Jump to content

Risingtide

Members
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Risingtide

  1. I think you're right. I believe I used paradigm incorrectly. I thought paradigm meant things as they truly are. is there a word that pertains to a universal truth? Another question are Richard Van Wagoner and Todd Compton generally considered as responsible historians of polygamy in LDS history by Latter Day Saints who seek to understand the practice.
  2. Wouldn't God know the true paradigm"? I think so. How do we know a paradigm is true? We see through a glass darkly, and walk by faith, and trust personal conformation of the Spirit, but don't see the whole.
  3. You've given me a lot to unpack, but I'll try to address some of it. I agree, it's not wise to defer to the personal conscience of psychopaths. It's not always wise to defer to the healthy in mind. There are millions of God fearing persons with varying beliefs. Beliefs that are in conflict with one another. My guess is that most of those persons believe they are following the ultimate authority. I am not bound by the belief of others. They have the right to follow their conscience, as I do mine. I don't believe that is a dodge. I agree, our conscience is largely formed by the culture around us along with our experience and education, with some biology in the mix. So we develop a conscience from these factors. This doesn't guarantee we arrive at the true paradigm. We get along as best we can, hopefully with some level of humility and acceptance of differences. I wish you a happy Easter.
  4. This authority of personal opinion is binding on no one but myself. In your belief system do people have authority of personal conscience?
  5. I was asked my opinion. I've given it. Do I have the authority to have my own opinion? I think so.
  6. Can you not see how that would anger those outside the faith? What if that was applied to your marriage? Your wife is courted by someone of a different faith that doesn't accept the validity of your sealing/marriage. If she is persuaded and leaves your home to be another's wife. Would you be upset?
  7. No authority. I just answered the question. That's what we do here, right?
  8. That would take some time to work out. I'll give you some of what I've got. The practice would respect existing marriages. This would prohibit polyandry. It would limit the amount of sealings. I think three would be the very maximum. Even then it would cheat the children of the time with fathers and the financial resources that children of monogamous families are blessed with. There would be clearly written and enforced rules of behavior regarding the practice, and these laws would be available for all to read. Scripture wouldn't be published to obfuscate polygamious doctrine. Before a second wife would be taken into the marriage the first wife would wish for the addition of another wife. I don't believe the LDS practice of polygamy aided in the goal of raising righteous seed. I believe the opposite is more likely. I think the Church would have attracted more righteous persons or persons seeking a righteous life into the faith without polygamy, and those children would have been raised in better circumstances.
  9. Thanks Calm, I went into the investigation to quiet fears that would spring up in me about JS & BY. Maybe some day I'll be able to delve into the history of the Church's practice of polygamy and see it in a new light and find peace in it. I hope so. Right now it seems impossible for me.
  10. OK, I don't like being a critic of the Church. I think I need to lay this subject aside for a while. I've feel blessed to have been a member of the Church. I love the members of my ward, and greatly respect the leaders both local and general. I don't want to give up the good influence the Church has given me. I feel the road I'm on threatens something that's been quite precious to me.
  11. Doesn't the passage deny the practice of polygamy after Joseph Smith had already entered into it even if it was "only" one polygamous wife? And had he not claimed to have received heavenly revelation to practice polygamy before the publication?
  12. I think wide range is an understatement. Using scripture to deceive is beyond my level of tolerance. The 1835 edition of D&C section 101 disturbs me. " Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman should have but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." I know this was written by Oliver Cowdrey, and it doesn't pretend to be revelation, yet many historians feel there is ample evidence Joseph Smith knew it would be included in the book. I have a hard time squaring this. It is so clearly meant to deceive. This should never happen with scripture.
  13. I don't believe the blame if any exists is with a laxity on God's part.
  14. Are you suggesting I set aside my investigation of polygamy?
  15. Hi Robert, you've certainly given me something to consider. Thank you. I don't think it necessarily follows that a rejection of modern polygamy requires one to reject the validity of Abraham and other patriarchs. There were many things commonly accepted in those days that shock common feelings of morality today, slavery is an easy example. This doesn't mean that today's morality always trumps the former concept of morality. I think one needs to sift through the history of the practice within the restored Church and do ones best to search for truth. Eventually one will draw conclusions as to the righteousness of the practice.
  16. Your background has offered you comfort with the practice and you've been dealing with the issue for much longer than I.
  17. Hi ttribe, I think the milk and meat analogy has merit in many cases, and possibly in my own case. I know I've come to wrong conclusions in the past, and it's possible I can do so again. Humility can be an asset in finding the truth. That said I will come to my own conclusions and reject what I find to be false even when dressed up with sophistry.
  18. Thanks JLHPROF, I'll try to keep your observation of bias in mind. There is so much information to sift through.
  19. Hi Teddy, you make a reasoned point, and maybe I'm to immature to take meat. Never the less I've been led to understand we can go to God for answers. It's my hope that He will lead me to understand what on my own I find beyond my means.
  20. I can't force myself to believe it. It doesn't seem to work that way for me. My hope is that the Holy Spirit will confirm that what Joseph Smith and later prophets taught about polygamy is true. Not that that conformation leaves me on easy street. On its merits by my own lights which are admittedly limited it seems a mistake that polygamy was taught and practiced.
  21. Thank you for your very thoughtful response. You may have the opinion that my reluctance to accept many of the doctrines surrounding the practice of polygamy come from a need to be accepted by the wider world or avoid its mocking. I don't believe that is a fair reading of my motivations. Rather I find in many of the details of the history of polygamy in the Church a repulsive quality. It feels wrong and unholy and if anything offends my conscience of what I think is right and true. The same of course would be true if my bishop or stake president told me to take some drastic action such as killing someone, which I assure you I would refuse. But should the Holy Spirit guide me to to accept a principle I found objectionable by my own lights I expect my mind would be converted.
  22. Because Joseph Smith claimed it came from God, and if that isn't true it is evidence of a false claim of prophesy.
×
×
  • Create New...