D&C 132? Polygamy...

[Confidential Informant]

elect lady, I am tempted to ask, "Who made you God?"  God decides what is a sin and what isn't.  If He says when He commands polygamy it isn't a sin, then it isn't.  You don't get to overrule Him.  No matter what your personal sensitivities are.

Thanks, Charity, that was a really sweet comment. Interesting name you chose for yourself...Charity....HMMM....

And yet, she is exactly correct.

This subject inevitable elicits the response from some holier-than-thou poster to the effect that, "I could never believe in a God that did X or required Y..."

The question is valid: what gives you the right to assign characteristics to God? Essentially, you have created your own God, one who conforms to your own personal image of what God should be and how God should act. But what is the basis of your assertions? On what authority are such suppositions based?

Are you a Chistian? If so, then you accept the Bible as the written record of God's dealings with man, and while that book may not be entirely accurate, it appears to give a pretty good picture of who God is and what God does, and that picture is totally alien to the God you appear to have created for yourself.

In fact, the God of the Bible was quite comfortable requiring his creation to do things that I'm sure you find highly offensive. (Abraham and Isaac anyone? God should be sue for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress).

In the end, if God really does exist, then had his own set of fix characteristics. That you chose to no accept that some of those characteristics do not comport with your personal view of what makes up a "Good God" is, ultimately, irrelevant.

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

Brackite,

I wonder, why is that whenever you discuss Jacob and D&C 132 you continaully ignore the fact that those verse cannot adequately be addressed without addressing the Deuteronimic kingship codes which unlie Jacob's arguements in the Book of Mormon. Moreover, why do you ignore the talmudic and midrashic evidence that Ben McGuire has provided you on repeated occassions which clearly show what Jacob was saying and why he was saying it?

Surely, you cannot think it is ethical to continue to repeat your tired old screed when, in fact, it has been thoroughly rebutted.

C.I.

[Froggie]

elect lady, I am tempted to ask, "Who made you God?"

[SlackTime]

elect lady, I am tempted to ask, "Who made you God?"

[Confidential Informant]

No, she is not. God did not come down within a group of people and hand-deliver D&C 132 to Joseph Smith.

You've misunderstood my argument. It isn't premised on the legitimacy of sec. 132. It's premised on the notion as saying that one cannot believe in God if God does X or says Y (insert your own pet peeve). Thus, if say, "I cannot believe in a God that would command his children to X," whicn it fact it appears from the only known historical sources that we have (the scritures) that indeed God has commanded X, then you are simply creating God in your own preferred image and then imputing to Him the characteristic which you find desireable.

Charity is trusting Joseph Smith when he says it came from God. It is entirely within the realm of responsibility that it did not come from God, are you up to the possibility of entertaining that notion?

I have no basis to say upon what Charity is basing her opinion. This is what I know: the claim that God does not condone plural marriage has no basis iin scriipture (which is the only place where such a basis could be found). Those sources clearly show that not only was it condoned, it was divinely sanctioned and, in some cases, required. The only way you can escape that fact is to discredit entirely the scriptural record. Now, if you want to do that, fine, but you need give some basis for scrapping the book beyond a mere preference for God that would not do such things.

Thus, while you are correct that it is possible that Sec. 132 did not come from God, the fact remains that Joseph actions are entirely consistent with actions of the men in the OT who held the same office as Smith claims to have held. Therefore, their is considerable evidence in favor of Sec. 132 being a divine fiat. On the other side, what evidence do you or Elect Lady have that it was not of God? Your own distaste for the practice doesn't cut it. I have 1) the revelation itself. 2) the historical practice which supports the revelation (the OT). 3) The testimony of countless women and men who, when faced with the teaching, prayed to God and received an indiviidualized witness as to it correctness (see the Vialte Kimball story posted on this thread) I find #3 to be particularly compelling because the only way you and Elect Lady have to discount is to impugn the integrity and intelligence and honesty of those women and men.

Then again, it's been shown on thread over and over that the Defenders of Dead Mormon Women are more than willing to condescendingly pat poor dead Violate on the head and say, "There, there dear. You just be quiet now and let us handle this."

Am I up to contemplating that Smith made it up. Sure. In fact, I have contemplated that long and hard. Are you willing to contemplate that the revelation was true and God actually is that way? It appears that Elect Lady is not, despite the evidence arrayed against her. Her emotional reaction outweighs all else.

