Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

. I became obsessed with polygamy for about a year recently and it's all because of what I read from you on this board.

You can always put him on ignore and don't read when he is quoted if you think it is important to avoid reading him.  I avoid movies with foul language because it sticks in my head (not saying JLH's posts are that way, but if they trigger obsessive thinking for you, then perhaps you need to treat them that way).  Or as Rain suggests not read the board at all.  It is your choice what to pay attention to.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Quite the opposite.  You only have to read the stories of polygamous Utah to know how revered so many of these women were.  The list is long and greatly esteemed.  Honestly, I think women in the early Utah Church were more respected and esteemed than today.  At least based on my readings.

How many of the women were esteemed on their own merit?  Seems like some few were known solely based on their own efforts, but most were connected to well respected families.  It may have made a good deal of difference.

It would also be interesting to know how others felt about plural wives who were seen as their social equals.  My gggm reports being looked down on and pitied because it was assumed that plural wives had hard lives and were typically poor.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/20/2016 at 5:57 PM, Glenn101 said:

............................................ God does want it practiced at all right now.

.................................................................... All indications are that polygamy will not be brought back in this dispensation.......................................

As a matter of civil law, polygamy is likely to soon become legal in America (along with a number of other non-traditional marriage styles), even though I agree that it is unlikely that the LDS Church will reinstitute it in the near term.  However, none of us knows what God wants just now, and there are 1.5 billion Muslims, most of whom can legally practice polygamy if they so choose.  They would argue that it is the will of God.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Years ago I listened to a talk (The Dog Ate My Scriptures) about taking responsibility for my own actions. To stop making excuses for my actions. I've found, that just as the talk said, that I have more power in my choices and my ability to do things when I take responsibility.  It may be a thing for others try as well.

 

https://deseretbook.com/p/dog-ate-my-scriptures-excuses-agency-responsibility-john-hilton-iii-53701?variant_id=49096-ebook

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

What you read is your responsibility. If you feel it is against the advice of your blessing then you need to be the one to choose not to read his posts or even the board in general. 

Years ago I listened to a talk (The Dog Ate My Scriptures) about taking responsibility for my own actions. To stop making excuses for my actions. I've found, that just as the talk said, that I have more power in my choices and my ability to do things when I take responsibility.  It may be a thing for others try as well.

 

What imakes saying is I realized the damage has been done.

Poster removed. Stay on topic.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

What imakes saying is I realized the damage has been done.

It still is your own responsibility.  You chose to read him.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Some quotes against requirement for exaltation are current.  Some are not.
Quotes for requirement for exaltation are not in the manuals etc, correct.

 I mean there aren't really many manuals about the women in the church, where we learn from the women, their trials, even their teachings. 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many of the women were esteemed on their own merit?  Seems like some few were known solely based on their own efforts, but most were connected to well respected families.  It may have made a good deal of difference.

It would also be interesting to know how others felt about plural wives who were seen as their social equals.  My gggm reports being looked down on and pitied because it was assumed that plural wives had hard lives and were typically poor.

We should probably base our assertions about pioneer women who practiced polygamy on the research by scholars like Jessie Embry.  We need to assess the diaries and other personal accounts of those women.  When, for example, men were sent off on long term missions to foreign countries, the women were left to fend for themselves and their usually quite large families.  How did that work for them?  Did they become very independent and capable in the absence of the men?  Was their sisterhood with other wives a huge value to them?  Why was female suffrage obtained by Mormon women first?  According to Mark Twain (only partly joking), Mormon women were a rough and tough looking lot, very much unlike soft Eastern women.  Thus the notion that Mormon men took plural wives out of lust didn't make any sense to Twain.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Quite the opposite.  You only have to read the stories of polygamous Utah to know how revered so many of these women were.  The list is long and greatly esteemed.  Honestly, I think women in the early Utah Church were more respected and esteemed than today.  At least based on my readings.

This is the one I meant to quote, as far as addressing that women's lives not being really lauded in church manuals, comparable to the men. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody has ever said you have to practice polygamy to make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

But that's not the definition of exaltation.  You don't even need to be married to make the CK.

