Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nuclearfuels

Kenya and Germany on Polygamy

Recommended Posts

On 7/3/2019 at 4:50 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends on how late you place the final redaction of the text.  If you place it as late as the post-Exilic period when the Jews were ardently opposed to any an all micegenation, then of course they might have put such words in the mouth of Aaron and Miriam, but that is just speculation.  However, with King David being part Moabite, that seems silly.

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2019 at 10:37 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

However, Isaac was monogamous,

Do you think Joseph was wrong in D&C 132?

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, jpv said:

Do you think Joseph was wrong in D&C 132?

No; why would I?  The first thing I see is formulaic language typical of Scripture.  Second, I note from the biblical record that some of those guys only have one wife.  Did they have others?  Perhaps, but I can only go by the actual record, which is in the form of highly redacted Holy Writ.  Finally, I can compare various Holy texts with one another to give myself better perspective.  In the Book of Mormon, for example, we have some polemic against the House of Judah (which is characteristic of a Northern E document, Elohistic doc) in condemning the multiple wifery/concubinage of David & Solomon (Jacob 2:23-24, 3:5), and otherwise a lack of mention of Judah generally throughout.  The BofM is a Manassite document.  The Bible was redacted by the Jews (House of Judah).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 11:24 AM, bluebell said:

You might not, but I think that many people in this day and age would find the notion of having dozens of wives and concubines who pretty much had to do whatever the husband decided and who were basically the same as property to be distasteful.  

The tricky part about that - is that I - and possible a few others - find some current commandments distasteful. Nevertheless we try to comply 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

The tricky part about that - is that I - and possible a few others - find some current commandments distasteful. Nevertheless we try to comply 

 

Yep. Why do I have to be nice to stupid people. Clearly it would be more helpful in the long run to let them know they are morons but the scriptures say otherwise. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/25/2019 at 7:31 PM, The Nehor said:

Yep. Why do I have to be nice to stupid people. Clearly it would be more helpful in the long run to let them know they are morons but the scriptures say otherwise. :( 

Let us not forget the spirit of the law, now Nehor.

When you're in a well to do ward and almost no one helps you, their lack of helping you helps you grow adn was thus also an act of God.

All roads lead to growth, some roads just have less screaming

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2019 at 12:54 PM, The Nehor said:

We need to reinvent the family paradigm and get a new economic paradigm that helps people raise families and allows for happiness in that life.

 

I agree.

As to what that new paradigm might look like, I'd guess polygamy or robot partners. Hoping for the former.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2019 at 1:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Women and men apparently are just not interested in having children in Japan and in Europe.  Polygamy wouldn't change anything.

If extinction of a person's family line isnt motivation to marry and have kids, my hats off to the nihilism of popular culture over the past 50 years.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/25/2019 at 1:23 PM, Glenn101 said:

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

Aren't we close enough to the Millenium yet? :)

Are we there yet?

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/24/2019 at 7:48 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

It isn't so much a matter of legislation, since the U.S. Supreme Court will likely legalize plural marriage.  The question is whether the LDS Church will make it legal, and that is very doubtful.

Excellent clarification, Robert. (not being sarcastic)

That is the essence of my question: when will the Church re-institute it?

What other measures do you anticipate the Church making due to the ongoing Demographic Cliff? 

I don't see them taking the Govt of Japan's route of robots fixing all our problems

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/24/2019 at 10:37 PM, changed said:

I work with someone who comes from a polygamous family - he is the first son of the first wife, out of 20 wives.  It sounded like more of a business deal, wives running farms etc.  He's kind of Christian?  not really religious.

Does your coworker support the practice as well? Or has he gone a different path?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Excellent clarification, Robert. (not being sarcastic)

That is the essence of my question: when will the Church re-institute it?

What other measures do you anticipate the Church making due to the ongoing Demographic Cliff? 

I don't see them taking the Govt of Japan's route of robots fixing all our problems

There's always Aldous Huxley's Brave New World of test tube babies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

extinction of a person's family line i

Maybe it is a guy thing, but I don’t see the big deal here. Maybe because all my descendants don’t carry my family name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There's always Aldous Huxley's Brave New World of test tube babies.