None of us were there. So I have no idea why you would get after elect_lady for suggesting that perhaps Joseph was wrong on this.

I haven't gone after her for suggesting that Joseph was wrong. I went after for what I was perceiving she was saying about God and His character.

Polygamy did, after all, strongly contribute to his demise.

And Celsus claimed this is what brought Christ down too.

I find the evidence for this claim less than compelling.

Perhaps that was God striking him down because Joseph had reintroduced something that God did not condone and was leading the church away with his behavior.

You know, this explanation always makes me laugh because it's just so dumb. This practice has been present among God's "chosen" people for 5 millenia. And yet, for some unknown reason, at no time did he ever tell them to knock it. Sarah give Hagar to Abraham and God keeps silent (and actually send Hagar back when she runs away because Sarah is mean to her). Jacob gets two, three, four wives from which the 12 tribes of Israel are born, God never says a word. Moses takes a second wife and God is still silent, despite the fact that on just about every other occasioni when Moses was out of line God felt no compunction in correcting him. OH, and then we get the Mosaic law. Surely, if God isn't a big fan of polygamy this is his chance to outlaw it for good. I mean, He outlaws so many other practices in that law, including several of a sexual nature. But does He do it? Nope. Instead, the law actually provides guidelines for its proper practice and, in some instances, the law requires its practice. And how about King David? 300 wives. 700 concunbines. God tells him that he had these things because He (God) had given them to him. Then, David gets all hot and bothered for Bathsheeba and takes her to bed and you know the rest of the story.

So, God sends in Nathan and condemns David for his actions with Bathsheeba and Uriah. So, where exactly was Nathan when David was marrying all these other women? Oh, yeah, he was confirming that God had sanctioned that!

But now, we come to good old Joseph Smith, and now suddenly after 5000 years God is striking people dead for practicing polygamy? If I am Joseph and that happened to me, I'm a little miffed.

Can you say for sure? I can't. But it is an alternative explanation that has merit.

It's merit is relative to say the least.

C.I.

[elect_lady]

elect lady, I am tempted to ask, "Who made you God?"

[Confidential Informant]

Well I have a tesitimony that God would not command someone to do something so sick, and selfish for that matter.

Then you have invented your own God who conforms to your own chosen image.

Everyone assigns what ever attributes they like to God. Ask ten people about the nature of God and you will get ten different answers.

And if those answers contradict what we know about God from the only authoritative sources we have, then they are doing the same thing you are doing.

I believe that God loves women and therefore polygamy is an abomination in his sight as it says in the BOM, itself.

I believe that God loves women too.

I also know that you don't understand what the Book of Mormon says on the issue.

C.I.

[juliann]

Everyone assigns what ever attributes they like to God. Ask ten people about the nature of God and you will get ten different answers. I believe that God loves women and therefore polygamy is an abomination in his sight as it says in the BOM, itself.

So what makes what you have assigned to God anymore convincing than what anybody else has and why should we care? When you have a following equal to that of those you criticize get back to us. Then your self-made God will carry some authority. Right or wrong, that is how it works. Sorry.

[why me]

elect lady, I am tempted to ask, "Who made you God?"

[juliann]

But now, we come to good old Joseph Smith, and now suddenly after 5000 years God is striking people dead for practicing polygamy? If I am Joseph and that happened to me, I'm a little miffed.

I wish they would make a God in their own image who would cure cancer, remove all criminals and give third world children enough food. But why do that when you can stand up for Dead and Dumb Mormon Women?

[elect_lady]

Well I have a tesitimony that God would not command someone to do something so sick, and selfish for that matter.

Then you have invented your own God who conforms to your own chosen image.

Everyone assigns what ever attributes they like to God. Ask ten people about the nature of God and you will get ten different answers.

And if those answers contradict what we know about God from the only authoritative sources we have, then they are doing the same thing you are doing.

I believe that God loves women and therefore polygamy is an abomination in his sight as it says in the BOM, itself.

I believe that God loves women too.

I also know that you don't understand what the Book of Mormon says on the issue.

C.I.

So if I have a testimony of something, I have made it up, but if you have a testimony of something it is of God, well that's not arrogant at all.

