Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[ttribe]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Come on Juliann.
You cannot set such limits in scope and expect a clear picture of true doctrine.

If you don't want to play by her rules, then don't play in her thread.  It's pretty simple.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If you don't want to play by her rules, then don't play in her thread.  It's pretty simple.

If she wants her thread topic to have any truth or validity she needs to accept ALL evidence.

If she limits and restricts evidences it is no longer truth, but biased propaganda.  But if that's what she's going for that is her right.  Works for politicians.

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 Or, are you really saying that we should scrupulously avoid any speculation that is not unanimously grounded in clear statements from modern Church leaders?

  "I don't want to discuss it and it's not relevant to us today what polygamy-era Church leaders taught")  

  Is it acceptable, in your view, to regard us today as not under requirements that people of a different era may have been under?

I feel that your overarching concern is helping people (primarily women) for whom polygamy past, present (in sealings), and future (the hereafter) is a deal-breaker concern. I think we all share that concern, and this discussion is one of tactics and approaches (how best to help people with this genuine concern). What I think you're saying is that some approaches are not helpful and may be harmful (which I don't think anyone disputes).

 

Yes to all of the above, Rongo. You also said

Quote

What I'm unclear of is whether or not you are dogmatically calling for an end of using certain concepts in the conversation (polygamy in the hereafter, etc.), or whether your position is more nuanced than that (e.g., be mindful of people's concerns, stay grounded in what is actually revealed, there might be polygamy, but it isn't required, etc.).

 This has been 20 pages of whacking at strawmen, so thank you for seeing beyond that and getting back to what matters.  We tend to assume that what we mean or intend is the message that others hear. There has been a real break down when it comes to this tender topic.  My intent is to get past ourselves and start thinking about what people hear. For instance, in these situations I am no longer going to say "I don't know."  We mean that as comfort but what those who are suffering hear is, "if you can't say my husband won't have other wives, you think it highly possible but are condescendingly telling me not to worry about it."  Saying it isn't required is heard as "so it is still the real deal but I can be one of the lesser beings, if I can convince my spouse to not take off for a better prospect." 

We privilege polygamy even as we say it is only a deviation from the rule and that is reflected in the messages that are sent to others. Right now it is a very damaging and demeaning message to women because that is what history reveals. So if you say polygamy (polygyny) to a woman she hears "you are less important than a man" or "your only purpose in life is to sacrifice" 

One of the reasons we need to stop trying to make 19th c. polygamy relevant to today is that it cannot be replicated, it actually says nothing about possible celestial polygamy. It is all about the subordinate status of women in that era. We not only can separate historical polygamy from discussion like we do in any other situation, we must....and we have been asked to by Elder Ballard.

I am asking for a scholarly approach to this to avoid opinions being represented as fact. It has not been successful. If it was, we could have a reasonable discussion. 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am asking for a scholarly approach to this to avoid opinions being represented as fact.

 

Real scholars look at ALL available evidence.  Not just a limited selection.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

Sociologically speaking on this planet polygamy is unsustainable for more than a few generations. Will some practice polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom. Our Scriptures say they will. Will it be everyone or even a significant minority. I don't believe so.

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes to all of the above, Rongo. You also said

 This has iteen 20 pages of whacking at strawmen, so thank you for seeing beyond that and getting back to what matters.  We tend to assume that what we mean or intend is the message that others hear. There has been a real break down when it comes to this tender topic.  My intent is to get past ourselves and start thinking about what people hear. For instance, in these situations I am no longer going to say "I don't know."  We mean that as comfort but what those who are suffering hear is, "if you can't say my husband won't have other wives, you think it highly possible but are condescendingly telling me not to worry about it."  Saying it isn't required is heard as "so it is still the real deal but I can be one of the lesser beings, if I can convince my spouse to not take off for a better prospect." 

We privilege polygamy even as we say it is only a deviation from the rule and that is reflected in the messages that are sent to others. Right now it is a very damaging and demeaning message to women because that is what history reveals. So if you say polygamy (polygyny) to a woman she hears "you are less important than a man" or "your only purpose in life is to sacrifice" 

One of the reasons we need to stop trying to make 19th c. polygamy relevant to today is that it cannot be replicated, it actually says nothing about possible celestial polygamy. It is all about the subordinate status of women in that era. We not only can separate historical polygamy from discussion like we do in any other situation, we must....and we have been asked to by Elder Ballard.

I am asking for a scholarly approach to this to avoid opinions being represented as fact. It has not been successful. If it was, we could have a reasonable discussion. 

 

 

Juliann have you considered speaking to church leaders at church headquarters, or writing a letter?   

[ttribe]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If she wants her thread topic to have any truth or validity she needs to accept ALL evidence.

If she limits and restricts evidences it is no longer truth, but biased propaganda.  But if that's what she's going for that is her right.  Works for politicians.

Well, now you're just arguing with her about her rules.  That's a different debate.

[juliann]

JLH, you are not engaging and are purposefully being disruptive to someone else's thread. This is an important topic to me and I prefer to discuss the women who are being damaged rather than elephant cartoons.

Tacenda, I don't think the problem is church leadership. It is with the membership for the reasons we see here. 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

JLH, you are not engaging and are purposefully being disruptive to someone else's thread. This is an important topic to me and I prefer to discuss the women who are being damaged rather than elephant cartoons.