Already happening, and more.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe it is a guy thing, but I don’t see the big deal here. Maybe because all my descendants don’t carry my family name.

Grandma and Grampa Gui had 9 children, but I am their only grandson with their name. In their culture, carrying on the family name (the father’s) was very important, so our 8 grandsons will hopefully perpetuate the name and make them proud and happy. It may not be a big deal to some, but it is to others. Some folks hyphenate names for the same reason.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2019 at 10:48 AM, The Nehor said:

Without massive social and cultural changes to adapt to it.....maybe. Polyandry may be the only option for China though. It will be interesting to see what happens there over the next few years. China is two cultures that have never integrated and facing a social crisis. Civil conflict and even war are not out of the question.

Can you explain this more in depth? You've got me fascinated.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Can you explain this more in depth? You've got me fascinated.

Which part? The one child policy was rescinded a while ago but it was in place for a long time and parents favored male children. I doubt they will encourage women to marry more then one man at a time but it would make sense there.

The two cultures is the split between the urbanized and developed areas and the rural farmers and sweatshop workers, some of whom are still living in the equivalent of the 60s. Add in that the government is still pretending they are communist and the whole thing could fall apart if another Mao were to show up.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Which part? The one child policy was rescinded a while ago but it was in place for a long time and parents favored male children. I doubt they will encourage women to marry more then one man at a time but it would make sense there.

The two cultures is the split between the urbanized and developed areas and the rural farmers and sweatshop workers, some of whom are still living in the equivalent of the 60s. Add in that the government is still pretending they are communist and the whole thing could fall apart if another Mao were to show up.

The second paragraph and thank you. Your explanation helped. A friend who studies politics stated that China is an authoritarian capitalist nation. Is that remotely accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

The second paragraph and thank you. Your explanation helped. A friend who studies politics stated that China is an authoritarian capitalist nation. Is that remotely accurate?

Pretty accurate but there is some socialism with the government owning some key enterprises such as banks, energy, and most transportation. All land is technically owned by the government and leased by others but in practice since you can sell the lease and the lease is some times a century long it is not that different from capitalism. There is also a ton of nationalism with China being structured around international gains, primarily economic and territorial ambitions.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty accurate but there is some socialism with the government owning some key enterprises such as banks, energy, and most transportation. All land is technically owned by the government and leased by others but in practice since you can sell the lease and the lease is some times a century long it is not that different from capitalism. There is also a ton of nationalism with China being structured around international gains, primarily economic and territorial ambitions.

What caused the shift from Maoist ideology to the system today? 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

What caused the shift from Maoist ideology to the system today? 

The failure of the agricultural communes, overinvestment in heavy industry, and a three year famine. Most of the drive came from the people and not from the government. China liberalized economically without liberalizing politically or ideologically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The failure of the agricultural communes, overinvestment in heavy industry, and a three year famine. Most of the drive came from the people and not from the government. China liberalized economically without liberalizing politically or ideologically.

Still sounds like a recipe for disaster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/2/2019 at 12:36 PM, nuclearfuels said:

Does your coworker support the practice as well? Or has he gone a different path?

Gone a different path.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/5/2019 at 8:39 PM, Valentinus said:

Still sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Some have said that the excess male population will have to be dealt with, probably by having a war.  Human wave tactics can run a lot of men into a meatgrinder, as long as the defenders have plenty of ammo.  Sounds obscene, and it is, but they've done it before.  It's easy enough if one's morality is sufficiently Marxian.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/6/2019 at 7:22 PM, Stargazer said:

Some have said that the excess male population will have to be dealt with, probably by having a war.  Human wave tactics can run a lot of men into a meatgrinder, as long as the defenders have plenty of ammo.  Sounds obscene, and it is, but they've done it before.  It's easy enough if one's morality is sufficiently Marxian.

Sad but true, not only for the Marxists but for everyone else as well.

