Outstanding Apologetic Issues

[Senator]

Rejection of a prophet (or messiah, in Jesus' case) almost always comes down to them not meeting one's expectations.

What are you implying, my dear Jason?

"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

[Uncertain]

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.

Hi Scott,

Actually Polygyny overall appears to decrease the number of children per women compared to monogamy. At least in the case of 19th century LDS. The per child rate for monogamous women is statistically significantly higher than for polygynous wives. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case. For one it is logical that having more wives reduces the frequency of sexual encounters per wife. Another very important factor appears to be the age of the man. Polygnous men who married multiple women had a pronounced tendency to be older. This is perfectly sensible in order to support multiple wives a certain degree of economic success was needed and economic success comes with age. Older men are on average less fertile than younger men leading to a lower per wife fertility rate. (I can provide references for all this if you wish)

Polygyny at least in 19th century Utah actually seemed to lead to lower overall fertility rates per women compared to monogamy. So if the purpose was to "raise up seed" polygyny is not the way to go. Now it could be argued polygyny increased the fertility rate for specific highly devote individuals this is true as long as we are referring to male highly devote individuals. Keep in mind this comes at the expense of a lower overall fertility rate. Also Polygyny discriminates against highly devote female individuals. So the "cost" of providing more children for highly righteous men is less children for highly righteous women. The best possible system in terms of producing the highest number of children raised in devote LDS homes appears to be monogamy in which devote females marry devote males (which is the current system of the church). The bottom line, it is not at all clear that polygyny leads to an overall increase in the number of children born to faithful LDS parents compared to monogamy.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

What are you implying, my dear Jason?

That when the authority and ability of the current leaders of the Church is rejected it is usually because they fail to meet the rejector's expectations of what a prophet or seer "should" be like.

Are our Seers "in possession and in use of the Urim and Thummim"?

Yes. It has long been known that the Church still has possession of Joseph's seer stone (at least).

[Jason]

The bottom line, it is not at all clear that polygyny leads to an overall increase in the number of children born to faithful LDS parents compared to monogamy.

What if the objective was quality rather than quantity?

[Uncertain]

What if the objective was quality rather than quantity?

Well this supposes children of monogamous marriages are of a lower quality than polygynous children. I see no reason why this must be the case. Are the children of a bishop of "higher" quality than the children of the Sunday school teacher? Remember the appropriate comparison is between monogamous marriages in which husband and wife are devote believers versus polygnous marriages in which the husband and multiple wives are devote believers. I see no reason right off hand why children of monogamous marriages should be of a "lower" quality. In fact there are reasons to suppose it is the other way around a man with 15 wives and 30 children necessarily cannot spend as much time per child as a man with one wife and 8 children. If time spent with a father figure is beneficial it is reasonable to tentatively claim the monogamous children are likely to be better off.

[Senator]

That when the authority and ability of the current leaders of the Church is rejected it is usually because they fail to meet the rejector's expectations of what a prophet or seer "should" be like.

You make two false assumptions/accusations:

1) That I (I'm assuming you meant me) have rejected the authority and ability of the current leaders of the Church

and

2) that one's expectations necessarily need to radicalize one's determination, to the point of rejecting the authority and ability of the leaders of the Church.

[Ahab]

To leave room for faith and...

I accept that as the right answer, as well as the right approach to finding the right answer, but I think you may have missed the point of my question.

I'll rephrase in the event that you may be interested in knowing what I was talking about:

When God or one of his prophets says something, many people come up with different and conflicting ideas about what God or one of his prophets meant when he said what he said.

Now imagine someone who wants to understand what God or that prophet actually meant when he said what he said.

My question was and still is:

Why didn't God or that prophet make his point crystal clear so that everyone came to the same idea, making sure to cover any and all issues which arose from each and every statement God or his prophet uttered so that everyone would come to the same exact idea about what God or his prophet meant?

Is that something that is just "impossible" for God or his prophets to do?

Surely there is some reason why that doesn't happen, and while many people have their own ideas about how and why it happens, I'm just trying to point out the fact that it happens while asking the question:

Why?

