How do you deal with hard questions

[zeezrom]

I've never struggled with plural marriage. It is obviously a Biblical doctrine acceptable to God from time to time.

Hi BC!

Can you show me where this Biblical doctrine is and how you conclude it to be doctrinal from what we have in the Bible?

Thanks!

[Scottie]

How do I deal with hard issues?

I look at them and decide if I have to twist the answer to make a hard issue fit my current paradigm. If I do, then perhaps my paradigm isn't correct. Re-evaluating hard issues in a paradigm where the church isn't true seemed to make much more sense to me.

By the way, I should note that there are some very fascinating issues about JS which don't fit in the false church/con-man paradigm. However, the sum total of hard issues lean far more heavily (at least in my mind) towards the church being one of a thousand man made churches.

[ttribe]

Hi BC!

Can you show me where this Biblical doctrine is and how you conclude it to be doctrinal from what we have in the Bible?

Thanks!

Uhhh...Abraham, Isaac, Jacob....

[Mudcat]

This is a struggle for a lot of people. I would like to know how you deal with it. Thank you for your time. Sorry if my choices are lame - those are all I could think of.

Hey zeezrom,

Didn't vote in the poll, as I am not LDS, I didn't think it would be relevant.

To answer your question about how a person deals with hard questions, I think its a good question... and certainly one that everyone runs into.

You could have posted "eternal damnation to Hell of those who haven't heard the Gospel" on an EV forum in the place of "polygamy" and likely get a diverse scope of answers as well.

Over the years I have run into doctrines that I struggled with. The things I have struggled with are teachings that appear to be inconsistent with the nature of Christ.

I pray for guidance, look at the validity of such teachings from a scriptural standpoint, look at competing views if they appear to be more consistent with Christ's nature on the surface and their validity.

Over time I have discarded more things than I have adopted to replace them. I may be bit backwards about Christianity, but the more I grow as a Christian the simpler my faith seems to become.

It's a bad metaphor, but I do some wood and metal work as a hobby. I make knives for example. I'll take a chunk of steel and go after it with a file, saws, drills, grinders etc.. My goal is to remove every piece of it that isn't the knife I want.

I think the Holy Spirit is doing something very similar to me. He is removing every part of me that isn't the Christian Mudcat that he wants me to be. I suppose the only big difference at the end of the day is that the hunk of steel can't tell me which parts I can and can't have. But I have done that more than once with the Holy Spirt.

Regards,

Mudcat

[zeezrom]

Uhhh...Abraham, Isaac, Jacob....

1. Abraham: Genesis 16. Clearly this was Sarai's idea

2. Isaac: only had one

3. Jacob: he was tricked

How are those three men leading to doctrine on polygamy?

[SilverKnight]

1. Abraham: Genesis 16. Clearly this was Sarai's idea

2. Isaac: only had one

3. Jacob: he was tricked

How are those three men leading to doctrine on polygamy?

For Apologists or Critic alike: The OT account of polygamy among church patriarchs is very likely where JS got the idea to 'restore' plural marriage.

[Jason]

1. Abraham: Genesis 16. Clearly this was Sarai's idea

And Abraham agreed and went along with it, and did not have to repent.

3. Jacob: he was tricked

But married both of his wives (and their maids) anyway, and did not have to repent of it.

[zeezrom]

And Abraham agreed and went along with it, and did not have to repent.

But married both of his wives (and their maids) anyway, and did not have to repent of it.

Are you sure he didn't have to repent?

There are tons of things that men did in the OT that they didn't appear to have to repent of - some worse than others.

[zeezrom]

For Apologists or Critic alike: The OT account of polygamy among church patriarchs is very likely where JS got the idea to 'restore' plural marriage.

Critics think this? I would have thought critics would agree that JS might have used OT as an excuse not a reason. I would think the critics might agree that Fanny or someone may have given him the idea. I may need to spend more time with the critics sources to be sure though...

[ttribe]

1. Abraham: Genesis 16. Clearly this was Sarai's idea

2. Isaac: only had one

3. Jacob: he was tricked

How are those three men leading to doctrine on polygamy?

Fine, go with David and Solomon then. God, through his prophet, specifically only condemned David for his relationship with Bathsheba. Furthermore, Mosaic law specifically outlined how a widow was to be married to the brother-in-law, etc. regardless of his current marital status. Often there is a presumption of inspiration in much of Mosaic law. It's not a stretch to reach a conclusion of doctrine.

