Tacenda Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Not at all. I just don't believe in a God who would command anyone to live polygamy.Especially a God that provided free agency. The angel with a drawn sword sounds like Satan's plan, not God's plan.
webbles Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 I cannot imagine polygamy being an eternal principle or part of any creator's plan. It simply caused too much pain and suffering to have come from God. For some polygamy did cause pain and suffering. But there are some were polygamy was a good thing. Its kind of similar to monogomous marriages. For some marriage is a terrible thing that causes pain and suffering. For others, it is a wonderful thing.
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Especially a God that provided free agency. The angel with a drawn sword sounds like Satan's plan, not God's plan. Agency is directly connected to obedience. The less obedient to God's law you are, the less agency you have.If you disobey God's law using your agency, the consequences inevitably reduce your choices.
Tacenda Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Agency is directly connected to obedience. The less obedient to God's law you are, the less agency you have.If you disobey God's law using your agency, the consequences inevitably reduce your choices.How did I know you'd have an answer.
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Hey JLHPROF, I believe that your arguments FOR polygamy hold no water. Again, we can continue back and forth, but I see no need to. I do not have a literal belief in any of the scriptures. So any instance you think you can show me where you believe that God commanded people to live a principle that caused pain and suffering would simply mean nothing to me (if there even are any other than the principle of polygamy). I believe God allows things to happen that cause pain, but I absolutely do not believe he commands anyone to do something that is hurtful, degrading or that involves lying and cheating to live it. That is how I feel about polygamy. I know you have the right to believe as you do regarding polygamy, but I have a right to believe as I do. That's all I was trying to convey in my previous post. Not at all. I just don't believe in a God who would command anyone to live polygamy. You appear to be missing the point (and correct me if I'm wrong). 1. You say you don't believe in a God that would command polygamy. That's irrelevant. God is who he is, regardless of whether we like it. Other than that we are making God in our image. If God is ok with polygamy, our feelings don't matter at all. 2. I can't show you a place where God commanded polygamy (other than D&C 132/Joseph Smith). I agree. Because all other scriptural societies already allowed for it. Joseph was living in the first society where polygamy had to be commanded. Why would there be a commandment to Abraham to live polygamy when it was not forbidden? I have no need to prove God commanded polygamy. It was already there. YOU would need to prove that God forbade polygamy (which he never did). 3. You have every right to believe as you see fit. But there is revealed truth that we call scripture and revelation. If you choose not to accept or believe it you have that right. But it is part of the gospel. If you choose to follow a different gospel that is up to you, but it's different from "Mormonism".
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 How did I know you'd have an answer. Sorry. Would you like me to bow out of the thread so you guys can rant against an eternal principle to your hearts content?
webbles Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Especially a God that provided free agency. The angel with a drawn sword sounds like Satan's plan, not God's plan.Well, there's at least two instances of an angel with a drawn sword that were sent by God (the one protecting the Tree of Life and the one that confronted Balaam in Numbers). So it seems that God sometimes does use angels with swords. 1
danielwoods Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) The NT encompasses just a few decades of human history. Most of the Bible period is Old Testament. What we have in the NT is just a few writings of that period. I don't even think one can prove that the NT contains even 1% of the beliefs, doctrines, practices, of Christ or the First Century church. Your statement is really strange, unless you are Jewish. Why? Because nearly 95% of our practices and beliefs are derived from the NT. As the LDS are fond of saying, "newer light surpasses the old." And certainly that is the position of people who follow Christ and his teachings as contained throughout the NT. On second thought, I'd say that 99% of what we believe today as Christians is derived from the NT. The argument of silence does not disprove polygamy. The NT does not speak against polygamy. Not one negative statement is made against the practice. In the LDS view it does not matter. Polygamy is regulated by God. There are times when God commands it and other times he does not. If God did not command the saints in the First Century to practice it, there would not be a need to address it. This does not mean that God might not command people in another place and time to practice it. Fortunately for LDS we don't handcuff ourselves to the baseless view that unless a NT writer mentioned something, it does not exist or is not important. I have personally written letters in my life. One would be a fool to think all my views, knowledge, and deeds could be found in a handful of letters I have written. Yet people seem to think that in the case of Paul or Peter, they wrote down EVERYTHING. Well, a person can claim that God is regulating the stop lights on city streets, but demonstrating that to be the case is another problem. And I really don't care about claims as such, because we could go back and forth forever. Which is why I rely on the NT. So, while you claim that there is not one negative statement made against the practice of polygamy, there is also not one positive statement either. Your argument is a defensive position at best. Further, the plain fact is that the NT teaches monogamy from the start to finish. What does that mean? Well, if you want to know what the NT apostles and Jesus himself thought about marriage, it is taught in the context of monogamous relationships. Never once is there instruction about many wives. What does the NT teach? Monogamy. Edited April 25, 2015 by danielwoods