NOTE: Your answer for why it happens doesn't agree with everyone's answer, so keep that in mind too.

[Jason]

Well this supposes children of monogamous marriages are of a lower quality than polygynous children.

Is it more difficult for parents to live in a monogamous marriage or a plural marriage?

If one relationship is more difficult than the other and that same relationship is also the obedience of a commandment of God then the parents in the more difficult marriage are setting a better example of obedience for their children. Children with better examples have a better chance of doing better themselves.

[mfbukowski]

Is the term, "thoughtless stupor" (Alma 60:7) a redundancy?

[Jason]

You make two false assumptions/accusations:

1) That I (I'm assuming you meant me) have rejected the authority and ability of the current leaders of the Church

I was making no such accusation and not speaking of any specific individual.

2) that one's expectations necessarily need to radicalize one's determination, to the point of rejecting the authority and ability of the leaders of the Church.

I was no way stating that everyone who's expectations are not met will leave the Church. Merely that when people do reject Church leadership (or God for that matter) it is often because that leadership did not meet their expectations/prior assumptions.

It appears that I am not meeting your expectations/assumptions.

[Senator]

I was making no such accusation and not speaking of any specific individual.

Oh

[Jason]

I accept that as the right answer, as well as the right approach to finding the right answer, but I think you may have missed the point of my question.

No, I feel my response adequately answers your question. But please note that my response had two parts.

NOTE: Your answer for why it happens doesn't agree with everyone's answer, so keep that in mind too.

My answer does not have to agree with everyone else's answer in order to be correct.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

Actually Polygyny overall appears to decrease the number of children per women compared to monogamy. At least in the case of 19th century LDS.

Whether or not that's true (and you've not provided any documentation), it is irrelevant to my point. An advantage of the plural marriage system was that a righteous woman was not compelled to settle for a less-than-valiant man as a marriage partner. She could elect to be the plural wife of a righteous man, thus ensuring that her children would have two faithful and devout parents, a factor that greatly increases the propensity for those children to be devout themselves and to transmit their religious values on to their posterity.

The per child rate for monogamous women is statistically significantly higher than for polygynous wives.

Be that as it may, one man and two or more wives have a propensity to produce a far greater number of children than one man and one wife, all other things being equal.

Polygyny at least in 19th century Utah actually seemed to lead to lower overall fertility rates per women compared to monogamy. So if the purpose was to "raise up seed" polygyny is not the way to go.

It is if "raising up seed" is defined as bearing and rearing children in a righteous household with a father and mother who are both faithful and devout, especially if, in the community, righteous women outnumber righteous men.

Now it could be argued polygyny increased the fertility rate for specific highly devote individuals

That is exactly what I'm arguing. And when it comes to raising up righteous seed, devout individuals are the only ones who count.

this is true as long as we are referring to male highly devote individuals. Keep in mind this comes at the expense of a lower overall fertility rate.

"Overall fertility rate" is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters in "raising up seed" to God is the fertility rate within marriages where both husband and wife are righteous and valiant.

Also Polygyny discriminates against highly devote female individuals. So the "cost" of providing more children for highly righteous men is less children for highly righteous women.

On the contrary, as I have shown above, plural marriage widens the field of choice for a righteous women. She is not compelled to settle for an unworthy man. And the ability of a healthy, fertile man to sire children is virtually unlimited, as opposed to a woman, who is physically able to bear only a limited number.

The best possible system in terms of producing the highest number of children raised in devote LDS homes appears to be monogamy in which devote females marry devote males (which is the current system of the church).

I agree the current system of the Church is the best for today's circumstances. But I insist that the best means for rapidly populating the Church with children born to faithful and devout parents was plural marriage. It lasted as long as necessary to reach a state of critical mass, where the Church was numerically strong enough to withstand outside oppression and shoulder the burden of carrying the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

I'm glad that plural marriage is no longer necessary. I think it would have been very difficult. But I'm profoundly grateful to the men and women who endured its attendant hardships so that the Church today can be strong, vital and prosperous.

