Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Glenn101

  1. There is one thing for sure, in my mind, it is incumbent upon those of us who are not in a faith crisis to continue to reach out to those who are and who have become less or inactive, at least as much as they will let us. Maybe God has told some in one place that He doesn't like for people to be lukewarm. And in another place an apostle has said that without faith, it is impossible to please God. But that is God's province, since He knows our hearts and minds. Our province is to reach out, minister, and love, in my opinion. One of the things that has stood out to me about people that have had near death experiences where they remember meeting loved ones, etc. that had passed away and other beings is the feeling of unconditional love that emanated from those they met, surrounding, engulfing them, to the point that they did not want to go back into their bodies, back to their mortal life. And I believe that maybe that was the way it was in the City of Enoch. That what got everyone on the same page was an encompassing, unconditional love. And maybe if we don't worry so much about the nuts and bolts of doctrine and work in our wards and branches to help them become a little part of the City of Enoch, that could go a long way toward helping people just want to be around the people in those branches and wards. I am not trying to preach here. It is an idea, a feeling that has been working on me and was sort of brought out by posts like this. But I cannot look at anyone else in my ward and say, "You need to do this...." It has to start with me. So I am going to have to try to learn how to love well enough, strong enough, that people can feel it and hope it is contagious. Glenn
  2. I understand your point. I just make it a point not to react to a nutty post. I don't want to come away seeming any nuttier. Sort of paraphrasing an adage I read, a third party looning in might not be able to see the difference.
  3. The lack of attention from a father may seem far from ideal to us as we see it from our own mostly monogamous perspectives when many children were involved. Has anyone done any type of study to find out how children from families of our more famous polygamous leaders turned out in general? I would be interested in reading something on that subject. But it is only fairly recently that we have the expectation of fathers taking a more active role in their children's lives. It has happened as families have gotten smaller and men in general have been able to rise above a survival income level and have been able to do so on forty or so hour a week. There is something I remember from the Book of Mormon, something about the stripling warriors being taught by their mothers. Nothing is said about their fathers. That is interesting. I guess that polygamy would have been something that you would reject after praying about it. There were many that came to the same conclusion when they were approached about it. Men and women. Some left the church over it and some remained. Seems like God still allowed them to remain in the church in good standing. Glenn
  4. It is evident to me from what I have read about polygamy, actually, polygyny in the case of the Church, is a principle that takes a very high degree of righteousness to live properly. It's history in Biblical times shows just how difficult it is. Look at Jacob/Israel, who is held in such high esteem by God and note his preference for his first love and the problems and heart ache that it caused. There is no wonder that a lot of women who have read those stories have such a difficult time with this principle. But I think that stemelbow's comparison is inapt. In a non monogamous relationship with multiple partners of both sexes, relationships are really ambiguous, undefined, and children would seemingly be incidental and maybe accidental results of such relationships. The major focus of such an arrangement would be on the adults who engaged in the arrangement, their gratification, their relationships, etc. with any children seemingly being an afterthought. Such children probably would know who their mothers would be, but knowing who their father is would be problematic as it could be any of the men so involved. Add in the possibility/probability that people would move into and out of those arrangements with the children probably going with the mother, to be introduced to a new set of men etc. Polygamy, on the other, hand, as attempted to be practiced by members of the Church, was/is focused on the family unit. The children know who their mother and their father is. I would think that a polygamous unit would be more stable than a polyamorous situation. But I do not have the statistics to back me up on this. There are several polyamory advocates who write positive articles in Psychology today, but they seem to focus on the ones that are the self reported success stories. There are a couple of things though that polygamy and polyamory have in common to have any chance of success. A lack of jealousy and good relationship skills. Those are just some thoughts. I am not advocating a return to polygamy nor trying polyamory. I am a firm believer in the Proclamation. Glenn
