JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: We're given free agency, but when it comes to choosing whether to live polygamy there is a drawn sword? No such thing as "free" agency. We have the right to choose but every choice comes with a consequence. No blessing can be received without following the law. No breaking of law goes without some penalty. But we still get to choose. The idea that God doesn't compel in any way is not scriptural. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 13 hours ago, Teancum said: The church de-canonized the lectures on faith which were accepted as the doctrine part of the 1835 D&C. And they didn't even present the removal to the entire church for a sustaining vote for the removal. The Lectures on Faith were largely subsumed into our D&C.
smac97 Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 13 hours ago, Teancum said: The church de-canonized the lectures on faith which were accepted as the doctrine part of the 1835 D&C. And they didn't even present the removal to the entire church for a sustaining vote for the removal. The Lectures on Faith were never canonized, hence there was no "decanonization" and no need to "present the removal {of them} ... for a sustaining vote." See, e.g., here: Quote Until 1921 the "Lectures on Faith" were printed in almost all the English-language editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, and in many, but not all, non-English editions. An introductory statement in the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants explains that the lectures were deleted because "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons" (see Doctrine and Covenants Editions). Thanks, -Smac 1
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 10 hours ago, juliann said: Really? You don't know what modern means? I'm seeing more evasive answers which tells me that it is becoming more difficult to, in Elder Oaks words, speak for the prophet where he has chosen not to.( Now, I know you have seen that quote and many more because they go up in every thread and miraculously cease to exist in the next thread where the same tired advocacy is repeated as if nothing else existed.) No, I know what modern means. Do you? If I quote Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F. I consider them modern prophets, being from our dispensation. But you know full well you mean "post-polygamy" and there is no reason to expect any quote on polygamy doctrinally or on the future in a time period when the entire Church was pretending it wasn't there. Quote What kind of women are you hoping for in the eternities? Do you like the more intellectual types? Is how they look important to you? Would you pick someone different or more like your wife? Standard insult response. Mock the man that is willing to do whatever God says. Heaven forbid you have a man that actually would follow the Lord no matter what. 10 hours ago, juliann said: Indeed you can. The married men should be sitting in their bishop's office explaining why they are talking about having other women on message boards. Again with the phony righteous feminist indignation. Nobody is sitting here dreaming of the day they will have a harem of their own. Recognizing that God is eternal, his laws are eternal, and his commands are to be followed is NOT wrong in any way. You can hate the idea of polygamy all you want and pretend that you will never have to witness such a thing, but doctrine and revelation trump all feelings and God will not be mocked. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 20 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm no expert on the bible or mainstream Christianity, but I would say this this sounds like an exception and doesn't represent the mainstream interpretation. Then you had better get to be an expert. SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/polygamy.html
Gray Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Then you had better get to be an expert. SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/polygamy.html I'm not sure Jeff Lindsay is an expert in "mainstream" Christian orthodoxy and exegesis.
ksfisher Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: The context of ancient scriptures is not to prepare people to be gods, but rather to be sheep. Sheep are compliant to the shepherd. They are not shepherds in training. But, if we take seriously the evolving idea of the nature of human beings, as gods in embryo, we need to consider reinterpreting scriptures that had a different end in mind. Is it not a good idea to be "compliant to the shepherd" as you put it when the shepherd is the Savior? Does a "god in embryo" not study at the masters feet? Or does he one day just decide that he is the master? We are disciples of Christ and we should be eager to obey his command. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 34 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm not sure Jeff Lindsay is an expert in "mainstream" Christian orthodoxy and exegesis. "Mainstream" Christianity is an oxymoron.
hope_for_things Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Then you had better get to be an expert. SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/polygamy.html I agree with Gray on this one. I think its safe to say that the mainstream view in Christianity is that the Bible does not command or even condone the practice of polygamy. There may be some exceptions to that view. Why else do you think this one of the top criticisms of the LDS church? If mainstream Christianity believed the Bible promoted polygamy why all the controversy and criticism of LDS polygamy?
Gray Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 37 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Is it not a good idea to be "compliant to the shepherd" as you put it when the shepherd is the Savior? Does a "god in embryo" not study at the masters feet? Or does he one day just decide that he is the master? We are disciples of Christ and we should be eager to obey his command. It's really a question of hermeneutics. How do you interpret the scriptures? Jesus didn't give long lists of thou shalts and thou shalt nots. He taught generally applicable principles and he frequently taught in parables. If we're approaching scripture from the viewpoint that we're Gods in embryo, shouldn't our interpretation of scripture reflect that? Right now the way we're interpreting it is preparing us to become sheep, not shepherds. Sheep mindlessly obey. Shepherds assess the situation and make decisions based on broad principles.
