Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Emma was not barren, that eliminates the handmaid possibility.

huh?  I just pointed out the one similarity between the two.  Joseph receives revelation about plural marriage.  In such revelation he's told how God blessed Abraham's concubinage.  We all know the story of Hagar a handmaid.  Joseph not long after had a live in teenage helper.  Its possible Joseph saw the similarity in that sense. 

Quote

Concubines would be immoral now because it would be against our current laws tha outlaw slavery, etc.  their laws allowed such with laws that were seen as given by God to curtail abuses and ensure hunmane treatment.  I don't see the justification of insisting people living 5-3000 years ago to live by laws that are a couple of hundred years old.  We barely got rid of official slavery in the timeline of the world.

I didn't insist anything of the sort.  But I would point out, since we last discussed (you and I) we also introduced Jacob 2 wherein it has God suggesting more than one wife and concubinage from the old days (old days as in before Jacob's time) was said to be whoredom and an abomination.  The more we've discussed this the less, I think, D&C 132 is scriptural. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by stemelbow

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well we can guess at that is all.  It's not as if all of Brigham's sons turned out better than any child of non-polygamous families.  It very well could be that without polygamy we could have had way more faithful families and way more children born in stable faithful environments. 

It would be interesting to have a study which families had higher percentage of believing descendants.  Though it is personally my belief it was more about binding the earliest convert families together, it had a great impact on the first 50 years or so, lasting only about as long as the first converts did.  I would be even more interested to see the commitment rates of those who accepted plural marriage compared to those who did not practice it after the initial shock and it became well known.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Does anyone know the address to mail or email one of the Q15 to ask the question about polygamy to? You can pm me if you have the info. I'd love to ask one of the apostles to touch on the subject today. I mean, topics like this always garner many pages of discussion with people on both sides. I've never seen a more diverse discussion than the topic of polygamy. No other topic can create that much diversity so I'd love it if one of us who has connections contacts one of the apostles, any apostle and asks about polygamy. I'd love to ask myself.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

And Fanny was not the only girl Joseph approached or took for his wife who was a maid for Joseph or Emma.  There was a pattern there over the years.

It is quite possible in my view that Joseph screwed that up because he didn't understand the culture that created the handmaid as surrogate mother rule.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No,  you're not "forced to question it." You choose to.

Logically, the compelling conclusion is it is to be read that the practice is only an abomination if it is done without the express command of the Lord.

well except:

Quote

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

versus:

Quote

 

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;

 

So is it that it's abominable before God that David and Solomon had many wives and concubines, or is it that David did not sin except in the one case of Uriah and his wife and otherwise they were all given unto him by God?

Edited August 3, 2016 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Polygamy may have given Cody Brown (or Brigham Young) a lineage that monogamy wouldn't have.  But there isn't evidence to show that it gave any more faithful lineage than monogamy.

I fail to see how the command to use polygamy to "raise up seed" has been successfully implemented..

 

So the fact that vast majority of people who have Mormon pioneer ancestry also have polygamous ancestry means nothing to you?

It stands to reason that children born to parents who are faithful Latter-day Saints are more apt to have the values and beliefs of the restored gospel transmitted to them than are children who are not born to such faithful Latter-day Saint parents. And since plural marriage in pioneer-era Utah was typically practiced by faithful believers, the children from such marriages stood a better chance of receiving and remaining true to the Church and its values.

Ergo, plural marriage was indeed a means in this gospel dispensation by which God raised up seed unto Himself, and yes, it was successfully implemented.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No,  you're not "forced to question it." You choose to.

Logically, the compelling conclusion is it is to be read that the practice is only an abomination if it is done without the express command of the Lord.

Fortunately, I'm the expert on what my spirit and intellect compel me to do.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It is quite possible in my view that Joseph screwed that up because he didn't understand the culture that created the handmaid as surrogate mother rule.

Good point. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the fact that vast majority of people who have Mormon pioneer ancestry also have polygamous ancestry means nothing to you?

it means a lot to me.  I'm one of them.

I still don't see it as a justification for polygamy (as was presented earlier in the thread).

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Does anyone know the address to mail or email one of the Q15 to ask the question about polygamy to? You can pm me if you have the info. I'd love to ask one of the apostles to touch on the subject today. I mean, topics like this always garner many pages of discussion with people on both sides. I've never seen a more diverse discussion than the topic of polygamy. No other topic can create that much diversity so I'd love it if one of us who has connections contacts one of the apostles, any apostle and asks about polygamy. I'd love to ask myself.

if it were that easy, we'd never be discussing this stuff.  Well...what do you think a response might be?  I think the most appropriate way to reach them is to go through your local leaders.  If they can raise the issue to a higher level, like area authorities then great.  Go that route and if it's issue enough they can raise it all the way up. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Fortunately, I'm the expert on what my spirit and intellect compel me to do.