Can you live with God, that's what I've always been taught. That the CK is where God is, never even knew about the levels. Yeah, pretty unlearned life Mormon here.

[Calm]

If the Father is in the CK and we can live there unmarried, then it follows that yes, we will be living with the Father.

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We should probably base our assertions about pioneer women who practiced polygamy on the research by scholars like Jessie Embry.  We need to assess the diaries and other personal accounts of those women.  When, for example, men were sent off on long term missions to foreign countries, the women were left to fend for themselves and their usually quite large families.  How did that work for them?  Did they become very independent and capable in the absence of the men?  Was their sisterhood with other wives a huge value to them?  Why was female suffrage obtained by Mormon women first?  According to Mark Twain (only partly joking), Mormon women were a rough and tough looking lot, very much unlike soft Eastern women.  Thus the notion that Mormon men took plural wives out of lust didn't make any sense to Twain.

This reminds me of a humorous slogan that I understand was popular in an earlier era of the Church: "Come on out to BYU, where the men are men and the women are too!" I understand it's quite different out at BYU these days.

[hope_for_things]

On 7/22/2016 at 11:36 PM, rongo said:

Polygamy, as you can imagine, is a massive topic in Journal of Discourses. Journal of Discourses contains talks by Church leaders from 1851 to 1886 (with six talks from Joseph Smith) in 26 volumes; nearly 10,000 pages. I have a detailed index in three-ring binders I made while reading it.

The "Jacob 3 clause," as I call it, was part of the defense against objections to polygamy. Here's a typical example of the "Jacob 3 clause:" from George Q. Cannon (Brigham Young's counselor in the 1st Presidency), October 9, 1969. JD 13:197, 201. It's the not first one, but ironically, he refers to U.S. Vice President Skuyler Colfax's reference to the passage in Jacob in claiming that the Book of Mormon itself is against polygamy.

Ok, this is interesting, thanks for this Cannon quote.  I admire your reading through the whole thing and indexing it, wow.  You said this 1869 quote is not the first reference, but it is during Brigham's lifetime, so I was mistaken on that element.  However, its still not a particularly early reference.  

I do find it curious that it wasn't used very early as scriptural justification, and I think it would be interesting to follow the earliest usage of this passage as a defense for polygamy.  The hypothesis is that the early saints did not read the Jacob 3 clause as an exception to the clearer condemnation of polygamy.  The clause itself is a somewhat ambiguous statement that doesn't seem to work as an exception if you look at it in context of everything else said on the subject of polygamy in Jacob.  

Edited July 25, 2016 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

On 7/23/2016 at 11:46 AM, Sky said:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary

If Dallin H. Oaks, a living apostle, doesn't feel comfortable with making doctrinal statements about polygamy in the afterlife, then nobody here should either!     

The only accurate answer to this question is, nobody knows.  Does God have multiple wives?  Will women have multiple husbands?  Will our kids have multiple kitty cats?  Who knows...

However,

The reason these questions about the church's doctrine are important, is the church teaches as if it does have answers to unanswerable questions about the future.  It teaches that God has revealed the state of the next life to us mortals, and that this special knowledge is accessible through the church.  Early church leaders taught with confidence that God was a polygamist, and that this is the highest law of the priesthood, and the way that celestial and exalted beings will live in eternity.  

That Oaks is uncomfortable repeating the past teachings of earlier church leaders, to me, just shows that Oaks didn't want to be pinned down saying something that in our current society is considered immoral.  

[JLHPROF]

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Early church leaders taught with confidence that God was a polygamist, and that this is the highest law of the priesthood, and the way that celestial and exalted beings will live in eternity. 

That Oaks is uncomfortable repeating the past teachings of earlier church leaders, to me, just shows that Oaks didn't want to be pinned down saying something that in our current society is considered immoral.

Pretty much.

