Wrestling With Polyandry

[Senator]

Yes, this is what I was saying earlier. It's disturbing either way (though obviously it would be more disturbing if Joseph were doing both).

I have trouble with the idea that Joseph did it all right--which, fortunately, Latter-day Saints don't have to (and shouldn't) believe, since D&C 132 upbraids Joseph's "sins," "transgressions," and "trespasses."

Don

Don I'm not quite understanding you. What is it that "we don't have to (and shouldn't) believe"?

[Questing Beast]

2 Nephi 9:7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement...

pondering on what a truly infinite atonement would encompass, I think it involved greater sacrifices than Christ dying on the cross, although that was certainly part of it.

"Infinite" can mean different things especially in the context of the atonement. I have "wrestled" with this concept for a long time. It is "core" to my problem with Christianity in fact. "Infinite" means all-encompassing, in other words the atonement satisfies the need for creation forever, and all things are covered by the atonement. "Infinite" also means never-ending, in other words the atonement never ends, Christ is performing it always and forever.

The implications of the second meaning of "infinite atonement" are very disturbing to me. Long before I saw the flogging scene in "The Passion of the Christ" and came away mightily disturbed by the implications, I was already having trouble with the second meaning of "infinite atonement". It didn't seem right that Omnipotent God would have to put anyone through such a destiny. Cannot God simply "make it all better"? As soon as someone learns through exercise of their God-given free will / agency, God ought to be able to intervene and spare that person any further suffering, dry their tears and turn sadness into Joy. To require that a "most loved Son" go through infinite suffering in order to "save" humanity and all creation smacks of something nasty: the implication is that God wants to do it this way, he doesn't have to do it this way. If he has to do the saving-thing this way, then he is a slave of conditions that he has no control over, i.e. "God" is not in fact omnipotent. Inheriting a "system" ("this is how it has always been done", sort of reasoning) does not make GtF into an all-powerful deity, it makes him into merely one of an (asserted to be) infinite "line" of gods over their own worlds/creations. Is that the kind of deity I should be worshipping? And so the problem grew with the years.

Now, I see the "infinite atonement" as a concept, not a literal thing. "God" does not require anyone to complete his work for him. He has all power. If there Is an "infinite atonement" it is because the being known to us as "Jesus the Christ" chose to do it this way, for whatever mystical, cosmic reason(s). But rather than try and wrap my mind around the endless implications of even that explanation, I choose to discard the "infinite atonement" as a literal event, and relegate it to story making with a purpose. And that purpose seems to be, clearly, an illustration of the infinite depth of God's love for creation, all of it (us). If necessary, "God" would in fact suffer such a fate, forever, to save us from annihilation or suffering or sadness. With that belief firmly held, anyone can endure a "little season" of suffering that teaches more about what Joy Is. We don't in fact suffer eternally or infinitely. Suffering always has an end, just as soon as we "get it", i.e. finally understand what we have been believing and doing that is mistaken. "God" puts continual clues into our lives to be noticed by us, clues that point the right way, toward Joy. It takes as long as it takes, but nobody is created to be miserable or less than a soul-mate to "God". That's the bigger concept: bigger than heaven and hell or outer darkness. So the bigger concept, originating from an Infinite Being, must be the more true concept....

[thesometimesaint]

QB:

Every time we sin we incur a debt. We either pay for that debt ourselves or someone else has to pay the price for it. We have no power on our own the forgive that debt.

Christ has said that If we do as he says he will pay the price of that debt.

In LDS belief only the SoP's will remain in outer darkness forever. Because they refuse to do as Christ has said.

[changed]

... the implication is that God wants to do it this way, he doesn't have to do it this way. If he has to do the saving-thing this way, then he is a slave of conditions that he has no control over, i.e. "God" is not in fact omnipotent. Inheriting a "system" ("this is how it has always been done", sort of reasoning) does not make GtF into an all-powerful deity, it makes him into merely one of an (asserted to be) infinite "line" of gods over their own worlds/creations. Is that the kind of deity I should be worshipping? And so the problem grew with the years.

I don't think God wanted to do this,

(Book of Mormon | Helaman 5:9)

there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ,

If there was an easier, less painful way, God would have taken it, in a heartbeat.

