Polygamy Redux

[Scott Lloyd]

USU78 wrote:

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. To paraphrase the old Rabbi (not Rabbi Dale), 'Mormons don't understand sacrifice, since they expect G-d to bless them when they obey. That is missing the whole point.'

Abraham, our spiritual father, certainly understood when he loaded the firewood on his son's back and schlepped up the mountain.

You can hope for the ram in the thicket. It won't always be there.

<I like that, thanks, I'll probably use it in my lesson Sunday

Before your lesson Sunday, check out Hebrews 11:17-19 and the Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 15:9-12. (See my post above.)

Abraham knew and understood more than we, perhaps, think he did.

[USU78]

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

[Uncle Dale]

Or something like that....

hummmph!

In the memorable words of Elder Jacob Woodling:

"Well, ah ain't no Mar-mon now!"

Jack Duncan [as to auctioning off Elizabeth]: "What about it Mormons?"

Sarah Woodling: "Jacob. We need every penny, Jacob.

And I can't bear another day of those martyred looks.

There. There it is again!"

Elizabeth Woodling: "This isn't a martyred look, Sarah.

This look is puuuure - hatred!"

Jacob Woodling: "Quiet! Brigham Young has twenty seven wives and he

hasn't had half the trouble with them that I've had with the two of you!"

Elizabeth: "Then simplify your life, Jacob. Sell me."

Jacob Woodling: "But Elizabeth: you don't know what you'll get."

Elizabeth: "I know what I've had!!"

Uncle ".... yeah, .... I can kinda relate to Elizabeth's last sentence" Dale

[katherine the great]

Jacob Woodling: "But Elizabeth: you don't know what you'll get."

Elizabeth: "I know what I've had!!"

Maybe it wasn't a great movie, but that IS some great dialogue!

[Scott Lloyd]

Given the late date of the scrolls from which the BoA was [probably] taken,

A minor point perhaps, but the reference was to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, not to the Book of Abraham.

[katherine the great]

Given the late date of the scrolls from which the BoA was [probably] taken,

A minor point perhaps, but the reference was to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, not to the Book of Abraham.

I think you missed his disclaimer at the end of his post.

[Scott Lloyd]

Given the late date of the scrolls from which the BoA was [probably] taken,

A minor point perhaps, but the reference was to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, not to the Book of Abraham.

I think you missed his disclaimer at the end of his post.

I saw it.

Just wanted to make the clarification.

No big deal.

[Uncle Dale]

Jacob Woodling: "But Elizabeth: you don't know what you'll get."

Elizabeth: "I know what I've had!!"

Maybe it wasn't a great movie, but that IS some great dialogue!

A very corny movie with good production values and excellent scenery.

Jacob Woodley, I am wont to imagine, looked a lot like my g-g-ggrandfather Godfrey.

As I've mentioned here before, during my years in Nepal I lived near Hindu polygamous

families and had friends who lived temporarily within Sherpa and Manangi polygynous

families. I was a guest several times in the homes of both sets of people. My wife,

whom I met in Nepal, lived in a polygamous Hindu family for a couple of years.

I think that, between the two of us, we know something about the problems of such

marriage set-ups. I've been told here at this message board, that my experiences in

these situations, in a far-away land and in distant cultures, is of little bearing when it

comes to discussions of Mormon polygamy.

But, atop my eye-witness experience in another culture, I also have close Mormon

relatives who continued to live in polygamy, after the Manifesto, in Madison Co., Idaho.

And I was able, in my younger days, to speak at length with family members who

either grew up in polygamous families, or whose parents did so.

I believe I know something about the results of these arrangements. I am in no way

an advocate of them however -- and the frequently inserted "red letter" counsel

of the FMB moderators seems to be, "say your piece and move on."

My "piece" is that polygamy/polygyny creates more problems than it solves, and

that it leaves its practictioners living in a world with less choices and good

opportunites than those who live in monogamy. That much said, I do understand

why some cultures have adopted and continued these practices in certain, limited

situations. As for any of this being a God-given command (or even a sanction), I do

not believe in that -- never have, and never will, the Koran's edicts and Israelite

levirate marriage to the contrary notwithstanding.