Gray Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: "Mainstream" Christianity is an oxymoron. Maybe a little.
Jeanne Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 13 hours ago, juliann said: Perhaps we should start a thread titled "Is it possible to dream of celestial polygamy without fantasizing about women other than your wife?" Ten years and counting, the CFR that no polygamy advocate has ever responded to: Produce a quote from a modern prophet saying all men will have the option of courting women in "heaven." Imagine, even one sentence would win the argument. Just a few words! So why won't they do it? I love this. Please start the thread..! 1
ALarson Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I agree with Gray on this one. I think its safe to say that the mainstream view in Christianity is that the Bible does not command or even condone the practice of polygamy. There may be some exceptions to that view. Why else do you think this one of the top criticisms of the LDS church? If mainstream Christianity believed the Bible promoted polygamy why all the controversy and criticism of LDS polygamy? This has been discussed at length on here. There is nowhere in the Bible where God specifically commanded polygamy to be lived. It may have been a part of some Levirate marriages: Quote Deuteronomy 25:5-9 5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; 9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. 1
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: This has been discussed at length on here. There is nowhere in the Bible where God specifically commanded polygamy to be lived. True. But why does that matter? Lots of other doctrines are not in the Bible.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The Lectures on Faith were never canonized, hence there was no "decanonization" and no need to "present the removal {of them} ... for a sustaining vote." See, e.g., here: Thanks, -Smac This confuses me. Was the D&C un-canonized scripture prior to 1921 or just the Lectures on Faith. The lectures were part of the D&C and the D&C was accepted as canon. Rejecting the lectures for not being individually canonized would be like rejecting the book of Revelation because, even though it's included in the canonized New Testament, it wasn't canonized on its own. Please help me understand this. From your link- Quote Until 1921 the (1)"Lectures on Faith" were printed in almost all the English-language editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, and in many, but not all, non-English editions. An introductory statement in the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants explains that (2)the lectures were deleted because "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons" (see Doctrine and Covenants Editions). The decision may also have been influenced by what many readers have perceived as conflicts between statements about the Godhead in the fifth lecture and certain later revelations (D&C 130; Dahl and Tate, pp. 16-19). Others have found these conflicts to be more apparent than real and have attempted reconciliations (R. Millet, in Dahl and Tate, pp. 221-40). (1) So the Lectures were definitely part of the D&C (2) Has each section of the D&C been independently voted upon for canonization? Or is the entire book accepted by the Church as a whole? (3) This makes the most sense to me. The theology of Godhead changed from the time the Lectures were included in the D&C so they had to be removed to avoid confusion 1
hope_for_things Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 47 minutes ago, smac97 said: The Lectures on Faith were never canonized, hence there was no "decanonization" and no need to "present the removal {of them} ... for a sustaining vote." See, e.g., here: Thanks, -Smac This is historically inaccurate. The body of the church voted on the entire 1835 D&C, which included the "doctrine" which was the Lectures on Faith, and the "covenants" which included what we have in today. They should change the name today to Covenants, not the D&C, because they removed the doctrine when they decanonized it. Try reading this Dialogue article from 1987 if you're interested, it details the history around this. The essay starts on page 71 titled - "The "Lectures on Faith': A Case Study in Decanonization" https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/issues/V20N03.pdf 3
hope_for_things Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 11 minutes ago, ALarson said: This has been discussed at length on here. There is nowhere in the Bible where God specifically commanded polygamy to be lived. It may have been a part of some Levirate marriages: Thanks, that's what I thought too. 1
Jeanne Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks, that's what I thought too. If there ever was a commandment in the Bible ...and I admit, I am not the best Bible scholar, there would be other bible thumping religions today practicing polygamy. This is one of the reasons that I thought Joseph kind of worked this all in somehow..on his own.
hope_for_things Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Jeanne said: If there ever was a commandment in the Bible ...and I admit, I am not the best Bible scholar, there would be other bible thumping religions today practicing polygamy. This is one of the reasons that I thought Joseph kind of worked this all in somehow..on his own. Particularly if there were NT precedent for polygamy, most Christian faiths ignore much of the crazy stuff in the OT. There have been some other groups that have gone down the polygamy road before Mormonism though. I recently read about the Anabaptist movement in Germany in the 1500s. Some fascinating similarities to the Mormon movement. For a brief overview if you're interested, check out the wikipedia article on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists Edited July 22, 2016 by hope_for_things 1
Jeanne Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Particularly if there were NT precedent for polygamy, most Christian faiths ignore much of the crazy stuff in the OT. There have been some other groups that have gone down the polygamy road before Mormonism though. I recently read about the Anabaptist movement in Germany in the 1500s. Some fascinating similarities to the Mormon movement. For a brief overview if you're interested, check out the wikipedia article on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists Thank you!
