How do you deal with hard questions

[ttribe]

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?

Sure. But, again, that wasn't the point I was making. Let me lay it out this way - I've interpreted your statement on the quality of evidence to be synonymous with the idea that the there is ZERO evidence. In sum - I've concluded it's bad, so it might as well not exist. I'm simply suggesting that an outright dismissal of the PRESENCE of evidence based on a personal subjective evaluation of that evidence is no better than the very thing you are criticizing; namely a blanket acceptance of that evidence based on a personal subjective evaluation of that evidence as "good".

[ttribe]

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

Doc Hollywood...didn't you know?

[Facsimile 3]

Cultures vary in what is the social norm for the family (the poster family for that culture). On the isle that became Britannia, in ancient tribes there were women who had multiple "husbands." It was acceptable to God and shaped by God that early Saints would follow a society based around consecration and polygamy. Later as the church grew, God upheld our current monogamous, capitalist culture of America and directed the Church to blend into the mainstream. I have no hard questions nor concerns about that cultural change because I believe prophets serve as the oracles of God and are used by Him to help shape His kingdom's culture to suit His purposes (which ultimately will lead to the reign of Christ on this Earth for a thousand years).

[krose]

Sure. But, again, that wasn't the point I was making. Let me lay it out this way - I've interpreted your statement on the quality of evidence to be synonymous with the idea that the there is ZERO evidence. In sum - I've concluded it's bad, so it might as well not exist. I'm simply suggesting that an outright dismissal of the PRESENCE of evidence based on a personal subjective evaluation of that evidence is no better than the very thing you are criticizing; namely a blanket acceptance of that evidence based on a personal subjective evaluation of that evidence as "good".

Ah. I would need to go back and read what I said, but I believe it was just that I, myself, have not seen evidence (that is, enough evidence to convince me) for an interacting, benevolent deity. I do believe that convincing evidence of such does not exist, but certainly (due to the fact that I don't know or see everything) I could be wrong about that.

[ttribe]

Ah. I would need to go back and read what I said, but I believe it was just that I, myself, have not seen evidence (that is, enough evidence to convince me) for an interacting, benevolent deity. I do believe that convincing evidence of such does not exist, but certainly (due to the fact that I don't know or see everything) I could be wrong about that.

Then we understand each other.

[krose]

Doc Hollywood...didn't you know?

In that case, the allegation is unfair. IIRC, he was a one-girl (and one pig) guy who did not give in to the enticements of the mayor's hot daughter.

[ttribe]

In that case, the allegation is unfair. IIRC, he was a one-girl (and one pig) guy who did not give in to the enticements of the mayor's hot daughter.

I must admit...I never saw the movie.

[LeSellers]

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

You can say whatever you like. I look around and see hundreds of counter examples, far beyond the famous ones I noted. I used, as you probably figured out, these because they are famous, and I would not have to dredge up a million examples.

However, if we look at any newspaper (for those of you old enough to remember such institutions) at the police blotter, we'll see dozens of examples of such informal arrangements.

Matlock and Perry Mason made their money dealing with just such cases. I use these fictional examples because fiction has to be believable for it to "work".

You may be right that most women do not accept polygyny as a practice, but I contend that they would accept it as a theory (and as a practice if not constrained by a host of cultural and legal taboos) because there are so many do practice it both formally and (in our culture) informally.

Teen-aged women and women in their twenties today practice polygyny (and polyandry) openly. The fact is not debatable (or is that "the debate is over"? I want to be politically correct).

Money, especially, is a draw for many women. That's why Hugh Heffner can have a bevy of beauties, which he purges and refreshes from time to time: he's rich and famous (and his fame splashes onto his high-priced whores). Status, the other leading incentive for women as they choose their mates, is reflected in these same choices (Clinton, Woods, Heffner). The two often go hand-in-hand.

So, until you can show me a reason to reject my observations, I will stand by them.

And religiously sanctioned polygamy ? sexual promiscuity of society at large

If that's what your objection boils down to, you missed the point entirely, assuming I understood this in the first place.

My premise had nothing at all to do with religion, but about polygyny as a desirable or an undesirable marital arrangement. I was not even talking about formal arrangements, as I mentioned above, but about the common, and highly informal, situation where many women share one man for whatever reason they, independently, choose.