Tacenda Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Sorry. Would you like me to bow out of the thread so you guys can rant against an eternal principle to your hearts content?No, at least you give me the time of day. 1
Flyonthewall Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 I cannot imagine polygamy being an eternal principle or part of any creator's plan. It simply caused too much pain and suffering to have come from God. ...There are some that will say Marriage, and children cause pain and suffering, yet God commanded those. I am no pro-ponent of polygamy - I would rather never have to deal with it. That being said, there are times and places to practice it as demonstrated in the scriptures. The default is monogamy, but can and has been commanded by God in the past. If it was such an abominable practice, God could have commanded it stopped many times. Abraham, the person whom God promised many blessings that affect the whole of humanity, practiced it and God said nothing bad about it. Jacob, the founder of the House of Israel - God's chosen people, was founded on polygamy. The House of Israel was commanded to perform Levirite marriages, which involved polygamy, by God. At the very outset of God's chosen people becoming their own nation, a nation chosen by God, not only was God not silent on polygamy, but He commanded it in certain situations. David was given the wives and concubines of Saul, by God. Just because the NT specifies monogamy for certain positions, does not mean Polygamy is never acceptable. We will be the first to tell you that rule is monogamy, and the exception is polygamy as directed by God.
JulieM Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) In reading through what's been posted here, I don't know if my opening question was really answered. Since we have no record in the scripture where God commanded polygamy (until the D&C). God didn't come right out and condemn it, but He didn't command it in other scripture. My own feelings are that even if God did command Joseph to live it, He didn't intend it to be lived in the manner Joseph did. Marrying teenagers and other men's wives (and with most of them, he had to lie to his wife and others to cover them up.) Interesting points have been made from both sides here though.But then there is the whole issue of Fanny Alger. Joseph married her before he'd even received the sealing keys.I wonder what words were used in the marriage ceremony to Fanny? He wasn't legally married to her and he wasn't sealed to her. Any thoughts about this? Edited April 25, 2015 by JulieM 1
SmileyMcGee Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) In reading through what's been posted here, I don't know if my opening question was really answered. Since we have no record in the scripture where God commanded polygamy (until the D&C). God didn't come right out and condemn it, He but didn't command it in other scripture. My own feelings are that even if God did command Joseph to live it, He didn't intend it to be lived in the manner Joseph did. Marrying teenagers and other men's wives (and with most of them, he had to lie to his wife and others to cover them up.) Interesting points have been made from both sides here though.But then there is the whole issue of Fanny Alger. Joseph married her before he'd even received the sealing keys.I wonder what words were used in the marriage ceremony to Fanny? He wasn't legally married to her and he wasn't sealed to her. Any thoughts about this?Well, you asked a loaded question, presuming that polygamy had not previously been commanded. We don't know if it was or was not. Just because the OT or NT are not clear or explicit doesn't mean it wasn't commanded. Many respondents are addressing the fallacy of your question, arguing that it was a commandment. Edited April 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 In reading through what's been posted here, I don't know if my opening question was really answered. Since we have no record in the scripture where God commanded polygamy (until the D&C). God didn't come right out and condemn it, He but didn't command it in other scripture. As I said before, Joseph was the only prophet living in a culture where polygamy was forbidden. If any prophet in previous dispensations chose to live the law of plural marriage there were no laws preventing it, no traditions against it, and no need for it to be commanded.Only Joseph Smith in the 1800's had need to be commanded to restore it, because the culture/laws at the time caused resistance. No record of a command in the Bible/Book of Mormon because it was already practiced culturally. Command in our era because we are stubbornly entrenched in the false traditions of our society. My own feelings are that even if God did command Joseph to live it, He didn't intend it to be lived in the manner Joseph did. Marrying teenagers and other men's wives (and with most of them, he had to lie about to his wife and others). You have the right to that belief. Personally I don't believe Joseph did anything wrong. I don't believe there were any sexual relations with his wives under 16. The other mens wives had husbands who either couldn't be their eternal companions, or Joseph was only their husband for eternity and had no relation. Case by case, I find ZERO error. Interesting points have been made from both sides here though.But then there is the whole issue of Fanny Alger. Joseph married her before he'd even received the sealing keys.I wonder what words were used in the marriage ceremony to Fanny? He wasn't legally married to her and he wasn't sealed to her. Any thoughts about this? I think Joseph learned polygamy was acceptable before he learned of eternal marriage. So he attempted to live plural marriage in the only way he knew, as a CHurch sealing. In my opinion I would imagine he had a ceremony performed similar to the ceremonies he was using in regular marriages. It was an early attempt without sufficient doctrine. Ill advised, but based on revelation.