So yes, you could say He's a slave of conditions, or you could say He's selflessly cleaning up a mess He didn't make, you could sympathize with Him, and see Him as someone who hurts, and sacrfices, and loves us - it's the famous Euthyphro dilemma of coarse, "Is it commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?" to which I think most Mormons take the first horn - that good/evil, requirements for salvation, etc. all exist independantly of God... hense we read in Alma 42 the conditions under which God would cease to be God... if God can cease to be God (if He fails to abide by justice/etc.) then good/bad/the plan etc. all exist independantly of God.

I don't think of "infinite and eternal" as being measued by time though, I don't think we fully understand what "time" is,

Alma 40:8..all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

so it seems time (as we know it) does not exist for God - so infinite and eternal means something else - I think it means something more along the lines of "ultimate", the ultimate sacrifice, and if you can image what the ultimate sacrifice would be? For me, it would be more painful to lose my husband, and my children, than to lose my own life - we think about the sacrififce that Jesus gave, but we don't often consider the sacrifice of our Heavenly Parents, They lost their child, and our Heavenly Mother allowed Their only child to be born to a beautiful handmaid... if you have kids, imagine what it would be like to give them up for adoption, to give them to some other set of parents to raise? That is what happened, not only with Jesus, but with all of us.

Now, I see the "infinite atonement" as a concept, not a literal thing.

It is a literal thing though, I know because there is no other way that I could be forgiven for some of the stuff I have done without it....

when you feel this: Enos 1:5-8... my guilt was swept away. and can feel this without justice being satisfied in any other way than through the atonement, and it is a real lifting away of guilt/hurt/shame/pain, a real hope, then you can come to know that the atonement is real too, because without the atonement, without justice actually being served, the darkness would always remain overshadowing everything - and you can feel a real difference when that darkness is lifted away - it's very real.

"God" does not require anyone to complete his work for him. He has all power. If there Is an "infinite atonement" it is because the being known to us as "Jesus the Christ" chose to do it this way, for whatever mystical, cosmic reason(s). But rather than try and wrap my mind around the endless implications of even that explanation, I choose to discard the "infinite atonement" as a literal event, and relegate it to story making with a purpose. And that purpose seems to be, clearly, an illustration of the infinite depth of God's love for creation, all of it (us). If necessary, "God" would in fact suffer such a fate, forever, to save us from annihilation or suffering or sadness. With that belief firmly held, anyone can endure a "little season" of suffering that teaches more about what Joy Is. We don't in fact suffer eternally or infinitely. Suffering always has an end, just as soon as we "get it", i.e. finally understand what we have been believing and doing that is mistaken. "God" puts continual clues into our lives to be noticed by us, clues that point the right way, toward Joy. It takes as long as it takes, but nobody is created to be miserable or less than a soul-mate to "God". That's the bigger concept: bigger than heaven and hell or outer darkness. So the bigger concept, originating from an Infinite Being, must be the more true concept....

Here's a question for you, if someone told you "I love you enough to die for you" - just told it to you, did not actually die for you, just threw it out there as a concept - would that love really be as strong as if someone actually died for you? There is a huge difference between a concept, and an actual sacrficie, or an actual physical thing.... ideas are a dime a dozen... to make something real, it has to be more than just an idea - it has to actually happen.

So, how does one person’s death atone for another person’s sins? here's a story from Cleon S. that helped me understand it better – it’s from the Civil War. Here it is:

“There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.

She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?” President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.” And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.”

So the point is, the reason the 19yo was pardoned, and why everyone was OK with that, was because the little mother had given a sacrifice. It wasn’t about the 19yo anymore, it was about the little mother – about her husband and sons who had all given their life. If there had been no sacrifice, pardoning the 19 would not have been fair, it would not have been just. God has to uphold justice – He has to maintain law and order. If law/justice is not upheld, the whole thing crumbles and falls into anarchy - Alma 42, God ceases to be God without Justice.. .... so we forgive one another because of Jesus’ sacrifice. Even if they don’t deserve it, to say “I don’t forgive you” is to say “the atonement wasn’t good enough" and no one is going to say that, especially after we have seen beyond the veil, and come to a full knowledge of all that was involved with it.

Edited June 5, 2013 by changed

[DonBradley]

Don I'm not quite understanding you. What is it that "we don't have to (and shouldn't) believe"?

That JS lived polygamy perfectly, with no "sins" or "trangressions" in how he implemented it, and no "trespasses against" Emma.

Don

[Questing Beast]

...