Lehi

[krose]

I must admit...I never saw the movie.

Then you missed one of the great moments in cinema, where Julie Warner makes her dramatic entrance by rising out of the lake.

[zeezrom]

Teen-aged women and women in their twenties today practice polygyny (and polyandry) openly. The fact is not debatable (or is that "the debate is over"? I want to be politically correct).

What are you trying to do with this statement? I hope you are not trying to rationalize mormon plural marriage in any way through this statement.

[Facsimile 3]

What are you trying to do with this statement? I hope you are not trying to rationalize mormon plural marriage in any way through this statement.

Explain why trying to "rationalize" why the Church practiced polygamy would be an undesirable thing to do? What angle are you coming from in your ethics?

[krose]

I would like to add that I have usually found the reversals of controversial practices (plural marriage, priesthood ban, endowment script, etc.) to be more difficult to reconcile than the practices themselves.

[zeezrom]

Explain why trying to "rationalize" why the Church practiced polygamy would be an undesirable thing to do? What angle are you coming from in your ethics?

You know, I may have misinterpreted what LeSellers said. Let me make sure. Did he say that there are cases in today's society where people are unfaithful in their relationships (fornication/adultery) so women might find polygamy appealing? And is this being somehow construed to make polygamy in the church okay? I tried back-stepping through the posts to understand but may have slipped somewhere. Please tell me this is not what he was trying to do.

[alter idem]

You can say whatever you like. I look around and see hundreds of counter examples, far beyond the famous ones I noted. I used, as you probably figured out, these because they are famous, and I would not have to dredge up a million examples.

However, if we look at any newspaper (for those of you old enough to remember such institutions) at the police blotter, we'll see dozens of examples of such informal arrangements.

Matlock and Perry Mason made their money dealing with just such cases. I use these fictional examples because fiction has to be believable for it to "work".

You may be right that most women do not accept polygyny as a practice, but I contend that they would accept it as a theory (and as a practice if not constrained by a host of cultural and legal taboos) because there are so many do practice it both formally and (in our culture) informally.

Teen-aged women and women in their twenties today practice polygyny (and polyandry) openly. The fact is not debatable (or is that "the debate is over"? I want to be politically correct).

Money, especially, is a draw for many women. That's why Hugh Heffner can have a bevy of beauties, which he purges and refreshes from time to time: he's rich and famous (and his fame splashes onto his high-priced whores). Status, the other leading incentive for women as they choose their mates, is reflected in these same choices (Clinton, Woods, Heffner). The two often go hand-in-hand.

So, until you can show me a reason to reject my observations, I will stand by them.

If that's what your objection boils down to, you missed the point entirely, assuming I understood this in the first place.

My premise had nothing at all to do with religion, but about polygyny as a desirable or an undesirable marital arrangement. I was not even talking about formal arrangements, as I mentioned above, but about the common, and highly informal, situation where many women share one man for whatever reason they, independently, choose.

Lehi

Your remarks were offensive to women in general. I believe that is why you were called to task for what you said.

The Lord says he 'delights in the chastity of women'. That the world 'lies in sin' does not mean that we should embrace that sinful behavior because some people seem 'okay' with it.

There are many reasons why women get themselves in situations which devalue them or are degrading. Assuming that they are 'happy' with those situations is shortsighted.

Also, equating promiscuous behavior today with a discussion on LDS polygamy is IMO, extremely inappropriate. If you want to justify polygamy, please find a less offensive way to do it.

[ttribe]

Your remarks were offensive to women in general. I believe that is why you were called to task for what you said.

The Lord says he 'delights in the chastity of women'. That the world 'lies in sin' does not mean that we should embrace that sinful behavior because some people seem 'okay' with it.

There are many reasons why women get themselves in situations which devalue them or are degrading. Assuming that they are 'happy' with those situations is shortsighted.

Also, equating promiscuous behavior today with a discussion on LDS polygamy is IMO, extremely inappropriate. If you want to justify polygamy, please find a less offensive way to do it.

Amen, once again, sister.

[zeezrom]

Your remarks were offensive to women in general. I believe that is why you were called to task for what you said.