Don't you talk down to me about what I do or don't understand. You disagree with me, that doesn't mean I don't understand. It is just as likely, if not more so that it is YOU who does not understand.

YOu are slandering GOD by suggesting that he would look down on women so much that he would command men to treat them like objects.

Section 132 is nothing more than JS giving himself permission to be unfaithful to his wife and threatening her with destruction if she did not go along with it.

[juliann]

Charity is trusting Joseph Smith when he says it came from God. It is entirely within the realm of responsibility that it did not come from God, are you up to the possibility of entertaining that notion? None of us were there.

Yeah...but a lot of other Dumb and Dead Mormons were. And doggonit...they left their witness. Now when you get your following equivalent to JSs get back to us. And bring the testimonials! But then you will all have to admit you are apologists.

[why me]

Well I have a tesitimony that God would not command someone to do something so sick, and selfish for that matter.

Then you have invented your own God who conforms to your own chosen image.

Everyone assigns what ever attributes they like to God. Ask ten people about the nature of God and you will get ten different answers.

And if those answers contradict what we know about God from the only authoritative sources we have, then they are doing the same thing you are doing.

I believe that God loves women and therefore polygamy is an abomination in his sight as it says in the BOM, itself.

I believe that God loves women too.

I also know that you don't understand what the Book of Mormon says on the issue.

C.I.

So if I have a testimony of something, I have made it up, but if you have a testimony of something it is of God, well that's not arrogant at all.

Don't you talk down to me about what I do or don't understand. You disagree with me, that doesn't mean I don't understand. It is just as likely, if not more so that it is YOU who does not understand.

YOu are slandering GOD by suggesting that he would look down on women so much that he would command men to treat them like objects.

Section 132 is nothing more than JS giving himself permission to be unfaithful to his wife and threatening her with destruction if she did not go along with it.

Here you go with a 21st century venacular. And this is understandable since you live in this century. Your opinions are your opinions and you use very charged vocabulary. But please explain your opinion of the old testament god. It seems that you and him have parted ways.

But thank you for the opinionated expressions about JS. But you see Elect_lady...he did not need polygamy to have sex...he could have got it anytime and anywhere without the headache in the next county like jimmy swaggart. Sorry...pinning this sex-game on Joseph is somewhere in the bleachers in Yankee Stadium, if not out of the ball park.

[SlackTime]

Then you don't have a testimony of the god of the old testament. Which is okay. No problem. Just don't change the basic nature of god to suit your own purposes. And like I said...the said emma never denied that Joseph was a prophet and even the second husband to emma claimed so. And so what is your problem? The posters put up a good reply...you should acknowledge it.

I don't know...maybe the god of the old testament was selfish and in a way sick. But then he is god and so he can be if he wishes to be.

As one poster said...dead women who knew of the truthfulness of the gospel need no defending. They have already defended themselves.

Just old testament? How about a God that kills trees just because they didn't conveniently have fruit when He wanted some? Or kills a couple because they held back a little cash? Or perhaps one that threatens to spew whole congregations out of his mouth because they aren't fanatic enough? Or one that threatens to come back and wipe out a third of the earth including plants and animals?

That New Testament God can be pretty judgemental too.

-SlackTime

[juliann]

Don't you talk down to me about what I do or don't understand. You disagree with me, that doesn't mean I don't understand. It is just as likely, if not more so that it is YOU who does not understand.

Now if only you would grant that to those Dead and Dumb Mormon women you vilify in the name of your God.

YOu are slandering GOD by suggesting that he would look down on women so much that he would command men to treat them like objects. 

Just curious...but how are you planning on excising the history of earth from your new religion where women have always been looked down upon? Was your God napping?

[elect_lady]

But why do that when you can stand up for Dead and Dumb Mormon Women?

That's very respectful.

[why me]

But why do that when you can stand up for Dead and Dumb Mormon Women? 

That's very respectful.

But is it true?

[elect_lady]

But why do that when you can stand up for Dead and Dumb Mormon Women?

[SlackTime]

But why do that when you can stand up for Dead and Dumb Mormon Women? 

That's very respectful.