So there -- I've said my piece -- and can go back to posting cartoon images, etc.

Uncle Dale

[katherine the great]

My "piece" is that polygamy/polygyny creates more problems than it solves, and

that it leaves its practictioners living in a world with less choices and good

opportunites than those who live in monogamy. That much said, I do understand

why some cultures have adopted and continued these practices in certain, limited

situations. As for any of this being a God-given command (or even a sanction), I do

not believe in that -- never have, and never will, the Koran's edicts and Israelite

levirate marriage to the contrary notwithstanding.

And, as usual, you express your thoughts better than I do. (but that's the gist of how I feel too.)

[USU78]

Given the late date of the scrolls from which the BoA was [probably] taken,

A minor point perhaps, but the reference was to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, not to the Book of Abraham.

I think you missed his disclaimer at the end of his post.

I saw it.

Just wanted to make the clarification.

No big deal.

In the book, Tai Pan, there's a scene where an old Chinese gentleman purposely drops some rice from his chopsticks by way of apology to his occidental protege.

[Scott Lloyd]

Given the late date of the scrolls from which the BoA was [probably] taken,

A minor point perhaps, but the reference was to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, not to the Book of Abraham.

I think you missed his disclaimer at the end of his post.

I saw it.

Just wanted to make the clarification.

No big deal.

In the book, Tai Pan, there's a scene where an old Chinese gentleman purposely drops some rice from his chopsticks by way of apology to his occidental protege.

Sometimes you're just too subtle for me, USU78.

[alter idem]

USU78 wrote:

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. To paraphrase the old Rabbi (not Rabbi Dale), 'Mormons don't understand sacrifice, since they expect G-d to bless them when they obey. That is missing the whole point.'

Abraham, our spiritual father, certainly understood when he loaded the firewood on his son's back and schlepped up the mountain.

You can hope for the ram in the thicket. It won't always be there.

<I like that, thanks, I'll probably use it in my lesson Sunday

Before your lesson Sunday, check out Hebrews 11:17-19 and the Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 15:9-12. (See my post above.)

Abraham knew and understood more than we, perhaps, think he did.

Thanks Scott, I did see your post and made a mental note to look into the references you cited. I guess we're both thinking about our Sunday lessons.

This message board is a bit of a distraction. I really should be spending the time on my lesson, but I find myself drifting over here....

I guess I excuse myself by noting the posts like yours and USU78's that give me insights on my lesson.

[Scott Lloyd]

USU78 wrote:

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. To paraphrase the old Rabbi (not Rabbi Dale), 'Mormons don't understand sacrifice, since they expect G-d to bless them when they obey. That is missing the whole point.'

Abraham, our spiritual father, certainly understood when he loaded the firewood on his son's back and schlepped up the mountain.

You can hope for the ram in the thicket. It won't always be there.

<I like that, thanks, I'll probably use it in my lesson Sunday

Before your lesson Sunday, check out Hebrews 11:17-19 and the Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 15:9-12. (See my post above.)

Abraham knew and understood more than we, perhaps, think he did.

Thanks Scott, I did see your post and made a mental note to look into the references you cited. I guess we're both thinking about our Sunday lessons.

This message board is a bit of a distraction. I really should be spending the time on my lesson, but I find myself drifting over here....

I guess I excuse myself by noting the posts like yours and USU78's that give me insights on my lesson.

I make up for lost time by studying my lesson on the train coming to work and going home.

So nice to have the scriptures and the teacher's manual, plus a number of other reference works, on my PDA!

[Confidential Informant]

<sigh>

Okay, I give up.

Elect Lady won't or can't answer. Froggie gives irrelevant answers. And the rest of you jokes can't say on point and do without the graphics, etc.

Dunamis, Please close this thread as it is going nowhere fast.

C.I.

[katherine the great]

Elect Lady won't or can't answer.

She is a lady and you didn't say the magic word.

[USU78]

Given the late date of the scrolls from which the BoA was [probably] taken,

A minor point perhaps, but the reference was to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, not to the Book of Abraham.