The Lord says he 'delights in the chastity of women'. That the world 'lies in sin' does not mean that we should embrace that sinful behavior because some people seem 'okay' with it.

There are many reasons why women get themselves in situations which devalue them or are degrading. Assuming that they are 'happy' with those situations is shortsighted.

Also, equating promiscuous behavior today with a discussion on LDS polygamy is IMO, extremely inappropriate. If you want to justify polygamy, please find a less offensive way to do it.

Amen to that.

BTW - I wish God would have had the ancient prophets insert another line: "...delights in the chastity of men too."

[Facsimile 3]

I would like to add that I have usually found the reversals of controversial practices (plural marriage, priesthood ban, endowment script, etc.) to be more difficult to reconcile than the practices themselves.

I think any change in a community's culture isn't very easy to jump into. Despite the standards of the world in regards to sexual morality going down the drain, it seems that our LDS culture still overlaps overall western culture very comfortably. It would be interesting to see how many people would flock to the church if it was to remain the last man standing in the collapse of Western Culture.

[Facsimile 3]

You know, I may have misinterpreted what LeSellers said. Let me make sure. Did he say that there are cases in today's society where people are unfaithful in their relationships (fornication/adultery) so women might find polygamy appealing? And is this being somehow construed to make polygamy in the church okay? I tried back-stepping through the posts to understand but may have slipped somewhere. Please tell me this is not what he was trying to do.

No, I'm sorry, just laziness on my part (I have my arguing mittens on today and I just want to use them).

[LeSellers]

Your remarks were offensive to women in general. I believe that is why you were called to task for what you said.

Perhaps. So what? He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. He who takes offense when offense is intended is still a fool.

No one has effectively rebutted my observations.

The Lord says he 'delights in the chastity of women'. That the world 'lies in sin' does not mean that we should embrace that sinful behavior because some people seem 'okay' with it.

Then you are saying that early LDS polygyny was sinful?

There are many reasons why women get themselves in situations which devalue them or are degrading. Assuming that they are 'happy' with those situations is shortsighted.

To arbitrarily assume they are not is equally shortsighted.

Nonetheless, when there is a huge trend toward one target, one must assume that there is a reason for it. I cannot accept that so many women would do things that do not advance their personal well-being, or, worse, make them, in their own minds, worse off.

Also, equating promiscuous behavior today with a discussion on LDS polygamy is IMO, extremely inappropriate. If you want to justify polygamy, please find a less offensive way to do it.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show the way?

CFR that I "equated" anything.

And why should I be concerned about offending people anyway? Those who choose to be offended won't care about the facts, and those who listen will consider them in their own minds, which is my goal.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

What are you trying to do with this statement? I hope you are not trying to rationalize mormon plural marriage in any way through this statement.

No, I'm responding to the OP.

The question before the house is "How do you deal with the hard issues in LDS history/theology?"

People who have a hard time with polygyny are, in my experience, highly chronocentric (and ethnocentric). They judge everything based on their highly subjective view of how the world should be. They are generally wrong.

My point is that polygyny is (if not the norm) highly normal throughout history, including our own day. There simply ought to be no problem, especially for LDSs, in accepting its practice, and especially based on some sort of snobbish, arrogant sense that polygyny is inherently immoral. It isn't.

Lehi

[zeezrom]

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show the way?

LeSellers,

Maybe the answer is:

"There is no way."

[LeSellers]

Amen to that.

I wish God would have had the ancient prophets insert another line: "...delights in the chastity of men too."

But, oddly, He didn't, so you're stuck with what we have.

(Which does not mean I advocate a double standard for men and women. I just returned from the Temple a couple of hours ago and am fully cognizant of the covenant I made for roughly the five hundredth time wherein there is no double standard.)

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Maybe the answer is:

"There is no way."

Then, to express the truths I did, I could only have offended those who prefer being offended to reasoning. Got it.

Lehi

[zeezrom]

Then, to express the truths I did, I could only have offended those who prefer being offended to reasoning. Got it.

Lehi

Sorry. I need to clarify:

"There is no way - without making it look like a big huge mistake."

That might be how some people deal with this particular issue.

[LeSellers]

You know, I may have misinterpreted what LeSellers said. Let me make sure.

No reason to question: you are wrong.

And, for the 905^th time, please