JulieM Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) Thanks for your response, JLHPROF. That's interesting about Fanny. I know there are a lot of emotions and opinions about Joseph Smith and polygamy. I believe he was a very good man and I also believe he loved Emma dearly. I just think he also enjoyed other women too. It happens to good men today too. Anyway, you are always so kind in your responses and I appreciate that. You take a great deal of time to write out your opinions and share your knowledge. Thank you again. Edited April 25, 2015 by JulieM 1
JulieM Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) Well, you asked a loaded question, presuming that polygamy had not previously been commanded. We don't know if it was or was not. Just because the OT or NT are not clear or explicit doesn't mean it wasn't commanded. Many respondents are addressing the fallacy of your question, arguing that it was a commandment.Sorry, I didn't intend to ask a loaded question. I sincerely wanted to know the answer if anyone had one. As far as I've seen here, no one has been able to show where polygamy was commanded by God before Joseph Smith stated he was. Maybe I missed it though?I see where it was posted that God allowed it, but didn't command it. Edited April 25, 2015 by JulieM
Jeanne Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 JDHPROF, you do not have to answer..but just curious..do you have a daughter? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Sorry, I didn't intend to ask a loaded question. I sincerely wanted to know the answer if anyone had one. As far as I've seen here, no one has been able to show where polygamy was commanded by God before Joseph Smith stated he was. Maybe I missed it though? I see where it was posted that God allowed it, but didn't command it.I think you are missing the point that just because there is no record of a commandment anciently does not mean there was no commandment. Presumably there was a great deal that happened anciently of which there is no existing record today.
JulieM Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) I think you are missing the point that just because there is no record of a commandment anciently does not mean there was no commandment. Presumably there was a great deal that happened anciently of which there is no existing record today.Nope, didn't miss that. I just believe reasoning attempts like what you stated above, aren't persuasive at all. That could apply to almost anything that's missing in the scriptures. Edited April 25, 2015 by JulieM 3
carbon dioxide Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 My own feelings are that even if God did command Joseph to live it, He didn't intend it to be lived in the manner Joseph did. Marrying teenagers and other men's wives (and with most of them, he had to lie to his wife and others to cover them up.) Marrying teenagers was not big deal in the 19th century or in any other century prior. Had you been raised in the 19th century, you probably would not see a big deal about it either. Perhaps Joseph did not live it correctly but how can I fault him. It is not like he was raised with it and had plenty of living examples to show him the ropes. Even though the scriptures speak of people living it, they don't provide an recipe to live it. He was pioneer at this. Of course he was going to make mistakes as that is how one learns. I give Joseph as lot of room as he had so many issues to deal with. It is easy to find fault with is actions 170 years after the fact while we sit on a chair not having to worry about the things he worried with on a daily basis. If It was me instead of Joseph, I probably would have made many more mistakes than he did. Joseph may not have lived it exactly like God intended but at least he tried.