I think you missed his disclaimer at the end of his post.

I saw it.

Just wanted to make the clarification.

No big deal.

In the book, Tai Pan, there's a scene where an old Chinese gentleman purposely drops some rice from his chopsticks by way of apology to his occidental protege.

Sometimes you're just too subtle for me, USU78.

More like obscure.

[Scott Lloyd]

<sigh>

Okay, I give up.

Elect Lady won't or can't answer. Froggie gives irrelevant answers. And the rest of you jokes can't say on point and do without the graphics, etc.

Dunamis, Please close this thread as it is going nowhere fast.

C.I.

Please leave it open. I too am interested in a response from elect lady.

(And I promise to behave.)

[Dale]

<sigh>

Okay, I give up.

Elect Lady won't or can't answer. Froggie gives irrelevant answers. And the rest of you jokes can't say on point and do without the graphics, etc.

Dunamis, Please close this thread as it is going nowhere fast.

C.I.

Personally you only invited one person to dialogue with you. I respected your wishes & mostly stayed away from actively participating. I wish they had something like a debate post where you would have to have permission before joining the post. Might cut down on irrelevant posts.

[Froggie]

That's it? My answer is irrelevant? I took 20 minutes out of my day to respond to your assertion my beliefs and opinions were without merit to have you tell me my answer is irrelevant?

I suspect that any position that doesn't agree with you will be considered irrelevant by you. I guess your book and chapter is already written and printed, CI. No open canon for you.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

[Dale]

Froggie I do not consider others ideas irrelevant. But the person who starts the post has the right to see answers as irrelevant. So I agree with C.I. if he want to have his post closed to support him in that.

[Confidential Informant]

Okay, you want a response? I'll give you one. As to your 20 minutes, as you'll recall it wasn't your input that was sought on this thread, then again, I suppose I ought to be greateful that you did so as the person whose thoughts were sought doesn't appear to have any intention of sharing them.

The reason for this is straightforward, CI.  Everything is hinged on a belief, feeling or opinion.

Indeed, but some beliefs, feelings and opinions are more informed and better founded than others. Yours appear to be based on nothing more than a emotional distaste for a practice and thus your feelings and opinions are formed based on that.

While that is certainly valid enough for you, it doesn't form the basis of a rational argument in favor of your position. I have lots of people that I deal with whom I, on an emotional level, am sure are guilty. Without some evidence to support my feelings, its completely irrelevant what I personally feel.

I am honest enough to admit it.

Admit what? That you have nothing external to support your primal assertions? Yeah, I suppose that is honesty.

I do not say "God says" because I feel that what God has said is not clear.

I disagree. I think God's take on this issue is made abundantly clear over a 5000 year history. Unless, of course, you want to assert that the prophets have consistently gotten the same thing wrong time after time after time, of which I see no evidence and which the evidence we do have contradicts.

So you can excuse your sentiments by claiming that maybe God wasn't clear enough but I find that response to be a self-defense mechanism more designed to preserve your own beliefs rather than make a positivistic point.

The concept of revelation and communication from God is as clear as mud.  If it WERE clear, we would not be having these types of conversations.

It's only unclear when you chose to parse the evidence.

Calls to authority in scripture have little validity to me when we are establishing connection to God.

I don't even know what this means. Scripture is the record of God's interactions with man. I admit that it is not inerrant, but it is as authoritative a source as we currently have barring a full-on theopany to the world.

I will quote scriptural citations to show inconsistency, or to show that any given scripture can be interpreted 50 different ways. 

Which might work and in some instances might even be a valid approach. However, note that in this case it simply doesn't work. There is no inconsistency or alternate interpretations. The verses themselves are clear. Moreover, we have the understanding of original intended audience (the Jews) whose practices for more that 5 millenia have been in accordance with the understanding that I have forwarded here.

When someone quotes a scripture that says God Says, like in D&C 132, those who trust and believe in Joseph Smith attribute that notion to God.