The bottom line, it is not at all clear that polygyny leads to an overall increase in the number of children born to faithful LDS parents compared to monogamy.

I don't perceive that your bottom line is sustained by your reasoning.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well this supposes children of monogamous marriages are of a lower quality than polygynous children. I see no reason why this must be the case.

Children with two devout parents in the household are more apt to grow up with the religious values of their parents. This seems so self-evident as to not require substantiation.

[Uncertain]

Is it more difficult for parents to live in a monogamous marriage or a plural marriage?

If one relationship is more difficult than the other and that same relationship is also the obedience of a commandment of God then the parents in the more difficult marriage are setting a better example of obedience for their children. Children with better examples have a better chance of doing better themselves.

Possibly how much of an influence is very debatable. And there are possible negatives working against "quality" children from plural marriage like for example a diminished father figure. How exactly all these variables play out is not known. Also keep in mind if the goal is large numbers of quality children you still may be better off with monogamous marriages. For example suppose 70% of children from plural marriages are "quality" compared to 60% of children from monogamous marriages. Due to the higher fertility rate of monogamous marriages you have a higher overall number of children compared to plural marriage. Suppose you get 1000 children with plural marriage and 1500 children with monogamous marriages the number of "quality" children for plural marriage is 700 the number for monogamous marriages is 900. Monogamous marriage might still win in terms of producing "quality" children even if children from monogamous marriages have a lower probability of being "quality". The point I am trying to get across is it is by no means certain plural marriage produces a higher number of devote children than monogamous marriages. Plural marriage certainly does not produce a higher overall number of children.

[Uncertain]

Hi Scott,

Whether or not that's true (and you've not provided any documentation), it is irrelevant to my point. An advantage of the plural marriage system was that a righteous woman was not compelled to settle for a less-than-valiant man as a marriage partner. She could elect to be the plural wife of a righteous man, thus ensuring that her children would have two faithful and devout parents, a factor that greatly increases the propensity for those children to be devout themselves and to transmit their religious values on to their posterity.

"At the simplest level, there is evidence that women who chose polygyny

had reduced fertility. Second and later polygynous wives average significantly

fewer children than monogamous women (3.84 +/- 0.578, n=151, vs, 6.3 +/- 1.38,

n=50, P=0.0001) a result seen in other studies of this population"

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/90513626/PDFSTART

This is a strong difference monogamous women had almost double the number of children compared to plural wives.

Be that as it may, one man and two or more wives have a propensity to produce a far greater number of children than one man and one wife, all other things being equal.

Yes but two women and two men have a propensity to produce more children than one man with two wives. In 19th century Utah there was actually a slighter greater number of men than women.

It is if "raising up seed" is defined as bearing and rearing children in a righteous household with a father and mother who are both faithful and devout, especially if, in the community, righteous women outnumber righteous men.

This is the key to your argument. Do you have any evidence indicating devote 19th century women outnumber devote 19th century men? This certainly appears to be the case today I have not seen any data indicating this holds true for 19th century Utah.

"Overall fertility rate" is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters in "raising up seed" to God is the fertility rate within marriages where both husband and wife are righteous and valiant.

Overall fertility rate is very relevant to the discussion if the number of devote men is roughly equal to devote women.

On the contrary, as I have shown above, plural marriage widens the field of choice for a righteous women. She is not compelled to settle for an unworthy man. And the ability of a healthy, fertile man to sire children is virtually unlimited, as opposed to a woman, who is physically able to bear only a limited number.

Again you have not yet demonstrated 19th century devote LDS women would have been "compelled" to settle for non devote men. You might very well be right but you need to produce data indicating as such.

I don't perceive that your bottom line is sustained by your reasoning.

Well I don't perceive that your bottom line is sustained by your reasoning . Clearly monogamous women produce more children than polygynous women. Whether or not the polygynous women produce a greater number of "righteous" children is still very much debatable. You have presented no evidence indicating as such. Remember whatever positive effect plural marriage might have it still may overall produce a lower number of "righteous" children simply because it produces far fewer children overall.