HappyJackWagon Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Particularly if there were NT precedent for polygamy, most Christian faiths ignore much of the crazy stuff in the OT. There have been some other groups that have gone down the polygamy road before Mormonism though. I recently read about the Anabaptist movement in Germany in the 1500s. Some fascinating similarities to the Mormon movement. For a brief overview if you're interested, check out the wikipedia article on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists If you haven't listened to Hardcore History's episode Prophets of Doom, you should listen. It's long but fascinating and is all about the Anabaptists and the Muenster Rebellion. http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-48-prophets-of-doom/ 1
bluebell Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 29 minutes ago, Jeanne said: If there ever was a commandment in the Bible ...and I admit, I am not the best Bible scholar, there would be other bible thumping religions today practicing polygamy. This is one of the reasons that I thought Joseph kind of worked this all in somehow..on his own. There are non Mormon Christian polygamists. Just google "Christian polygamy". Some of the hits are Mormon of course but there are quite a few that aren't. 1
hope_for_things Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If you haven't listened to Hardcore History's episode Prophets of Doom, you should listen. It's long but fascinating and is all about the Anabaptists and the Muenster Rebellion. http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-48-prophets-of-doom/ I'm a podcast junkie, and thats where I learned about it too! Love me some Dan Carlin! 1
hope_for_things Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 18 minutes ago, bluebell said: There are non Mormon Christian polygamists. Just google "Christian polygamy". Some of the hits are Mormon of course but there are quite a few that aren't. Agreed, but these are largely exceptions to the mainstream Christian movement.
BlueDreams Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 14 hours ago, Calm said: This is my personal favourite. Nothing we currently have in mortality comes close to providing a desire to shout for joy at the prospect of what is to come for everyone as opposed to a significant minority being willing to make do with a compromise position. Would those of us who had nothing denied be able to feel a fullness of joy knowing there were those who were denied in some way? I don't believe we will have to compromise our righteous desires in heaven. But that means what will be fulfilling them is something we are unable to imagine at the moment. I agree. My concern with polygamy and the peculiar tendency of a good number who support it here seem to keep expanding it or assume there's higher blessings from it....well actually that sentence in and of itself is half my concern. It's repulsive because it turns women into numerical values and is the breeder of weird theories. None that are supported by scripture. It's very clear to me that plural marriage is a rare exception that can be permitted from time to time but that the rule and divine order set up from the beginning was 1 man 1 woman. Polygamy is the exception in all 4 books of scripture and the exception isn't necessarily exceptional in caliber of family. No one would suggest hoping for Abrahams or jacob's family patterns and dynamics. Or solomon's or David's. There's also many evil/falling people who practice it (like lamech in the PoGP or the people in Jacob). And the appeal to emotion of what about the living couples (groups?) that would have to choose between wives and whether that's fair to the man or the women. That falls short since women in this model are usually assumed to have to at some point if they married more than once. At the same time assuming all will just fit the 1-1 mold by a Great Reshuffle or some millennial fix also has problems. It cure unequal sadness with equal bittersweet for men and women. The messy complicated sealings are odd to us and seem a little chaotic for a God of order. But to me the truth is that because of our fallen state there are a lot of things that will not carry in the next life in exactly the same way. It can't. Not according to practices and understanding we have right now. But it will not mean the relationships will be torn asunder either. For example my bro and I. We get along and love each other, rib each other like siblings, go to temple together, etc. I'm proud of him. But we're not sealed together. He's my father's son. The family I would be sealed to most likely isn't that one. I didn't grow up with them. In that house he doesn't have the same mother as our 2 youngest siblings (neither do I). He has a set of siblings that aren't related to me at all with his mother. His mother isn't married. So in this life I can't be sealed to all the subsets. when the parents all die and we can seal a good number of them. I may even be able to be sealed in 2 of them, but with that doctrinal assumption that I'll have to choose. The immediate sealing ideals are not very comforting for me. But the idea of being sealed as 1 family is. I know I will have a perfect knowledge and the love I have for my bro and so many other family members will have it's fruition and will not be without its joy in the life to come, but I think there is a need to accept that what that looks like may not be exactly what the nuclear family imperative looks like. with luv, BD 2
Recommended Posts