And who, exactly, is telling you to trust in Joseph Smith? If that's how you think we've been taught as LDS to view this then I can see why you have reached the conclusions you did. However, none of the people of this deispensation who practiced this did that. Violate, Helen Mar, Heber, Brigham, Eliza Snow, none of them trusted in Joseph. Rather, they followed the model set out by Brigham Young. They heard it from their leaders but then they went to God and received the witness for themselves.

Now, you can tell me that you've done this and that God told you that it wasn't right, but if that's the case then you have the same problem that Elect Lady has: you have to convince me that I should priviledge your witness over 5000 years of history and practice, not mention the testimonies of the men and women in this dispensation who actually practiced. If anyone would have received a contrary witness it would have been them. But by and large their testimonies are that, despite their initial reaction, God told them it was His will.

Thus, I can take the word of a rather cynical social member who has a predisposition to dislike the practice but who has no personal stake in it or I can take the word of 5000+ years of prophets coupled with the word of the very faithful men and women who lives were actually impacted by it.

It really shouldn't be much of a stretch to see which way I'm leaning on this one.

When I read it, I read it as "Joseph Smith said that God said it."

Yes, when you read it. That takes up right back to the initial point I made about all of your posts beginning with "I think" and "I believe" and "In my opinion." The issue isn't how you read it. That's well established by now. The issue is why should your interpretation be priviledged over other that accord with history and practice?

Any divine communication had to be filtered through Joseph, which leaves us to determine if any message was 100% God, or 80% God and 20% Joseph, or perhaps 50/50, or if we suspect Joseph's integrity, 75/25 with most coming from Joseph.  I  hope you get my drift.

Oh, but it doesn't.

You know, one of my favorite posters on this board is Ben McGuiire. I love him because of his deep knowledge and insight that he brings to almost any topic he chooses to discuss.

He made a very interesting point about the very subject you've brought up. There are two ways to approach a prophetic announcement or vision as evidenced by the reaction of Lehi's children to his dream. (I'll save you the cites as I'm sure you know the story).

Lehi has a dream and he recounts that dream to his family. There are two distinct reactions. 1) Nephi's reaction which is to believe his father's account but then to seek a personal affirmation for himself, which he received and which actually verfied and even supplemented the vision which his father had seen. 2) The Laman/Lemuel reaction: which was essentially to seek affirmation and understanding from a non-authoritative (or at least lesser authoritative) source, or simply to trust the words without seeking any sort of affirmation at all.

You seem to have chosen the Laman/Lemuel model.

Moreover, you know have a problem of credibilty (at least in my eyes) because you can swear to me up and down that you've gone to God and he told you otherwise but I simply can't buy into your testimony at point (for a variety of reasons).

There are a good many things I have enjoyed about Joseph.

Which is exactly you problem. You treat him like some sage on par with Ghandi or Malcom X. It appears to me that you have totally discounted the notion that he was inspired by God to act as a prophet. With that as your basis, you can't help but reach the conclusions you have.

He was cutting edge.  He had little fear.  He was obviously a charismatic, dynamic, persuasive type.

And?

What makes me suspicious about him and polygamy was that there are clear inconsistencies from the way he was living it as to what he introduced in 132.

I understand that you think there are clear inconsistencies. I'm not sure they are as clear as you believe them to be. You have yet to explain, however, how even the existence of real inconsistencies in the implementation of the practice in anyway invalides either 1) Joseph's prophetic office or 2) the validity of the revelation.

I hold him to that standard, regardless of which ratio someone may interpret it.  It was either God telling him and Joseph was not living it properly, or it was Joseph introducing it and then being hypocritical in living it as he introduced it. 

Well, I suppose you have the right to hold him to whatever imaginary standard you choose. Of course, you might try asking yourself why those who knew of the revelation and also of Joseph's implementation of it never saw the inconsistencies you think you see. It's a relatively minor point, but one which deserves some thought on your part.

Case in point.  Vs 29-39 shows OT justification for polygamy, and multiple stamps of God's approval on this behavior.  This includes not only wives but concubines that were to be used up to raise righteous seed "as innumerable as the stars." (vs 30).  Vs 37 tells that Abraham received concubines and they bore him children and it was accounted unto him for righteousness."

I did not see Joseph take concubines.