(That should be devout not devote very embarrassing its a good thing I am a scientist and not a writer )

[Senator]

especially if, in the community, righteous women outnumber righteous men.

Are we able to determine that that was the case in Nauvoo or Utah? Can you point me to any research in that regard?

[cinepro]

Children with two devout parents in the household are more apt to grow up with the religious values of their parents. This seems so self-evident as to not require substantiation.

This explains why God restored Polygamy through Joseph Smith and had him practice it the way he did. Another mystery solved!

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

MICRO: Why is it impossible to find anything good that came out of polygamy?

This is only a problem if you reject Judeo religion.

Polygymy is a true principle, and was sanctioned in the Law of Moses, of which both Jesus and Paul endorsed its holiness. It is only now abhorred in Western culture due to 'Roman' laws and customs that freely tolerated multiple sexual partners, but it could tolerate only one legal wife.

It has been proposed that Joseph was to obtain all keys of all prophets from all times. And that he was commanded to use every key he obtained as proof that he has the same authority as all prophets before.

Perhaps only for those who lived under the law, those who were called to uphold the law may have felt it was a very spiritual experience for them. For those of us who do not live under the law of plural marriage, trying to live that law would in contrast be a serious sin to us. But it surely separated the wheat from the shaft in the Mormon Trek. Only true believers would follow a polygamist prophet out into the unknown and inhospitable west.

[Terry Anderson]

KJV

"be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves"

JST (NT, p. 19)

"be ye therefore wise servants and as harmless as doves "

Is the change inspired? Serpents are not wise so this seems cool at first.

But then in D&C we are back to

"Therefore, be ye as wise as serpents "

this post sent me off into deeper research, just so I could confirm the references. this is one I've never come across before, but is definitely true (has the Church been hiding something here?). When you look at the footnotes in the LDS edition of the bible for this scripture, there is no mention of the JST version, even though it is quite a significant change to the original. So then I did a search on google and came up with a FARMS article: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=592&cat_id=485

After scanning this I can see that the reason the church doesn't include it in the LDS edition of the bible is because it is not inspired. This draws a cloud over much of the JST, but I think Royal Skousen's explanation is OK. This explains why the Church has never officially endorsed it. this issue could be a real problem to a vulnerable member who did not really understand the context in which the JST was written.

[volgadon]

It would be great if this information were received by revelation, and President Monson explained at the beginning of his talk that this was the case; these aren't his words or ideas, they are the Lord's. Then, after his talk, President Eyring (who is conducting that session) asks the Q12 to sustain his words as the mind and will of the Lord and official doctrine of the Church, then he ask the 70s, and then the general Church membership to accept them as such.

Somehow I have my doubts that it would satisfy you.

[Facsimile 3]

this post sent me off into deeper research, just so I could confirm the references. this is one I've never come across before, but is definitely true (has the Church been hiding something here?). When you look at the footnotes in the LDS edition of the bible for this scripture, there is no mention of the JST version, even though it is quite a significant change to the original.

They are hiding it so well that my institute teacher used it in my New Testament class 2 months ago.

[volgadon]

The descendants of African slaves could say the say the same thing.

In fact, look how much cotton the Southern States produced prior to the Civil War.

Their industry was staggering.

Still, I find nothing noble about Slavery.

it was a happy day in America when the first unhappy slave was landed on its shores.

Duke Ellington.

[Anijen]

Why, if space on the plates was so limited, did Moroni use this phrase:

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.

My guess is that it was incremental not written all at the same time. But then if there wasn't anything of a spiritual nature to write about perhaps the secular stuff was edited out. Hmm just thinking out loud since I cant fall asleep and I am just rambling on and on.......

[Nofear]

I've updated the thread's original post. Let me know if I missed anything. So far, I haven't seen much where that hasn't been serious attempts at apologetic response. Are there questions that you think have fallen through the gaps as it were?