Plus, there's that whole D&C 132 thing, but I'm guessing you reject that now, so it probably isn't worth mentioning.

[Jason]

Are you sure he didn't have to repent?

If they did it's not in the scriptures, and they are confirmed as having been exalted.

[Lightbearer]

I do not see plural marriage as a hard question and it is nothing I am ashamed of. It was a Biblically correct doctrine and no matter what the apostates or Anti-Mormons rage over it, really it never has bothered me. Admittedly it would be very difficult to live (even today) because of envy and strife and jealousy. Perhaps economically it would be a sound principle to live, at least we would not need to pay for daycare. But whatever the Lord in His wisdom wants to do that is what is right and correct. Morally I have no problem with it when (and only when) it is commanded of God as it was in Joseph and Brigham's day, and I had no problem when the Lord discontinued the practice in 1890 by revelation to the Prophet Wilford Woodruff. I do have a problem with the FLDS and other polygamists who would try to establish the principle today with no authority from God. I guess it is just a fire-brand that Satan has used to his advantage to beat up on the Church, perhaps it was given for that purpose, to try the Saints, much as Abraham was when commanded to sacrifice his only son, it was a test of faith. The revelation of that principle was not an error, it did not come about because of Joseph's overactive hormones or because there were more women than men... it was commanded of God for His purposes and it was revoked (in the Manifesto) by God for His reasons.

[zeezrom]

Fine, go with David and Solomon then. God, through his prophet, specifically only condemned David for his relationship with Bathsheba. Furthermore, Mosaic law specifically outlined how a widow was to be married to the brother-in-law, etc. regardless of his current marital status. Often there is a presumption of inspiration in much of Mosaic law. It's not a stretch to reach a conclusion of doctrine.

Plus, there's that whole D&C 132 thing, but I'm guessing you reject that now, so it probably isn't worth mentioning.

You are guessing at what I reject, which is fine. You have a point about D&C 132. That appears to be the only canonized support of the doctrine that we can hang our hat on. Problem is, the man in question wrote it.

Allowing a widow to marry a BIL in that time period is sort of different than what Smith started up. I'm not sure I would feel comfortable hanging my hat on Solomon and David for a few reasons.

[ttribe]

You are guessing at what I reject, which is fine.

I think I specifically stated that I was guessing.

You have a point about D&C 132.

Glad to hear it. Especially since it specifically mentions the Biblical practice of polygamy as its impetus.

That appears to be the only canonized support of the doctrine that we can hang our hat on.

And I disagree based on the evidence in the Bible; which you appear content to ignore.

Problem is, the man in question wrote it.

Which is how we got to the discussion on the Bible in the first place and is also the reason that I "guessed" that you rejected D&C 132.

Allowing a widow to marry a BIL in that time period is sort of different than what Smith started up.

Let's be clear. It was not "allowing", it was COMMANDING. There's a huge difference and the implication on the status of the practice of polygamy is substantial. Furthermore, whether the details of the practice are "different than what Smith started up" is not nearly as relevant as the fact that both groups practiced a marriage system which included multiple wives.

I'm not sure I would feel comfortable hanging my hat on Solomon and David for a few reasons.

Lay them out. It might be interesting.

[krose]

The subjective evaluation of "good" versus "bad" aside, it is still evidence.

By "good," I mean clear and reliable, as opposed to something that would only be considered convincing evidence to one who already believes and is predisposed to interpret certain events as confirmation.

My point was that I see no evidence that clearly and unambiguously points to a deity that interacts with human events. People will point to "miracles" such as a child found alive in earthquake rubble, while ignoring the fact that thousands of other children would have been saved by preventing the earthquake in the first place. "Stuff happens" is at least as good an explanation of such events (actually much better in my opinion) as "God did it." Certainly it's possible that a benevolent being intervened in saving this one child, while having good reasons for allowing all the others to suffer and die, but it doesn't rise to what I consider good evidence.

[SilverKnight]

If they are intellectually honest, anyone who believes in God is going to have to grapple with some pretty tough questions.

Many of those questions have no satisfactory answer.

To be an intelligent theist is to walk a perilous road painfully aware of your unanswered conundrums and naked contradictions.

[ttribe]

By "good," I mean clear and reliable, as opposed to something that would only be considered convincing evidence to one who already believes and is predisposed to interpret certain events as confirmation.

I don't know...I think you might find a few people out there who weren't specifically "predisposed" to such interpretations who, nevertheless, have had them.