Is this really the best you've got? Do you even know what a "concubine" is? It is obvious that you don't. The dictionary provides two definitions:

 

1. Law. A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.

2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.

In Joseph's case, #1 would apply because he was never "legally" married to any wife except Emma. All of his polygamous marriages were done under ecclesiastical authority only with no legal state sancttion of any sort, which actually makes all of his subsequent wives "concubines." In fact, since the law prohibited a man from "legally" marrying two women at one time that's all Joseph could take.

As to the second defintion, obviously it applies in cultures and States where a caste system of sort is in place (which I believe was the case in ancient Israel though I cannot speak authoritatively on that topic).

If that is the best Exegeis you've got, then you need to work harder.

I did not see Joseph live polygamy for the purpose of raising up seed.

Gee, had I been murdered only two years after getting married people could say the same thing about me. Now, I've got 5 kids and counting.

Is this really an honest argument on your part? Please tell me you are just being flippant, or even cynical. Otherwise, I have to question you claim to "honesty" made above because if you are truly questioning Joseph's implementation of the practice merely because he does not appear to have fathered any children from it (a proposition that is still unclear BTW) then you are truly intellectually bankrupt.

Other contradictions.  Vs 61 says the first wife must give consent.  For many of his marriages, Emma did not even know they were occurring.  The level of deception is highly suspect.

Two points: 1) Assume you are right....so what? Does it invalidate his prophet office and calling or the revelation? If so, why. Can you give any examples of other prophets who lost their prophetic mantle under similar or analogous circumstances?

2) I don't think it is clear that Emma was as uninformed as is generally believed.

Vs 61 again.  "...and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then he is justified; and cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."  31% of Joseph's polygamous marriages were to women who already had a husband.  I don't recall seeing any justification for this behavior in any scripture, and it flatly contradicts verse 61. 

Which means that none of them were "virgins" and therefore the verse doesn't even apply to them. Moreover, your simplistic reading skips completely v. 41 which states:

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed cadultery and shall be destroyed.(Emphasis mine).

The clear implication of this is that she be with another man and she has been appointed by the Lord to the "holy anointing" then she has not committed adultery. The fact is that all the women you refer to were appointed to the "holy anointing" and therefore no adultery was committed. (Which, of course, assumes a sexual relationship w/ those women the evidence for which is sorely lacking).

I should also note that Emma was screwed according to 132.  She was to go along with this (according to 41,42,52,54,63,64)  or be destroyed.

Please define "destroyed" as employed here. Physically? Spritually? Would the Lord do it was it simply to be the natural result of her rejection of God's will? Since this is the natural consequence of rejecting God's will on any subject, not just plural marriage, I don't find this to be all that big of an issue. Though you clearly do.

Of course, we are right back to the point I made earlier iin the other thread which predated this one about fabricating your own God. You have, it appears, decided that you will not believe in God that would make such a "threat" and therefore you have invented your own reason for rejecting the revelation on the whole. Nevertheless,t he fact remains that God has never had much of a problem with "destroying" people who openly rejected His words, thus the God you have invented for yourself is more in your own image rather than being a reflection of God's actual attributes.

In essence, if you back away from 132 and read it it says "Joseph will be a god of gods, whoever he blesses is God's blessing, whoever he curses is God's curse, and he will be exalted in his thrones in heaven for "restoring" an antiquated, outdated law from the OT that contradicts marriage as it is outlined in the NT, BofM, and coincidentally enough, other sections in the D&C.

Ben M., already showed that it doesn't contradict the NT or the BofM or the D&C. Of course, if you accept that it does then you also have to accept that the OT contradicts the NT and that Jehovah is contradicting Jesus, etc.

I don't find that argument particularly compelling, especially when made as conclusory statement without any supporting analysis of the relevant verses.

And anyone who questions him will be destroyed.  A lot of destruction going on in this chapter, a lot of really negative messaging to the females in this scenario, for perhaps giving into their inclination that this new "law" was contrary to the moral, legal and ethical code of their day.

And yet they became it's staunchest defenders. Go figure.

Joseph perverted this law in his practicing of polygamy.

