JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 12 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: One of my questions is how can polygamy be illegal and immoral on Earth, but legal and moral in Heaven? It isn't immoral on earth, and only illegal due to the laws of men. God has no problem with polygamy in principle and neither should we.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: It isn't immoral on earth, and only illegal due to the laws of men. God has no problem with polygamy in principle and neither should we. But it's grounds for excommunication and apostasy.
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said: But it's grounds for excommunication and apostasy. Yes, it is for now. Because God gave a commandment telling us NOT to live it. He never called it immoral in any way but he has never been a fan of us doing things against his will.
rodheadlee Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: So a belief in the Resurrection requires belief in all miraculous stories from whatever source and however unlikely? Of course not.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Posted March 10, 2016 I talked with my Bishop and he thinks the only way polygamy could possibly work is if wives were the ones to choose the other wives for their husband.
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 7 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I talked with my Bishop and he thinks the only way polygamy could possibly work is if wives were the ones to choose the other wives for their husband. That makes no difference if conversion isn't present. Emma gave Joseph four wives of her choosing, and then couldn't handle it.
cdowis Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I talked with my Bishop and he thinks the only way polygamy could possibly work is if wives were the ones to choose the other wives for their husband. There is a known process for us to find a spouse and get to get married. We have done it this way for centuries and seems to work. BUT there was no tradition, no established practice for a polygamous marriage. And this cause a serious problem for many families. A polygamous group is now using that practice in finding and consenting to the new wife. I think your Bishop is right.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Posted March 10, 2016 I think if polygamy were legal in the United States for anyone outside of Mormonism to also practice, it would cause health concerns. STD rated would go up incredibly. It would only be ok if everyone who entered was chaste and a virgin like D&C 132 says they need to be, and with no polyandry mixed with the polygyny because that only further raises the risks of disease and pain.
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 26 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I think if polygamy were legal in the United States for anyone outside of Mormonism to also practice, it would cause health concerns. STD rated would go up incredibly. It would only be ok if everyone who entered was chaste and a virgin like D&C 132 says they need to be, and with no polyandry mixed with the polygyny because that only further raises the risks of disease and pain. There is no reason for polygamy to be legal in society at large. People frequently have relations with whoever they want anyway - sometimes they call it marriage, sometimes significant other, sometimes life partner, sometimes... ...anyway, why bother making it legal. People are still going to ignore the laws and do as they please.
Teancum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 18 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, it is for now. Because God gave a commandment telling us NOT to live it. He never called it immoral in any way but he has never been a fan of us doing things against his will. No he never commanded it and never commanded to have it taken away. The church gave it up because the might and power of the US government was about to utterly destroy the Mormon church. And even after the Manifesto the church played games with this until they realized they had been beaten. What 19th century leaders had argued was essential for exaltation and something the church would never give up was given up. Apparently the US government was more powerful than the God that allegedly commanded plural marriage.
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 minute ago, Teancum said: No he never commanded it and never commanded to have it taken away. The church gave it up because the might and power of the US government was about to utterly destroy the Mormon church. And even after the Manifesto the church played games with this until they realized they had been beaten. What 19th century leaders had argued was essential for exaltation and something the church would never give up was given up. Apparently the US government was more powerful than the God that allegedly commanded plural marriage. You are persistent, I'll give you that much. Wilford Woodruff - I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. 1
Teancum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You are persistent, I'll give you that much. Wilford Woodruff - I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. Sure. The Mormon God caved in to the US government. Who was more powerful in this case? And I persistent so some can all least see what utter nonsense this all really is and was. Edited March 10, 2016 by Teancum
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Posted March 10, 2016 An angel with a sword should have threatened the United States government to quit harassing the church.
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: Sure. The Mormon God caved in to the US government. Who was more powerful in this case? And I persistent so some can all least see what utter nonsense this all really is and was. And yet still you stay with the Church, isn't that what you said? Whatever for? God didn't cave to the government. God did what needed to be done to allow the laws and ordinances of salvation to continue, else the earth would be destroyed. That, and he gave people their agency. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 10, 2016 Author Posted March 10, 2016 39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: And yet still you stay with the Church, isn't that what you said? Whatever for? God didn't cave to the government. God did what needed to be done to allow the laws and ordinances of salvation to continue, else the earth would be destroyed. That, and he gave people their agency. But he could have sent an angel with a drawn sword to threaten the President of the US to not threaten the church and allow them to continue polygamy.