Tacenda, I don't think the problem is church leadership. It is with the membership for the reasons we see here.

My apologies.
My hope was that you would be willing to look at ALL the current evidence in the Church today on polygamy in the future. 
Instead of quote mining a few words of a couple of apostles.  I really was not trying to disrupt the thread but to paint a more accurate picture of the topic.

I will bow out of the thread and leave you to it.  I just hope nobody believes the conclusions to be valid in any way.
Personally, I love an honest discussion on gospel doctrine.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If she wants her thread topic to have any truth or validity she needs to accept ALL evidence.

If she limits and restricts evidences it is no longer truth, but biased propaganda.  But if that's what she's going for that is her right.  Works for politicians.

Personal opinion is not evidence.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Personal opinion is not evidence.

No, but recorded ordinances are, as are still canonized scripture, and the effects of historical teachings on today's members.
Modern prophetic teachings cannot (and should not) exist in a vacuum.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

. It is all about the subordinate status of women in that era.

And men.  They were arguing over who would be the father and who would be the son because the father would have more glory, the son would be subordinate to him.  Relationship was all about maximizing who you would rule over and minimizing who would rule over you to the point of even suggesting women attach themselves to higher status (priesthoodwise) men which fed into the elites getting more and more glory and less and less for the guys lower down the food chain.  This was only acceptable because the low status men could attach themselves to high status...again increasing the  glory of the top men and get some benefit of basking in reflected glory.

This Law of Adoption was removed and invalidated, since all were resealed properly.   Which makes any suggestion that the Law of Adoption was true for eternity false doctrine.  Whatever its purpose had been it was fulfilled in mortality....a practice that was in place, btw, almost as long as plural marriage.  Revelation was received ending the practice in mortality and through what replaced it, in the eternities.  Revelation has ended the practice of plural marriage in mortality.  Whether you conclude that has eternal implications or not is what focusing on current authoritative doctrine will hopefully determine...though we might not be there yet.

I hope the historical sidetrack is acceptable because I am using it as an analogy and it is one of the few discontinued ordinances that was assumed would continue in the hereafter as opposed to having a built in end game of some sort.  I will delete it as offtrack if you think it distracting.

[Tacenda]

I don't know why we shouldn't put it to the church leaders to make a statement one way or the other, maybe they are unaware that these women, myself included at one time, are worried about this.  Why shouldn't we ask for a clarification on the here and now?  I do remember a leader or an apologist that put it to rest that women will not have to live polygamy.  But I can't remember who that was.  That's why a letter or something might help, and someone like Juliann's letter might make it through, since I'm thinking she has some ties.  Why else do we hear the leaders talk of letters they've received from members in general conference?  Not all go straight to the SP's or bishops.  

[Ginger Snaps]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

  I do remember a leader or an apologist that put it to rest that women will not have to live polygamy.  But I can't remember who that was.  

Both Valerie Hudson Cassler and Eugene England have essays to that effect, if you're in search of one

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know why we shouldn't put it to the church leaders to make a statement one way or the other, maybe they are unaware that these women, myself included at one time, are worried about this.  Why shouldn't we ask for a clarification on the here and now?  I do remember a leader or an apologist that put it to rest that women will not have to live polygamy.  But I can't remember who that was.  That's why a letter or something might help, and someone like Juliann's letter might make it through, since I'm thinking she has some ties.  Why else do we hear the leaders talk of letters they've received from members in general conference?  Not all go straight to the SP's or bishops.  

If you look at the responses here, one of the most popular is that men can be sealed to more than one wife while living. It seems that is always what is used as proof that polygyny isn't behind us. But it almost always focuses on the man and leaves out that women can be sealed to another living husband by special permission and are. It ultimately ends up into an impossible mess that just can't be justified. A widow or widower may be sealed to a second spouse. But they may die before that second spouse does. That second spouse then remarries....and so on.

So I think this will all take care of itself when sealings are equalized. Now that people are acknowledging that it is being quietly equalized, more women are going to be requesting it. At that point, there is no advantage in using men who remarry must be allowed to "keep" their wives (but women shouldn't be allowed to keep their husbands )  Men and women receiving the same blessings will neutralize the debate.  It will become a shoulder shrug at that point and the messages being given to women won't be as damaging. Just more weird.

[Tacenda]

https://medium.com/@floralshowers/why-mormon-s-don-t-think-about-polygamy-8f2f5060760d#.wdnn85j40

Pretty sure this woman's blog is exactly what Juliann was talking about.  

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://medium.com/@floralshowers/why-mormon-s-don-t-think-about-polygamy-8f2f5060760d#.wdnn85j40

Pretty sure this woman's blog is exactly what Juliann was talking about.  

Agreed.  Her false conclusions concerning agency and other doctrines led to the and pain that Juliann is so concerned about.
Joseph was NOT wrong.
But she is SO right about recognizing these faithful women and not allowing them to remain invisible.  Renaming their sacrifice and faith as pointless actions due to Joseph's supposed mistakes makes a utter mockery of them.

Edited February 24, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://medium.com/@floralshowers/why-mormon-s-don-t-think-about-polygamy-8f2f5060760d#.wdnn85j40

Pretty sure this woman's blog is exactly what Juliann was talking about.  

if you mean as an example of how some women have problems with plural marriage, yes.  

As to the rest of what Juliann is focusing on, not so much.