... God has to uphold justice – He has to maintain law and order. If law/justice is not upheld, the whole thing crumbles and falls into anarchy - Alma 42, God ceases to be God without Justice.. .... so we forgive one another because of Jesus’ sacrifice. Even if they don’t deserve it, to say “I don’t forgive you” is to say “the atonement wasn’t good enough" and no one is going to say that, especially after we have seen beyond the veil, and come to a full knowledge of all that was involved with it.

I never suggested that "comeupance" is laid aside. If you've done really bad things to other people something has to be done for them. We have laws and punishments all based on what we want to call "justice". We try and understand what justice is in every case. Often we fail. So then enters into it the concepts we hold of what existence really Is. Are we concerned with only this life, or is there more before and after this life? Law and order on this planet cannot consider such things, only justice weighed in the balance of our five senses world. That is not the same thing as "God" viewing immortal beings in the context of space-time as "God" has established it within the creation. We are mistaken to assign anthropomorphic values to "God", therefore limiting "God" to a finite code of justice, and an intent and purpose that imposes limitations upon "God". I am uncomfortable believing scriptures that do so. Or imply such limitations.

The concept of "God In Total" that I hold must be the biggest that I can possibly imagine. To believe in less is limiting "God" deliberately to a finite concept of human understanding. I can take the wealth of scripture, all the "wisdom literature" of the world since "time out of mind", and it does not begin to define "God In Total". To assume that "God" would not be able to spare the "comeupance" I deserve on his own, but must instead put another through inconceivable suffering in order to "save" the world, is a finite concept to my mind. It serves a purpose in illustrating, as I said, the depth of God's love, but to assert that there was no other way, just because the scripture of one of this planet's religions makes the assertion, is to limit myself to a lesser faith.

I believe that "God" is the author of all Existence, Is Existence itself. It is just for "God" to treat with each of us according to our understanding. We are always learning. And at some point we do indeed come to realize with horror and a measure of revulsion just how "deliciously low" we are. We begin to see ourselves with a Godlike perspective. Do we shrink or do we cry out for love and mercy? When you are ready, as Alma was all at once, to cry out for love and mercy, "God" will never refuse. That is called forgiveness. The notion that someone else has to pay for the miseries you cause(d) if you don't is not necessary, imho, of course. "God" can make it all good. That's "God's justice" to me. I see Jesus Christ as superfluous beyond coming here to show how "God" has power and love enough to save anybody and everybody. The choice to believe that change must originate with me, my desire, is always going to be available, but the timing of that choice is not for me to know. If I have not felt it yet, nevertheless I will one day. Nobody is intended to go through eternity without arriving at that point where they come to accept "God" as reality itself....

[why me]

That JS lived polygamy perfectly, with no "sins" or "trangressions" in how he implemented it, and no "trespasses against" Emma.

Don

I try to put myself in his place. And when I do, I see a man who was put in a very difficult position. Lets say that he actually saw an angel with a sword threatening him. Now this angel had shown itself before in the bible when god wished his prophets to do what needed to be done. So, if true, he felt that he had to start something again that he did not want to do. The experience with fanny was not exactly problem free as you know.

And so, what was he to do? He had a wife that was going to give him problems with this principle and then we have the angel. What would you do? I do believe that he loved emma. And if this were the case, he wouldn't want to hurt her. So, what should he do with polygamy? I do believe that the situation would have been different if emma was on board with this principle. I see a man that was between a rock and a hard place. There had to be a reason for him to marry 33 women in two years and I don't see this as a lust issue because a lustful exercise could have been taking care of by leaving the area and heading to a brothel. So, something was going on that caused him to act the way he did.

[Senator]

That JS lived polygamy perfectly, with no "sins" or "trangressions" in how he implemented it, and no "trespasses against" Emma.

Don

Gotcha! By the way Don, I appreciate what you have brought to the table here. I know there are many that say these kinds of discussions are a irrelevant and a waste of time, but I feel there are many that need this very thing. I think there are people who are needing the freedom to think (let alone say), "While I regard the Prophet for the many grand slams he's made............but that swing of the bat, that has foul ball written all over it."

[why me]

Gotcha! By the way Don, I appreciate what you have brought to the table here. I know there are many that say these kinds of discussions are a irrelevant and a waste of time, but I feel there are many that need this very thing. I think there are people who are needing the freedom to think (let alone say), "While I regard the Prophet for the many grand slams he's made............but that swing of the bat, that has foul ball written all over it."

I think that Joseph would agree that he made mistakes and that he was not perfect in the things he did. He was before all else, a human being. Or as he said of himself:

... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.

Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)

Notice the date..said in the midst of his polygamous sealings.

[DonBradley]

Gotcha! By the way Don, I appreciate what you have brought to the table here. I know there are many that say these kinds of discussions are a irrelevant and a waste of time, but I feel there are many that need this very thing. I think there are people who are needing the freedom to think (let alone say), "While I regard the Prophet for the many grand slams he's made............but that swing of the bat, that has foul ball written all over it."

Thanks, Senator. I think we should feel open to call a spade a spade. And I agree with you that having that freedom is a very healthy thing.

Don

[DonBradley]

I think that Joseph would agree that he made mistakes and that he was not perfect in the things he did. He was before all else, a human being. Or as he said of himself:

... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.

Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)

Notice the date..said in the midst of his polygamous sealings.

Well said, WhyMe.

Don

[changed]

I never suggested that "comeupance" is laid aside. If you've done really bad things to other people something has to be done for them. We have laws and punishments all based on what we want to call "justice". We try and understand what justice is in every case. Often we fail. So then enters into it the concepts we hold of what existence really Is. Are we concerned with only this life, or is there more before and after this life? Law and order on this planet cannot consider such things, only justice weighed in the balance of our five senses world. That is not the same thing as "God" viewing immortal beings in the context of space-time as "God" has established it within the creation. We are mistaken to assign anthropomorphic values to "God", therefore limiting "God" to a finite code of justice, and an intent and purpose that imposes limitations upon "God". I am uncomfortable believing scriptures that do so. Or imply such limitations.

Justice is simple - an eye for an eye, to complicate it is an attempt to avoid the realities associated with it.

Limitations? Sorry, but I view your concept of God as being power-deficient and limited.

a) Ex-Nihlo creating everything to suit your own purposes...

vs.

b) molding eternal uncreated beings with their own free will

- which takes more power? Obviously molding eternal un-created beings with their own free will - without taking away their agency - requires more power.

Things like love cannot just be created - they have to be earned... and what takes more power and self-control, being good - being perfect, or defining perfection to be what you would like it to be? Defining good to suit your own purposes is a cop out.

Limiting?

a.) Those people who live within their own little world that they create for themselves, in a little sheltered, controlled, fabricated existence - that is what an ex-Nihlo - all-is-God- universe is, it's a fabricated one - to create is to control - to micromanage, and never see beyond yourself, to control everything and be everything - to never escape yourself - this is a cage... (to be free, there has to be somewhere outside of yorself to actually go)

vs.

b.) Those who break free of their bubble, are able to see something other than themselves - the opposite of self-centered, and self-caged - to see others - to see others face to face without imposing their own agendas/desires/manipulations on them ... those who can exist without micro-managing and controlling or creating or being everything around them, but instead can "live and let live", to see beauty in something other than themselves...

to inspire/influence/teach/rejoice with/love beings with free will (that you did not create to be puppets), to trasnform without controlling, to see beyond yourself, to exist in something other than a singularity, to celebrate diversity, to overcome incredible odds - clean up a mess you did NOT make, vs. creating a mess to clean up? I believe in a God in whom "there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5)... I do not believe in a God who creates misery and imperfect beings.... Look around, consider the reality of this world, do you see perfection? No? and you would attribute all of the horrors to God? attribute everything to God? Good exists, and evil exists - and a God exists who is able to see beyond, who is strong enough to actually sacrifice for others, who is powerful enough to inspire and change minds without taking away free will, who does not exist in a self-created fabricated cage, but exists in an immense uncreated reality to explore - and is not intimidated by that reality....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sorry to derail the thread everyone, don't have time to start a new one though, read you all in a few weeks!

Edited June 5, 2013 by changed

[Questing Beast]

@Changed: that was interesting. You evidently ascribe to the cosmology that all of existence, the matter, the "intelligences", simply exists without Cause, and that "God" is asserted to be "more intelligent than they (we) all", while also being not caused and a self-taught "organizer". And all of this straining at an explanation for "existence in the first place" is so that "ex nihilo" be put out of the way.

The "orthodox" understanding of ex nihilo, as I understand it, is "it's a mystery", we will never understand/comprehend how God makes creations out of "nothing". The same way that the Trinity is "a mystery", how God can be three individuals and yet One God literally, not three separate beings. That is why the early church was so populated with mystics: the dogma encouraged individual pursuit of "the mysteries of Godliness".