Teancum Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: And yet still you stay with the Church, isn't that what you said? Whatever for? God didn't cave to the government. God did what needed to be done to allow the laws and ordinances of salvation to continue, else the earth would be destroyed. That, and he gave people their agency. The reasons I stay active in the church are complicated and personal and some I have shared here before but have no desire to do so today. So whatever for is my business no not yours. personally I find your answer specious. You would never defend such nonesense from some other self proclaimed prophet if ypu did not have a major vested intense to do so. it is clear the US government was more powerful than the Mormon God. Brigham and his associates claimed quite often that the church would be in apostasy if it gave up plural marriage as well as arguing that monogamy was the root cause of adultery, whoredoms and prostitution. you just can't argue your way out of such ludicrous ideas,
cdowis Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Teancum said: It is clear the US government was more powerful than the Mormon God. Since you are obviously a self-proclaimed expert on the limits of the power of God, perhaps you can help us understand something ==>> 1. What entity was more powerful than God that we no longer practice the United Order and forced Him to change it to Tithing. 2. If you are having difficulty with that one, perhaps an easy question will help you -->> to determine whether the church is in apostasy, do we practice polygamy today? (Really, are you certain?) Nothing personal, but I don't think you are as clever as you think you are..... but I could be wrong. Edited March 11, 2016 by cdowis
RevTestament Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 On 3/8/2016 at 7:53 AM, Gray said: I think the trouble comes when you start attaching authority to teachings - whether in the scriptures or out of them. Teachings are valuable for their content, not for who said them. The question isn't whether we might guess that God values or doesn't value agency. The questions are, what is agency, is it important that we have it, and what circumstances allow for agency to be present in a meaningful way. As it stands, the stories we tell each other about God put God in a position of doing things that severely restrict agency, while supposedly holding agency in the highest regard. These kinds of contradictions are inevitable because these are stories told by human beings. We can reevaluate and reinterpret the stories when we discover that the way we've been looking at them doesn't make sense. Our consequence for choosing not to follow the commandments is always death - since the time of Adam. The only way out of that is to accept the offer of repentance and forgiveness. Is that taking away our agency? If so, then the very basis of Christianity has no agency. Did Christ have agency? Could He have chosen not to do the Father's will? What would have been His consequence after initially agreeing to do it? 2
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 On Tuesday, March 08, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Gray said: The questions are, what is agency, is it important that we have it, and what circumstances allow for agency to be present in a meaningful way. 1. What is agency? - The ability to make a choice and receive the consequences. 2. Is it important that we have it? - Absolutely. Without it we are basically inanimate objects or puppets. 3. What circumstances allow for agency to be present in meaningful way? - Righteousness increases choice and agency, unrighteous choices necessarily remove it.
RevTestament Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 On 3/10/2016 at 10:28 PM, VideoGameJunkie said: I talked with my Bishop and he thinks the only way polygamy could possibly work is if wives were the ones to choose the other wives for their husband. They do have the right to say no. see D & C 132. The whole thing with JS is overblown, as the initial posts make clear the wife knew she was to be his celestial wife. Why did God command that? I'm sure I don't know. I'm sure it was to establish the principle that the churches would flow to the teachings of God through Joseph Smith. It didn't have much to do with temporal polygamy being the path to exaltation.
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, RevTestament said: They do have the right to say no. see D & C 132. They have the right so say no and be bypassed, just as anyone does. But they don't have the right to prevent a spouse from keeping the laws of God. Nobody has that right. The right of their agency not to live plural marriage doesn't remove the husbands right to live it if called. If one spouse had the right to stop another spouse from living a law of God that would remove agency and be a complete violation of scripture. Edited March 11, 2016 by JLHPROF
Gray Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 15 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Our consequence for choosing not to follow the commandments is always death - since the time of Adam. The only way out of that is to accept the offer of repentance and forgiveness. Is that taking away our agency? If so, then the very basis of Christianity has no agency. Did Christ have agency? Could He have chosen not to do the Father's will? What would have been His consequence after initially agreeing to do it? Death is a consequence of being alive. But threatening someone with imminent death creates a coercive situation where agency is essentially absent. 1
RevTestament Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: They have the right so say no and be bypassed, just as anyone does. But they don't have the right to prevent a spouse from keeping the laws of God. Nobody has that right. The right of their agency not to live plural marriage doesn't remove the husbands right to live it if called. There is no general commandment to enter into polygamous marriage. Joseph was prophet so I imagine he was given the commandment as an example. God has not commanded me to marry a second temporal wife, and I don't need one to be exalted, because it is not a requirement for exaltation. The principle has to do with heavenly spiritual marriage rather than temporal polygamy - like the seven women who will take hold of one man.
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, RevTestament said: There is no general commandment to enter into polygamous marriage. Joseph was prophet so I imagine he was given the commandment as an example. God has not commanded me to marry a second temporal wife, and I don't need one to be exalted, because it is not a requirement for exaltation. The principle has to do with heavenly spiritual marriage rather than temporal polygamy - like the seven women who will take hold of one man. Never said otherwise. But the principle of D&C 132 giving the right to say no vs agency is still important.
RevTestament Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: Death is a consequence of being alive. But threatening someone with imminent death creates a coercive situation where agency is essentially absent. I think you are missing the point of the gospel. It is about spiritual death - not physical death. The sword represents the word. Not following the word brings spiritual death or a fall from eternal life. If Joseph chose not to follow the command, I doubt he would have been physically killed. He would have experienced spiritual death and another would have been chosen in his stead. Each has 2 backups in heaven. 1
Recommended Posts