Jason Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Bingo. The justification for polygamy should be that it was a commandment of God, not that lots of LDS trace their ancestry through polygamous families.The justification for polygamy is indeed that it was commanded by God.The question "what good came out of polygamy?" has a different answer, however. In my case apart from the obvious physical existence of my own family, it was also the example and lasting influence of ancestors who were willing to humble themselves and live a hard commandment that demanded selflessness and Christlike love.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Good people are born all the time that wouldn't have been born if some terrible thing hadn't happened. Rape, war, divorce, dislocation, death etc. There have been many good people born that wouldn't have been born if polygammy had not been continued (in supposed defiance of God) by the FLDS. What we need is evidence of a consequence that is a rational result of some virtue intrinsic to polygamy. In short, we need to see why polygamy is a good thing in a way that war, divorce and infidelity are not! (Note that all of the latter can be contingencies leading to the birth of good people).Hello? Anybody listening?None of those things mentioned above (adultery, rape, war, divorce, dislocation, death) ensures the rapid emergence of numerous righteous lineages into which people could be born and perpetuate the faith, as did plural marriage practiced by the Latter-day Saints early in this dispensation.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Why the absence of Seers? (No I don't mean JcPenney's competitor)At each twice-yearly general conference, and at numerous stake, mission and region conferences, 15 men are sustained by the Latter-day Saints as seers.
Jason Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Why the absence of Seers? (No I don't mean JcPenney's competitor)We've got at least fifteen of them running the Church right now.
CV75 Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 What are some of the questions you just wish you knew?"But what about the buffalo?"
Senator Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 At each twice-yearly general conference, and at numerous stake, mission and region conferences, 15 men are sustained by the Latter-day Saints as seers.Being called and sustained does not make one a seer.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Being called and sustained does not make one a seer.It does if God is the one doing the calling.
Jason Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Being called and sustained does not make one a seer.Are you sure about that?
Senator Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 It does if God is the one doing the calling.Then they are technically seers on standby.What evidence do we have that they have acted in that capacity. The only frame of reference we have is the gifts displayed by Joseph Smith. That is what I gauge a seer to be.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Then they are technically seers on standby.Says you.What evidence do we have that they have acted in that capacity.The calling of local officers of the Church, and anything else done by divine assignment and through revelation. The only frame of reference we have is the gifts displayed by Joseph Smith. That is what I gauge a seer to be.And I reject your paradigm. No surprise there.
consiglieri Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Says you.I'm with Senator on this one.If Joseph Smith was so willing to demonstrate, and testify to, the results of his "seership," why is it all we get from his successors to the title is, "It's too sacred to discuss"?I'm just asking . . .All the Best!--Consiglieri
Black Moclips Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Are you sure about that?Wouldn't you actually have to "see" something to be a "Seer"? Can you be a prophet and never prophesy?
Senator Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 The calling of local officers of the Church, and anything else done by divine assignment and through revelation.That is an act of seership?
Jason Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Then they are technically seers on standby.Not at all. They use the gifts given by their callings every day in governing the Church.What evidence do we have that they have acted in that capacity. The only frame of reference we have is the gifts displayed by Joseph Smith. That is what I gauge a seer to be.Joseph Smith had a very specific role to play - one shared by no one else since. It would therefore be unrealistic to expect every seer to act just like Joseph Smith.
CV75 Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 What are some of the questions you just wish you knew?Is the term, "thoughtless stupor" (Alma 60:7) a redundancy?
Tarski Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Hello? Anybody listening?None of those things mentioned above (adultery, rape, war, divorce, dislocation, death) ensures the rapid emergence of numerous righteous lineages into which people could be born and perpetuate the faith, as did plural marriage practiced by the Latter-day Saints early in this dispensation.Neither does polygamy ensure it. See FLDS.By the way, I have a couple questions.1) What justified Joseph Smith polygamy (where is his numerous righteous lineages?). What was Fanny's role?2) Polygamy mostly took place in Utah after the saints were essentially isolated. Polygamy does not increase the ratio of women to men born into that society which is what it would have been as far as we can tell (does it?). Now that number of women, N, are going to have a certain number of offspring each year on the avergage. I don't see how polygamy made it possibly for a woman to give birth to and care for significantly more children than she would have if she hadn't been in a polygamous relationship.In short, I don't quite see how 6,000 nubile women would have been less prolific if they had been in monogamous relationships. Are we going to have to fall back on the old thing about there being too many women (I have seen this debunked).
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Don't know. I'm only now finding out it reads differently in the JST.Maybe Jason is right: Either one is correct.I always saw it as a "bullseye" for the symbolism of the ouroboros as wise and good, and evil as well, as the serpent in the garden, and the fiery serpent on Moses' staff symbolizing Christ. So you have the serpent in the garden, and Christ symbolized as opposites in the "wise serpent". Wise like "knowledge of good AND evil" wise.But that's just me.
Senator Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Are you sure about that?No, not at all. In fact, my pool of sureties can rest in the palm of my hand.
sethpayne Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 What are some of the questions you just wish you knew? Questions for which curiosity still pleas for an answer even though the question has no relevance at all to one's eternal salvation.Why, if space on the plates was so limited, did Moroni use this phrase:6 And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away. Also.... I guess the Nephites skipped the 40th year as we go from 39 to 41. Of course, I'm probably just reading this incorrectly.In my mind, saying "21 years later" would have been much more efficient -- and a lot easier to read.
Senator Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Joseph Smith had a very specific role to play - one shared by no one else since. It would therefore be unrealistic to expect every seer to act just like Joseph Smith.Then why do we ascribe the titles and gifts of such a maverick leader upon his successors, seeing his role cannot be shared? Isn't that unrealistic as well?
Jason Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Why, if space on the plates was so limited, did Moroni use this phrase:I imagine "and the 49th year passed away" was proabaly only one or two characters. I also imagine Moroni combing over past records, and scribing "and so x year passed away" as he decided not to write about any incidents from each year.
Jason Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Then why do we ascribe the titles and gifts of such a maverick leader upon his successors, seeing his role cannot be shared? Isn't that unrealistic as well?Because his successors do share his titles and gifts, even if they do not have to use them in the same way.Joseph Smith was not called a seer because he produced the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine & Covenants, and other revelations. He was only able to produce those works because he was a seer.
Nofear Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 Thanks for the replies so far. When and if I get a moment tomorrow, I'll edit the op with a compiled version of some of the questions.
Senator Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Because his successors do share his titles and gifts, even if they do not have to use them in the same way.Ok....? I just suppose it comes down to one's expectations of what a seer does?Joseph Smith was not called a seer because he produced the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine & Covenants, and other revelations. He was only able to produce those works because he was a seer.I would agree. It seems to be an intrinsic gift. Hence my wondering if it can be bestowed by the laying on of hands.
Jason Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Ok....? I just suppose it comes down to one's expectations of what a seer does?Rejection of a prophet (or messiah, in Jesus' case) almost always comes down to them not meeting one's expectations.I would agree. It seems to be an intrinsic gift. Hence my wondering if it can be bestowed by the laying on of hands."Intrinsic" is the wrong word. Ammon said that anyone who is commanded to use an interpreter is a seer (Mosiah 8:13). Joseph himself said that "the possession and use of [the Urim and Thummim] were what constituted
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.