My point was that I see no evidence that clearly and unambiguously points to a deity that interacts with human events.

Not shocking.

People will point to "miracles" such as a child found alive in earthquake rubble, while ignoring the fact that thousands of other children would have been saved by preventing the earthquake in the first place. "Stuff happens" is at least as good an explanation of such events (actually much better in my opinion) as "God did it."

I don't deny that. However, let's not act as though "miracles" are the only cited evidence.

Certainly it's possible that a benevolent being intervened in saving this one child, while having good reasons for allowing all the others to suffer and die, but it doesn't rise to what I consider good evidence.

Right back to the point I made earlier. Your subjective analysis of the evidence as "good" or "bad" isn't the issue. It's the presence of evidence that I was referring to.

[LeSellers]

Women must (in general) find polygyny appealing because we see that there are so many who make themselves subordinate wives to men who they know are already married, although their status is "mistress" or "kept woman", or "harlot" or "whore".

This might go down as one of the worst statements ever made here.

I was just going to say that.

Nice one LeSellers. How enlightened of you.

Are you making a value judgment or are you disputing the facts?

Because you have a long, hard row to hoe if you are telling me my observation is erroneous. As evidence, I give you Tiger Woods and his (what is it now) eight mistresses, Bill Clinton with his strings of flings, Hollywood, Packwood and a myriad of other politicians, et cetera, etc., &c.

If all you are doing is objecting to the choice of words, I invite you to rephrase to your hearts' content.

Lehi

[krose]

I don't know...I think you might find a few people out there who weren't specifically "predisposed" to such interpretations who, nevertheless, have had them.

Perhaps, but I have not thus far; and besides, it's impossible to see the internal motivations of others. I assume you are referring to a road-to-Damascus experience.

Right back to the point I made earlier. Your subjective analysis of the evidence as "good" or "bad" isn't the issue. It's the presence of evidence that I was referring to.

Don't you judge the merits of evidence when you evaluate it? Don't you value something higher that clearly points to one conclusion, over something that could easily have one of a variety of causes?

[Jason]

If they are intellectually honest, anyone who believes in God is going to have to grapple with some pretty tough questions.

Many of those questions have no satisfactory answer.

Now that is what I call a subjective assessment. Obviously there are many people who feel the answers they have found are satisfactory.

[SilverKnight]

Are you making a value judgment or are you disputing the facts?

Because you have a long, hard row to hoe if you are telling me my observation is erroneous. As evidence, I give you Tiger Woods and his (what is it now) eight mistresses, Bill Clinton with his strings of flings, Hollywood, Packwood and a myriad of other politicians, et cetera, etc., &c.

If all you are doing is objecting to the choice of words, I invite you to rephrase to your hearts' content.

Lehi

I would say women (in general) do not find polygyny appealing - famous mistresses not withstanding.

And religiously sanctioned polygamy ? sexual promiscuity of society at large

[ttribe]

Are you making a value judgment or are you disputing the facts?

Because you have a long, hard row to hoe if you are telling me my observation is erroneous. As evidence, I give you Tiger Woods and his (what is it now) eight mistresses, Bill Clinton with his strings of flings, Hollywood, Packwood and a myriad of other politicians, et cetera, etc., &c.

If all you are doing is objecting to the choice of words, I invite you to rephrase to your hearts' content.

Lehi

No one's disputing the presence of anecdotal support for your statement. It's the blanket nature in which it's being applied. Nevertheless, I suspect this will be a reminder as to why I really do not like interacting with you; there's no apparent willingness on your part to acknowledge when you're wrong.

[Jason]

I would say women (in general) do not find polygyny appealing - famous mistresses not withstanding.

And religiously sanctioned polygamy ? sexual promiscuity of society at large

That would seem to be an argument that these women are just in it for the sex, and not for the wealth, power, and security offerred to them by their influencial paramours.

[krose]

Because you have a long, hard row to hoe if you are telling me my observation is erroneous. As evidence, I give you Tiger Woods and his (what is it now) eight mistresses, Bill Clinton with his strings of flings, Hollywood, Packwood and a myriad of other politicians, et cetera, etc., &c.

You could also find many examples of women with multiple partners. How does that fit in with your observation?

By the way, I know who Woods, Clinton and Packwood are, but who is Hollywood?

[SilverKnight]

Now that is what I call a subjective assessment. Obviously there are many people who feel the answers they have found are satisfactory.

Those people are dumber than me.