Another conclusory assertion with no supporting facts. I already addressed this above.

Brigham Young lived it far better than Joseph as it is outlined in 132.

And? Who is to say that it wouldn't have become more systemetized under Joseph had he been allowed to live to see it through?

At least we can see some righteous seed out of the whole thing.

Again, whose to say that we wouldn't have seen the same thing from Joseph had he been allowed to live and now murdered by a bunch of cowards? This argument really is one of the lamest that critics of plural marriage have.

And as far as I know, he did not deceive his current wives by marrying other ones in secret behind their back.

Nor do I. But this is, of course, all irrelevant. The ultimate question is, does God ever sanction plural marriage. The fact is that history shows that He does and you haven't done anything to contradict that showing.

If you are a believer, do you think God condoned Joseph's secrecy from Emma?

First of all, I'm not convinced that Joseph was as secretive as you suggest. Second, sec 132 makes mention that Joseph had committed some unknown sin or sins and the Lord had indeed chastised and punished him for it, (see v. 60) which might well be referring to his alleged lack of consent from Emma.

Nevertheless, you are still missing the point by nitpicking the details. Even if Jospeh did fail to get Emma's permission, that does not go to the question of does God ever approve of plural marriage. He clearly, and unequivocally, did and has over 5000 years. Moreover, you haven't shown why, even if Joseph's implementation of the practice was imperfect (a sketchy inference at best) that would affect his standing as prophet.

If God didn't like it, why didn't he just take out Emma if she was such a stumbling block.

Simple fact: Joseph loved Emma. Above all else, Joseph was always Emma's greatest advocate. Now, assuming from the point of veiw that the revelation really was from God, then it's also apparent that God knew that Emma was going to struggle with it and it appears to me that he tried several different ways to get her to accept it (love, coercion and maybe even threatenings...hey why not, He apparently had to threaten Joseph to get him started and it's not like there isn't scriptural precedent for such actions). In the end, Joseph loved Emma. He always did and he always will, and she loved him more than anything also.

C.I.

[Calm]

which I believe was the case in ancient Israel though I cannot speak authoritatively on that topic

There is a book out on Hebrew Biblical Law that speaks specifically about this (as a side note, the easiness of divorce for women in polygamous relationships in BY's time is comparable to Biblical Law, imo). You should read it if you haven't already. If you are still in Utah County, you can borrow my copy. PM me if you are interested.

[Scott Lloyd]

I should also note that Emma was screwed according to 132.

[alter idem]

USU78 wrote:

Just because we don't understand why something is a commandment doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. To paraphrase the old Rabbi (not Rabbi Dale), 'Mormons don't understand sacrifice, since they expect G-d to bless them when they obey. That is missing the whole point.'

Abraham, our spiritual father, certainly understood when he loaded the firewood on his son's back and schlepped up the mountain.

You can hope for the ram in the thicket. It won't always be there.

<I like that, thanks, I'll probably use it in my lesson Sunday

Before your lesson Sunday, check out Hebrews 11:17-19 and the Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 15:9-12. (See my post above.)

Abraham knew and understood more than we, perhaps, think he did.

Scott, thanks for the references. I agree with you. Also, in my preparations for my lesson I found this quote from Pres. Kimball (and it's always nice to have a prophet to back you up!) Thought you might like it:

..."Father Abraham and Mother Sarah knew--knew the promise would be fulfilled. How--they did not know and did not demand to know. Isaac positively would live to be the father of a numerous posterity. They knew he would, even though he might need to die. They knew he could still be raised from the dead to fulfil the promise, and faith here preceded the miracle". (Conf. Report, Oct. 1952, pp. 48-49)

Better get back to my lesson.

[Nighthawke]

Thanks CI for your informative post.

I have also asked the question "What does 'destroy' mean?" because in LDS theology Latter-day Saints do not believe in hellfire damnation. So I'm left to wonder if destroyed simply meant that Emma would be 'held guilty' for denying polygamy. There is an instance in psalms I think (or was it proverbs) where the definition for destroy is 'held guilty'.

I believe strong language was necessary because of the importance of section 132 vis-