JulieM Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) Marrying teenagers was not big deal in the 19th century or in any other century prior. Had you been raised in the 19th century, you probably would not see a big deal about it either.Maybe more teenagers were getting married back then, but not to 38 year old men who already had dozens of wives. I think that's a poor argument. But I know many feel it was ok. If you do, that's ok. I just don't.You know, I truly believe that Joseph Smith could have lived the principle of polygamy in such a way that would not be offensive or shocking when many members learn the details about it today. If he hadn't married his young housemaids or his friend's wives, and just married single women, we could maybe believe it came from God. There wouldn't be so many leaving over this today. At least that's my opinion. I'm not going to leave the church over this, I just believe polygamy came from Joseph Smith and not from God and it was a mistake. Edited April 25, 2015 by JulieM
carbon dioxide Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) Maybe more teenagers were getting married back then, but not to 38 year old men who already had dozens of wives. I think that's a poor argument. But I know many feel it was ok. If you do, that's ok.I just don't.You know, I truly believe that Joseph Smith could have lived the principle of polygamy in such a way that would not be offensive or shocking when many members learn the details about it today. If he hadn't married his young housemaids or his friend's wives, and just married single women, we could maybe believe it came from God. There wouldn't be so many leaving over this today. At least that's my opinion. I'm not going to leave the church over this, I just believe polygamy came from Joseph Smith and not from God and it was a mistake.Even in today world, age difference really is not a big deal. Look at Hugh Hefner. I am sure Joseph was not worried about how people would look at it 170 years into the future. Edited April 25, 2015 by carbon dioxide
Teancum Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Nope, didn't miss that. I just believe reasoning attempts like what you stated above, aren't persuasive at all. That could apply to almost anything that's missing in the scriptures.I think this is a fair and reasonable response. Anyone can claim to "restore" just about anything and then say "well just because we don't have evidence doesn't mean it was not practiced anciently." But really the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.But from at least as far as we can tell there is no evidence of God commanded plural marriage as part of what LDS call the new and everlasting covenant of (eternal) marriage. Nor is there any indication such was a requirement for exaltation before Joseph Smith.JulieM you are fighting a fruitless fight here. The only was anyone can accept Jospeh Smith's plural marriage doctrine is to accept he was a prophet and then accept God really did command him. You have to accept that out of all the many dynamic religious leaders that have introduced some sort of plural marriage or other strange partnering pattern In the past few hundred years, and there are many, Joseph was the only one who really was quite ok doing it. His defenders would never ever accept similar defenses of others doing similar things. Never. For such it is God really told Joseph to do it. It boils down to that ultimately.For me it is retry clear that God had nothing to do with it just like so many others. I think the evidence we have cries out about it. Others here disagree with me obviously. Jospeh may have believed God was behind it or not. I am not always clear on his motives. As for Old Testament polygamy it was simply part of the accepted culture and the religious leaders included rules and guidances for it to a certain extend. Again nothing God driven about it.
Teancum Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) Marrying teenagers was not big deal in the 19th century or in any other century prior. Had you been raised in the 19th century, you probably would not see a big deal about it either. Perhaps Joseph did not live it correctly but how can I fault him. It is not like he was raised with it and had plenty of living examples to show him the ropes. Even though the scriptures speak of people living it, they don't provide an recipe to live it. He was pioneer at this. Of course he was going to make mistakes as that is how one learns. I give Joseph as lot of room as he had so many issues to deal with. It is easy to find fault with is actions 170 years after the fact while we sit on a chair not having to worry about the things he worried with on a daily basis. If It was me instead of Joseph, I probably would have made many more mistakes than he did. Joseph may not have lived it exactly like God intended but at least he tried.Actually I think if you look into it you will find marrying teens as young as 14 was not common in 1840. And certainly a 38 year old man who was married marrying teens was way outside the norm. Edited April 25, 2015 by Teancum
Michael13365 Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Although polygamy became a doctrine under Brigham Young, I think it is very significant that only Joseph practiced polyandry. As I see him, he was far more open to all kinds of love as divinely inspired. Women like Lucinda Morgan Harris and Prescindia Buell, who simultaneously remained loyal to their husbands and to Joseph, were very important to him. True, there were many younger "wives" of whom he clearly took advantage but alliances like those with Lucinda and Prescindia suggest a sort of polyamory that would have been anathema to the classical male abusers of women who characterized the heyday of polygamy in 19th century Utah. Had polyandry outlasted Joseph's life, it is conceivable that the later evolution of the LDS church would have been very different and far more egalitarian.
Teancum Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Even in today world, age difference really is not a big deal. Look at Hugh Hefner. I am sure Joseph was not worried about how people would look at it 170 years into the future. Now that is. Unique defense...comparing JS to Hugh Hefner! Wow!
Recommended Posts