  5. Thanks for that insight into your thinking. I have a bit different perspective. It involves the morality of the issue and from there we would get into the issues of religious morality versus relative morality of culture and society. Glenn
  6. I believe that the author of the survey was trying to narrow the argument down to only biological definitions so as to avoid social and cultural constructs. Glenn
  7. So, do you advocate for abortion on demand for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy? Glenn
  8. For the secular people, the atheists and all those who take God completely out of the equation, the physical. biological aspects of life begin at fertilization. Well, those aspects of it begin the same for everybody, religious or not. For the religious the belief is that life begins when an embryo is quickened by the spirit, and even in that there are disputes because God has not revealed that information to us. Then come the moral questions, Secular moralism is societal based and relative, subject to change with societal values, which has been demonstrated very dramatically recently. And I will leave it there. Glenn
  9. I don't want to get in trouble with the mods but I am lot a fan of leashing anyone. If a person gets obnoxious enough just ban them. Dissent is an essential part of any debating board. And maybe that is why things are so quiet. Glenn
  10. True. And we really do not know what Aaron ans Miriam were complaining about. I am going by the text as it is rendered to us right now which seems to indicate a current event, but yes, it is all speculation and evidently, as you have pointed out, not something of any great consequence to the Lord. Glenn
  11. Robert, Your comments are informative, but shoot past my question which was the late date of the complaints against Moses for having married a Cushite woman. This would seem to be complaints against a recent event rather than something which had occurred maybe forty years ago. Glenn
  12. Back to my point on the complaining. Why was Aaron and Miriam complaining about Moses marrying Zipporah maybe forty years after the fact? It would seem more logical to me that this marriage was something new. A Cushite being of the lineage of Ham might have been something Aaron and Miriam would see as an error on the part of Moses and give them pause to criticize him. Glenn
  13. That does not seem logical, i.e. that the Cushite woman spoken in Numbers 12:1 was Zipporah. I do not recall Midian being equated with Cush. Midian=Arabian peninsula, Cush=Africa. In any event, why would Miriam and Aaron be criticizing Moses about a marriage that had happened maybe forty years earlier? It is possible though that Zipporah had died before Moses married this second time, although her death is not recorded in the Bible. So that is an open question. Fifty-fifty chance of being right or wrong. Glenn
  14. I do not understand your point. Could you elaborate a bit? I do not see a nexus between your comments and the church staying away from polygamy even if it were to become legal because of the rapidly changing perspectives on personal relationships. Glenn
  15. Do you mean if polygamy were to be authorized again? Yeah, probably, but people are also prone to push the boundaries that have been set. The Noyes complex marriage idea did not spread outside his own group because it was too radical in its day. But the times have changed and things that once were unthinkable are being thought about and practiced. I think the church will stay far away from that. Glenn
  16. I do not see the logic in your thinking. A church can be led by God even if some of the members, maybe even a lot of them choose not to follow the tenets, commandments, etc. which God gives them through the church leaders. The Children of Israel is one example that comes to mind. A people that had been miraculously saved from an Egyptian army and were led by Jehovah by day and by night with instructions coming daily via Moses, a prophet, yet many, many of them rebelled in different ways. Glenn
  17. I do not really know the answer to that. I do know people, men that have clung to or aligned thenselves with the idea that men are actual rulers in their homes and are reluctant or maybe scared to go to counseling because it might challenge their paradigms. I don't think that is exclusive to LDS men though. Glenn
  18. I do not know the statistics of the situation so I may be just over reacting, but there does seem to be an increasing rate of divorces among people that have been sealed. I have seen several happen in my own sphere of friends and family, and while I was not ab observer of the day to day interactions of those involved, there were no accusations of abuse, alcoholism, drugs, etc. A lot of disagreements cropped and the parties split up. This was often more the desire mostly of one of the parties while the other wanted to keep the marriage intact. I just wonder if the Lord's message to the Pharisees who were questioning Jesus on the fact that Moses had allowed divorces in his day has any bearing upon a lot of what is going on today? (Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.) Glenn