Your insistence that everything simply BE without Cause is not logical, imho. It does not follow that "God" being Necessary Cause thus turn into a "micro manager", thus implying no free will being possible. I don't hold that concept at all. It's not easy to put into words, but "God" is truly ALONE; there is no "bubble" to burst out of into a wider world. There is Void, and there is fecund creation. The World of Creation is infinite, yet composed of finite beings, us, all living things. We are caused by "God". But those of us recognizably sapient are not micro managed. We are sovereign individuals, "egocentric universes" with only a singular trait in common with every other sapient being: we are connected to "God", inseparably and eternally. Everything else about us possesses differences. And "God" is infinitely expanding the "World of Creation", i.e. there is no end to the differences in sapient beings. That is a cosmically huge concept: "God" manifesting endlessly as sapient, sovereign beings, each with its own free will, each gifted with the desire to become One with "God". That desire drives the "quest" to find "God" in all things. We will be continually seeking "God" and finding what we seek, and the eternal seeking will reward us with increasing Joy forever. The Joy Is in the seeking and the finding, not a final "place" or state where we say of ourselves, "I am done".

To drag this back to the topic at hand: Polyandry offends this principle of one on one seeking "God", and substitutes instead some goal of creating and populating planets, "endless worlds", faster and more numerous than others: a perverse hierarchy of "greater is his kingdom and glory because it is vaster than the rest". Early Mormonism was very focused on the dogma of "seed" and "increase"; and how getting started in a bigger way here on Earth translated into some exponential "advantage in the world to come", etc. It is all justification for turning women into breeding stock. But I say that the earlier expressed, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" must apply in all fairness and justice: if men can have an endless horde of wives, a "harem", then women, too, can have an endless string of lovers/husbands. What a concept! How holy! How wondrous! (NOT....)

[thesometimesaint]

God is Just, but he isn't fair, as in totally equitable. What he does do is give us the challenges that we personally need to become like him.

Any man that would treat women as mere breeding stock isn't deserving of the title man. By the same token any woman that would treat men as mere sperm donors isn't deserving of the title woman. How's that for equality?

[tyler90az]

This is one of those situations where we need to remember a living Prophet is more important then a dead. I do not see the current or any future Prophets from being able to abuse the members. One reason would be the fact they grew up in the doctrine, ingrained in them. The second reason would be that there are checks and balances within the church. Even if we get a couple of corrupt prophets in the 15 they will be outnumbered by the righteous. If you can not rely solely on spiritual truth that is a way to rationalize this JS predicament.

[mfbukowski]

That JS lived polygamy perfectly, with no "sins" or "trangressions" in how he implemented it, and no "trespasses against" Emma.

Don

+1

Inoculations sting for a few minutes or sometimes give you a sore arm, but they are better than catching the disease, which could kill you.

[Questing Beast]

God is Just, but he isn't fair, as in totally equitable. What he does do is give us the challenges that we personally need to become like him.

Any man that would treat women as mere breeding stock isn't deserving of the title man. By the same token any woman that would treat men as mere sperm donors isn't deserving of the title woman. How's that for equality?

Fine by me, but it doesn't answer the doctrine about "patriarchal marriage", which divests a man of his wife in this life by moving her into the bed of the one she is sealed to for eternity. Where is the equal treatment for women who want different men? There is inequality, making women inferior to men, plain and simple: they get to "enjoy" marriage to one man, he gets to have limitless wives, that's the doctrine. It smells bad. And JS is to blame for the smell. Whether or not he practiced plural marriage poorly is rather beside the point. The history shows Nauvoo plural marriage, with over a hundred children resulting therefrom. Only JS had wives that were still living openly with their legal husbands....

You can make your point without using euphemisms in the way you have. Clean things up or do not participate.

~Mods

[ERayR]

Fine by me, but it doesn't answer the doctrine about "patriarchal marriage", which divests a man of his wife in this life by moving her into the bed of the one she is sealed to for eternity. Where is the equal treatment for women who want different men? There is inequality, making women inferior to men, plain and simple: they get to "enjoy" marriage to one man, he gets to have limitless wives, that's the doctrine. It smells bad. And JS is to blame for the smell. Whether or not he practiced plural marriage poorly is rather beside the point. The history shows Nauvoo plural marriage, with over a hundred children resulting therefrom. Only JS had wives that were still living openly with their legal husbands....