What To Expect When No One's Expecting is a powerful book about demographics (non-LDS author) that unwinds threats of war from the Middle East; what do the govt politicians of such countires have to lose?  Their unemployed/underemployed, unmarried group of males - if nto told who to blame for thier country's problems - will look inside and start a rebellion at home

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By SouthernMo
      The timeline and reasons of how the idea of polygamy evolved into practice is perplexing.  It is causing me doubt how scriptures are to be obeyed, and how to trust the revelatory process.  Let's look at the pattern Joseph Smith followed:
      March 1830 - Joseph Smith publishes the Book of Mormon (supposedly scripture) which contains commandments from God.  The only discussion of polygamy is found in Jacob 2, which clearly condemns the practice.  However, there is a provision given for exceptions: only to 'raise up seed' if God commands it.
      The Gospel Topics Essay on Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo states that "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates."  The only revelation I know of on polygamy came in July 1843 (D&C 132), yet Joseph Smith had married 22 (by some count) additional wives by July 1843.
      2 Big Questions:
      1. What revelation did Joseph Smith receive (per the mentioned Gospel Topic Essay) before the D&C 132 revelation that told him to practice polygamy, despite the Book of Mormon's 1830 prohibition (with exception)?
      2. In light of the Jacob 2:30 provision for the allowance of polygamy to "raise up seed unto me..." why are there no (known) children that emerged from Joseph Smith's plural wives?  Joseph apparently did not use polygamy to 'raise up seed.'
    • By nuclearfuels
      So now that President Nelson has shown us how he roles and how the inspiration he receives roles, I can't help but ask/ponder aloud with my cyber-ward-family/friends (I don't know any of you well enough to consider our relationship to be that of frenemies, my apologies):
      - I figure we have maybe two years until the BSA program (love it or hate it) will be replaced
      - Several years ago, maybe 10+ years, there was talk about mini-Temples being created in levels other the main entry level of stake centers; wondering if this idea might come back?  Really I'm just looking for an excuse to goto Ireland and a Temple openhouse seems to be that opportunity; slainte!
      - Wondering if any of you have written to General Authorities and asked about topics like these; anyone received a response?  Since "marriage" has been legally "redefined," I'm curious to ask the GA's if redefining marriage in the vein of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many others defined marriage.  Waiting for SCOTUS to "redefine marriage" again (before reinstituting), would be more palatable no doubt, but aren't we on kind of an accelerated time schedule/ last days etc.?  And when you attend the Temple, don't the Sisters outnumber the Brothers by a factor of 3 to 1, on average?
    • By MeeMee
      My question as I am still a new convert is how many times can you be sealed to someone or others. Say for example you were sealed to your current husband but he pass away. Years later down the line you meet someone and want to get sealed with the new husband instead. How does it work in the end. I never understand this and every time I ask someone nobody seems to really want to explain it. Please clarify only if you truly have the answer.
      Thank You
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By DBMormon
      Knowing the background of the Lucy Walker story (if you don't, I can not emphasize enough the need to understand the story - resources below), I am curious how those who both know the story and who are faithful to the restoration and Church authority answer the following question.
      Do you take the position that Joseph deceived Lucy Walker about God commanding him to take her as a plural wife, or do you subscribe to a God whose morality has him commanding a man in a father/daughter dynamic to change his relationship with this 16 year old girl living in his home effectively as his foster daughter into a husband/wife dynamic? I am also open to other perspectives that hold some other ground but wood tool answers will not be acceptable in this post (have faith, God will work it out on the other side, go pray about it and get your own answer knowing people get competing answers)
      The question is not how does someone other than yourself come down or arrive at a perspective on this question but rather where do you personally come down on this question. I am deeply hoping that you wont avoid all-together or avoid using the mechanism that you know by the spirit that the Church is true hence you don't concern yourself with such conundrums. Instead what is your personal take on this historical issue.
      While this historical story has been largely ignored, I think it is the most important story in all of Mormonism. bigger than the Book of Abraham, bigger than Helen Mar Kimball and Fanny Alger, bigger than first vision accounts, and Race and Priesthood.
      http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/12/premium-lucy-walker-spiritual-experiences/
      http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/tag/lucy-walker-smith/
      http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm
      http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/lucy-walker/
×
×
  • Create New...