[halconero]

That, and I'm of the personal belief in levels of law being associated with levels of doctrine. Doctrine being distinct from gospel truths. Doctrine being that which is currently authorized to be taught to the Church and the wider world. Other doctrines might filter in, but are not considered authoritative or binding.

Telestial Law leads to Telestial Doctrines (One God, Jehovah; Mosaic Sacrifices; Priesthood restrictions by Tribe)

Terrestrial Laws and Doctrines (personally I believe the Church is roughly at this level, as preparatory for a Terrestrial Sate, the indicated state of the Earth during the Millenium, during which Celestial Laws and Doctrines will be taught and administered more fully in preparation for the Celestialization of the Earth) - Godhead, Melchezidek Priesthood, Apostles and Prophets, etc.

Celestials Laws and Doctrines (attempted to live these, but we suck at it) - Pluralities, Patriarchal Priesthood, Adam, etc.

Notice that currently we are not under covenant to keep the law of consecration, but only to accept it. The apostles are bound by God to not only avoid administering certain ordinances, but obscuring and teaching certain doctrines. Such is the pattern of God in times where people are not ready or unwilling to accept certain truths.

Edited July 25, 2016 by halconero

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The only accurate answer to this question is, nobody knows.  Does God have multiple wives?  Will women have multiple husbands?  Will our kids have multiple kitty cats?  Who knows...

However,

The reason these questions about the church's doctrine are important, is the church teaches as if it does have answers to unanswerable questions about the future.  It teaches that God has revealed the state of the next life to us mortals, and that this special knowledge is accessible through the church.  Early church leaders taught with confidence that God was a polygamist, and that this is the highest law of the priesthood, and the way that celestial and exalted beings will live in eternity.  

That Oaks is uncomfortable repeating the past teachings of earlier church leaders, to me, just shows that Oaks didn't want to be pinned down saying something that in our current society is considered immoral.  

It says to me that Oaks might not see the marital lives of exalted people to be as clear cut as past leaders did. 

 

Edited July 25, 2016 by bluebell
Stupid spelling mistake

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It says to me that Oaks might not see the martial lives of exalted people to be as clear cut as past leaders did. 

Yes, possibly.  Either he doesn't believe things were as clear cut, or he was spinning his response to the media for cover.  My impression from Oaks is that he is particularly careful with his choice of words, especially when speaking to the media.  I  doubt that we get very close to his personal feelings when he answers questions in this capacity.  It think his every word is very calculated to represent the church in the best possible light.  

[halconero]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, possibly.  Either he doesn't believe things were as clear cut, or he was spinning his response to the media for cover.  My impression from Oaks is that he is particularly careful with his choice of words, especially when speaking to the media.  I  doubt that we get very close to his personal feelings when he answers questions in this capacity.  It think his every word is very calculated to represent the church in the best possible light.  

I would agree, and I would also view such a careful answer as part of the pattern of teaching the larger world. Christ did the same during his ministry. In particular the instances where he tells the mocking crowed that Jairus' daughter was sleeping, shooed them out of the room, and then raised her from the dead, followed by a strict admonition not to tell the truth, or the time where he evaded telling the clear cut truth to his brothers regarding his attendance at the Feast of Tabernacles stand out to me.

Parables, evasive answers, covenants, these are some of the tools God uses to prevent his pearls being cast before swine. Unfortunately members have been some of those swing in both the current state of the church and the past. Joseph, Brigham and even the Apostles today have trouble with members with topics ranging from marriage, the nature of divinity and the identity of God, treatment of refugees, etc. Until we as a people are willing to live by every word which proceedeth forth from the mouth of God, either by Himself, His Spirit, or His servants, we will only receive that portion which we're willing and able to bear. Until then, those who know more are under a strict command to keep their traps shut, even in the face of penetrating questions from the world and members at large.

Edited July 25, 2016 by halconero

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, halconero said:

I would agree, and I would also view such a careful answer as part of the pattern of teaching the larger world. Christ did the same during his ministry. In particular the instances where he tells the mocking crowed that Jairus' daughter was sleeping, shooed them out of the room, and then raised her from the dead, followed by a strict admonition not to tell the truth, or the time where he evaded telling the clear cut truth to his brothers regarding his attendance at the Feast of Tabernacles stand out to me.

