways.  And at least from what i've observed, organizations generally reflect the motives of the person who put them in motion.  

So even though i disagree with polygamy completely, and honestly, don't believe a lot of the things he said, i don't think he was a liar (in the sense you mean) or a conman either.  Not at all.

Well, if he was a prophet, that is par for the course of what people would call and consider him.

Jesus was considered such and worse.  That's one of the reasons they crucified him.

Elijah was hunted down, or the King and Queen tried.

Jeremiah was tossed into prison.

The scriptures point out that one condemnation on those that hate the gospel (and the Nephites and even us) is that they imprisoned, stoned, and killed the prophets.

These stories that people are "discovering" now, many of them are actually from when Joseph Smith was alive. The Saints KNEW these same stories then, far more intimately than we do.  They knew the accusers and whether they were valid accusers or not.  Joseph Smith was hated then as well, enough for people to kill him.

If they had their way they would have killed Brigham Young and the rest of the Saints as well. 

This same attitude exists among some of those (especially those who used to be part of the church and left, but not all) today and if they could do so legally, they would kill every Saint alive.  They dream of the day the Prophets and Apostles fall and the church along with them.  The Book of Mormon prophesies that these people will be here and would want this to happen in our day and our time.

One could find it ironic that by their actions they are just fulfilling what they feel they hate most in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now