Yes and descriptive too. Dead as in already passed away, and dumb as unable to speak (for themselves). But you are good at trying to put words in their mouths about how abused they were. The journals of my ancestors don't reflect an abused and submissive wife. Rather the opposite, strong, loved, faithful, loving, and with a testimony that could move mountains, and does move my heart.

-SlackTime

[Confidential Informant]

So if I have a testimony of something, I have made it up, but if you have a testimony of something it is of God, well that's not arrogant at all.

See, heres the problem with that. Your "testimony" contradicts 5000 years of scripture and practice. It contradicts the testimony of almost every Mormon women who ever engaged in the practice. It's not arrogance, its precedent. So, if you want me to privilege your "testimony" about that found in the foundational texts, you're going to have to give me a "really really really" good reason to do so. And your overwrought, overheated opinions don't cut it.

Don't you talk down to me about what I do or don't understand.  You disagree with me, that doesn't mean I don't understand.  It is just as likely, if not more so that it is YOU who does not understand. 

Okay, you want talk about Jacob. Do you understand the theological perspective that Jacob was preaching from? Are you familiar with the Deuteronimic kingship codes that Jacob cites over and over again? Are you aware of Jewish pre-exilic teachings regarding polygamy? If not, then you aren't understanding Jacob and what he is saying.

YOu are slandering GOD by suggesting that he would look down on women so much that he would command men to treat them like objects. 

Again, overheated feminist rhetoric. Fact: If anyone "slandered" God (and BTW, it'd be libel because I printed it) it was God himself (see the OT). Fact: There is nothing about polygamy that inherently objectifies women. That's a decision the man in the relationship makes all by himself, and it happens just as easily in a monogamous relationship as it does in a polygamous one. So stop setting yourself up as God's legal counsel and press spokesperson.

Section 132 is nothing more than JS giving himself permission to be unfaithful to his wife and threatening her with destruction if she did not go along with it.

Great, that's your opinion. But it's unsupported by the vast weight of evidence that contradicts it. That vast amount of literature I've read on the subject, even from non-LDS researchers, pretty much concludes that real or not, Joseph's implementation and practice of polygamy was purely religiously motivated. Unfortuntely for you, your emotions don't outweigh the evidence except in your own perceptions.

C.I.

[why me]

But why do that when you can stand up for Dead and Dumb Mormon Women?

[auteur55]

But why do that when you can stand up for Dead and Dumb Mormon Women?

[Jaybear]

We have the testimony of thousands of faithful Mormon women, virtuous men, a canonized revelation, many documented accounts of spiritual manifestations, and the entire old testament as evidence that it is very likely that God could have commanded such a thing.

Be careful with what you consider evidence. Since the manifesto, you have the testimony of thousands of mormon women, and virtous men who are equally committed to what they consider God's ongoing commandment.

You also have millions of Muslim women who, in furtherance of God's law won't show their face in public, and are content not to drive, vote or own property. Would you consider the spirtual testimony of those women, evidence as to how God wants women treated?

[auteur55]

We have the testimony of thousands of faithful Mormon women, virtuous men, a canonized revelation, many documented accounts of spiritual manifestations, and the entire old testament as evidence that it is very likely that God could have commanded such a thing.

Be careful with what you consider evidence. Since the manifesto, you have the testimony of thousands of mormon women, and virtous men who are equally committed to what they consider God's ongoing commandment.

You also have millions of Muslim women who, in furtherance of God's law won't show their face in public, and are content not to drive, vote or own property. Would you consider the spirtual testimony of those women, evidence as to how God wants women treated?

No. But it is SOME form of evidence. Much more persuasive than an "I don't like this belief" argument.

[juliann]

You also have millions of Muslim women who, in furtherance of God's law won't show their face in public, and are content not to drive, vote or own property. Would you consider the spirtual testimony of those women, evidence as to how God wants women treated?

Here is how it works. Pay attention. I don't sit around and make those kinds of judgements. How is doing so any different than the whacked out fundies who are just sure everyone who is not like them is led by satan? And if one of those women gave me "spiritual testimony" that she was following God I would give her the simple human dignity of allowing her that. What do we have left as a civilization when we start making decisions for everyone based on our self-made gods?

And don't even try mixing the religion where there is choice with the political oppression where there is not to score points. You are coming dangerously close to bigotry. I work with educated women who choose to wear the head scarf. It is not my business. It is not yours.