Parables, evasive answers, covenants, these are some of the tools God uses to prevent his pearls being cast before swine. Unfortunately members have been some of those swing in both the current state of the church and the past. Joseph, Brigham and even the Apostles today have trouble with members with topics ranging from marriage, the nature of divinity and the identity of God, treatment of refugees, etc.

The Jairus' daughter example, I think tells us more about the gospel of Mark, and the way the author was trying to portray Jesus.  The theme of a Messianic secret is throughout that gospel.  Disciples, people healed by Jesus, even demon's, were all commanded not to reveal the nature of their experiences that would point to who Jesus was.  This is throughout Mark, and a central theme in his gospel.  

As for using evasive answers or twisting words, I believe I could make a stronger case from scripture that this is a behavior condemned by Jesus, and that this is a tool associated with lawyers, pharisees and the devil.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It says to me that Oaks might not see the martial lives of exalted people to be as clear cut as past leaders did. 

I think hope_for_things is probably correct here.

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, possibly.  Either he doesn't believe things were as clear cut, or he was spinning his response to the media for cover.  My impression from Oaks is that he is particularly careful with his choice of words, especially when speaking to the media.  I  doubt that we get very close to his personal feelings when he answers questions in this capacity.  It think his every word is very calculated to represent the church in the best possible light.  

Not necessarily PR, but what was his alternative statement to make?
"Yes, I expect to be a polygamist in eternity with both my wives raising spirit children".  Whether he believes that or not, he was never ever going to say that.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I think hope_for_things is probably correct here.

Not necessarily PR, but what was his alternative statement to make?
"Yes, I expect to be a polygamist in eternity with both my wives raising spirit children".  Whether he believes that or not, he was never ever going to say that.

Yeah, you're probably right, imagining him saying that just doesn't sound right.  

Personally I wish for that kind of an open honest answer to questions, but I think as a culture we are too insecure to give it today.  It would be so refreshing though. I think we try to please the masses because we just want to be liked so much, that we're willing to sacrifice distinctiveness to accomplish that goal of being accepted by our peers.  

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 7:30 PM, Glenn101 said:

 

Quote

JLHPROF- Not necessarily PR, but what was his alternative statement to make?
"Yes, I expect to be a polygamist in eternity with both my wives raising spirit children".  Whether he believes that or not, he was never ever going to say that.

Why shouldn't he just say what he believes. If it's gospel doctrine, then why not? He's a representative of the church and presumably wants to disseminate the doctrines of the church so people can choose to join. If he's confident in that, why hide it? Is he shying away from the ridicule of the world? Or do we have to revert back to the old "pearls before swine" garbage?

 

Edited July 25, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What shouldn't he just say what he believes. If it's gospel doctrine, then why not?

Really?  Because the average person handles things like that SO well.  The WoW is as far into the non-traditional as most members are willing to go.
 

Quote

 He's a representative of the church and presumably wants to disseminate the doctrines of the church so people can choose to join. If he's confident in that, why hide it? Is he shying away from the ridicule of the world? Or do we have to revert back to the old "pearls before swine" garbage?

Pearls before swine is not garbage.  Nor is milk before meat.  Nor is line upon line, precept on precept.
Nor is Aaronic before Melchizedek.  Nor is temporal before eternal.  And nor is the primary mission of the Church - to spread the first principles to all the world.

Basically, people do not need to know Elder Oak's personal beliefs concerning his future polygamous status.  Especially when the Church doesn't take an official position on it.
 

Edited July 25, 2016 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think hope_for_things is probably correct here.

Not necessarily PR, but what was his alternative statement to make?
"Yes, I expect to be a polygamist in eternity with both my wives raising spirit children".  Whether he believes that or not, he was never ever going to say that.

I agree that he probably wouldn't say that specifically, but he could say something similar in a better way and people probably wouldn't get too riled.