  19. I think that the different permutations that could come from this i.e. marriage between several consenting adults, such as ideas promoted and practised by John Humphrey Noyes is one of the reasons God will not allow the practice of polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints until at least the Millennium. Glenn
  20. I do not know the answer to that question, but it seems to have been just on that occasion when Jesus was physically with them that such happened. Not sure what to make of it. In the same chapter before Jesus returned to them they were praying to God the Father in the name of Jesus and then in Chapter 27 he admonished the people to pray to God the Father in His name. (28 And now I ago unto the Father. And verily I say unto you, whatsoever things ye shall ask the Father in my name shall be given unto you.) Glenn
  21. Thanks for the heads up. But I did have a plausible explanation until you blew the whole thing out of water with a factual analysis. Sometimes I need to be more diligent. Glenn
  22. A downward trend in marriages seems to have began in the sixties and continues into our present circumstances. I can do a CFR if asked, but the information is readily available. The lower millennial divorce rate may be because fewer people are getting married today and those who are getting married do so because they have very strong feelings about the value of marriage and families. I do not have any data to back that last part up, just throwing it out as an opinion that I see as plausible. Glenn
  23. I disagree, partially, with that assessment. A good education can still enable a single earner family to do well. That education does not have to be college level. There are a lot of skilled trades jobs that can be obtained with training obtained through military service, trade schools, and community colleges. Training also has to be in areas where there is a job market. Families where neither partner has education or other training in fields with where workers are needed face the obstacles that you are talking about, as well as families that live in areas with a high cost of living. A lot depends also depends upon where a person chooses to live or has the ability to choose to live. In places like California even a high paying job is often not enough because of the high cost of housing. A lot of people there and in other areas of the country, especially the elderly living on fixed incomes, where the cost of living is exceptionally high have been priced out of the housing market and either wind up homeless or having to move to other less costly areas. I do not know if the genesis of this trend towards two earner families stemmed from a desire to obtain and maintain a desired lifestyle or whether it was because inflation pushed the cost of living in some areas made it necessary for both partners to work. It is a variation on the chicken and egg situation. I personally know a lot of people where a limited education necessitated that situation, and I know a lot of people where it was a lifestyle choice. And, to get back onto the focus of the thread, doing everything we can to encourage and strengthen the family unit and to provide educational opportunities for people lacking job skills etc. would go a long way in helping families rise out of and stay out of poverty. Strong families are still the most important unit in the world. Glenn
  24. Not to be argumentive, but that is what the guy in the video said, i.e. that the party travelled along their route until they came to Nahom. It is only a minor quibble. I guess that I am a major minor quibbler and I don't know if that quibble has any real significance. It just makes the actual location the party sojourned a bit more fuzzy. As to the "space of a time" thing, I am not hanging my hat on it being a full year. I am basing my opinion, as I noted to JAHS, that it is based upon a passage in Daniel chapter four where Daniel is prophesying to King Nebuchadnezzar that he would go crazy and eat grass for a period of "seven times" which most scholars seem to interpret as seven years or seasons. But Nephi could just as well have been talking about a period of several months. He notes that the Lehi party did this twice while on the trek after they left the place called Shazer. Nephi 16: "17 And after we had traveled for the space of many days, we did pitch our tents for the space of a time, that we might again rest ourselves and obtain food for our families." "33 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time." "34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom." It would seem to me that in each case Nephi is at least pointing to an extended period of time. Glenn
  25. You could be correct that it was an unspecified period of time, but it would seem to differentiate between the "space of many days" pointing to a period that would last maybe several months. That seems to be the intent of the passage that you are referencing. It would seem to be covering the whole time period of conception and pregnancy. "19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! 20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms." I am basing my opinion on the Biblical idea of a time being one year, as noted in Daniel 4:32 where Daniel was interpreting a dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. Glenn
  • Create New...