Only from someone who does not, can not or will not see that Marriage and sealing are not synonymous could such questions come.

[Questing Beast]

Now you're being semantic. How is "marriage" in the temple sense (and we do use the word "marriage") different from sealing? They are the same thing. So JS's "sealings" were marriages, even when the women already had husbands....

Edited June 5, 2013 by Questing Beast

[ERayR]

Now you're being semantic. How is "marriage" in the temple sense (and we do use the word "marriage") different from sealing? They are the same thing. So JS's "sealings" were marriages, even when the women already had husbands....

Simple your kids are sealed to you, you are sealed to your parents yet neither is marriage. The temple marriage ceremony is different than a sealing ceremony. We(meaning all of us) often use and conflate word and concepts in error.

Now in deference to full disclosure I do not know what ceremony was performed for Joseph and those who were bound to him by the priesthood power and you nor any man living knows for sure what ceremony was performed. Yet you wring your hands and fret and fuss like you do.

[Tacenda]

Thanks, Senator. I think we should feel open to call a spade a spade. And I agree with you that having that freedom is a very healthy thing.

Don

I believe in it being on the healthy side, but if you were a non believer and said the same things I believe that the outcome would be different on this board. The loving and understanding flies out the door, funny how that happens.

[DonBradley]

I believe in it being on the healthy side, but if you were a non believer and said the same things I believe that the outcome would be different on this board. The loving and understanding flies out the door, funny how that happens.

Interesting observation, Tacenda.

Sometimes our (natural and laudable) group loyalties as Latter-day Saints lead us to be less tolerant of statements by nonbelievers--which we take as attacks--than we be of the same statements made by fellow believers--which we take as innocuous observations.

I think this is natural not only because of group loyalties but also because we know that--by definition--statements made by fellow believers are not offered as rationales for rejecting the faith, whereas the same statements made by nonbelievers may be offered as reasons not to believe.

But saying that this is natural doesn't mean that it's good. We should be less quick to perceive offense and more open to dialogue with others, wherever they are on the faith spectrum.

Don

[Tacenda]

Interesting observation, Tacenda.

Sometimes our (natural and laudable) group loyalties as Latter-day Saints lead us to be less tolerant of statements by nonbelievers--which we take as attacks--than we be of the same statements made by fellow believers--which we take as innocuous observations.

I think this is natural not only because of group loyalties but also because we know that--by definition--statements made by fellow believers are not offered as rationales for rejecting the faith, whereas the same statements made by nonbelievers may be offered as reasons not to believe.

But saying that this is natural doesn't mean that it's good. We should be less quick to perceive offense and more open to dialogue with others, wherever they are on the faith spectrum.

Don

I know it's quite natural. Just wish, some on the board would be a little less on the defensive side, it takes some people awhile to come around to belief again, if it ever happens. But do understand how some disbelievers seem to attack the church, and I'm sure you realize that it's because they feel like they're thought of as the bad guy, they tend to get irate because they don't believe unbelief is their fault. You are helping TBM's see a little clearer and also a few GA's are getting in on the action too and alleviating so many sufferers (hopefully I didn't give you a headache just now)

[Questing Beast]

@ERayR: The truth is that where we do have a worded "ceremony" each one is different. There was no set or rote ceremony as there is now. So "sealing" by any definition was not the same then as later/now. When the man and woman are "sealed" they are married. "Adoption" is no longer done either, and I think anyone trying to show that something like sealing = adoption in JS's plural marriages to other men's wives is not feasible. He married them. If there were different depths of the marriage relationship that is to be expected. After all, H. C. Kimball, B. Young, et al. Utah's polygamists with scores of wives had favorites and those who were virtually living as single women, some of them cast into the furthest corners of "Deseret". JS would not have given all his numerous wives equal time either....

Edited June 6, 2013 by Questing Beast

[ERayR]

I know it's quite natural. Just wish, some on the board would be a little less on the defensive side, it takes some people awhile to come around to belief again, if it ever happens. But do understand how some disbelievers seem to attack the church, and I'm sure you realize that it's because they feel like they're thought of as the bad guy, they tend to get irate because they don't believe unbelief is their fault. You are helping TBM's see a little clearer and also a few GA's are getting in on the action too and alleviating so many sufferers (hopefully I didn't give you a headache just now)

Pass the aspirin. As for me I am not defensive it is just my nature that when I see something I perceive as error or doesn't make sense I have a tendency to challenge it. I just don't see how validating error is productive.