Well, there is a difference between your "spirit and intellect" and the clear sense of the text.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Does anyone know the address to mail or email one of the Q15 to ask the question about polygamy to? You can pm me if you have the info. I'd love to ask one of the apostles to touch on the subject today. I mean, topics like this always garner many pages of discussion with people on both sides. I've never seen a more diverse discussion than the topic of polygamy. No other topic can create that much diversity so I'd love it if one of us who has connections contacts one of the apostles, any apostle and asks about polygamy. I'd love to ask myself.

From Handbook 1:

17.1.29

Members’ Communication with Church Headquarters Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters. With an ever-increasing Church membership, responding personally to these inquiries presents an almost insurmountable task and would make it difficult for General Authorities to fulfill the duties for which they alone are responsible. The General Authorities love the members of the Church and do not want them to feel that they are without the support and guidance they need. However, all things need to be done with wisdom and order. The Lord has organized His Church so every member has access to a bishop or branch president and a stake, district, or mission president who serve as spiritual advisers and temporal counselors. By reason of their callings, these local leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction. Members who need spiritual guidance, have weighty personal problems, or have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in their family and Church responsibilities. If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. In most cases, correspondence from members to General Authorities will be referred back to their local leaders. Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would be interesting to have a study which families had higher percentage of believing descendants.  Though it is personally my belief it was more about binding the earliest convert families together, it had a great impact on the first 50 years or so, lasting only about as long as the first converts did.  I would be even more interested to see the commitment rates of those who accepted plural marriage compared to those who did not practice it after the initial shock and it became well known.

Could be interesting. We could compare it to commitment rates of those of today as well. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, there is a difference between your "spirit and intellect" and the clear sense of the text.

Yes, clear sense of the text...

The Lord expresses His concern over the tenderness of his daughters, states repeatedly that multiple wives/concubines is an abomination and a whoredom, and then says that he might command us to do it anyway.

Crystal clear.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Why wouldn't monogamy create faithful lineages?

Psychology speaking, the more you invest or suffer for something, the more committed you become to it (if you don't get to the breaking point).  One could look on plural marriage as a sifter, quickly dividing out those who were in all the way from those who held back, even just a bit and thus overtime would likely fade in their devotion.  Once Joseph was gone, the leadership needed to be stalwart and consistent.  The number of apostacies among the higher ups and their wives (because their support for a strong leader would be needed) dropped significantly, I believe, once the plural marriage shake out was over and it became accepted.  Turnover rate went way down.  Whether it had the same effect on the lay membership, we really need a study.

[VideoGameJunkie]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From Handbook 1:

17.1.29

Members’ Communication with Church Headquarters Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters. With an ever-increasing Church membership, responding personally to these inquiries presents an almost insurmountable task and would make it difficult for General Authorities to fulfill the duties for which they alone are responsible. The General Authorities love the members of the Church and do not want them to feel that they are without the support and guidance they need. However, all things need to be done with wisdom and order. The Lord has organized His Church so every member has access to a bishop or branch president and a stake, district, or mission president who serve as spiritual advisers and temporal counselors. By reason of their callings, these local leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction. Members who need spiritual guidance, have weighty personal problems, or have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in their family and Church responsibilities. If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. In most cases, correspondence from members to General Authorities will be referred back to their local leaders. Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency.

But in General Conference, some of the apostles read letters they received.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, clear sense of the text...

The Lord expresses His concern over the tenderness of his daughters, states repeatedly that multiple wives/concubines is an abomination and a whoredom, and then says that he might command us to do it anyway.

Crystal clear.

And to shamelessly repeat the point I made, let's not make a comparison to the text of D&C 132 because doing so only brings in contradiction directly from God (apparently), which surely clarifies the message all that more, right? 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

But in General Conference, some of the apostles read letters they received.

Excellent point.  Here ya go:

50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84150

Good luck.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

And to shamelessly repeat the point I made, let's not make a comparison to the text of D&C 132 because doing so only brings in contradiction directly from God (apparently), which surely clarifies the message all that more, right? 

Exactly.

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Does anyone know the address to mail or email one of the Q15 to ask the question about polygamy to? You can pm me if you have the info. I'd love to ask one of the apostles to touch on the subject today. I mean, topics like this always garner many pages of discussion with people on both sides. I've never seen a more diverse discussion than the topic of polygamy. No other topic can create that much diversity so I'd love it if one of us who has connections contacts one of the apostles, any apostle and asks about polygamy. I'd love to ask myself.

A few years ago I called the church office building and asked the sweet older woman a question about green tea. I'd heard it helped Alzheimer's. She was able to get a Priesthood Holder to come to the phone. He was only able to tell me that some doctor friend drank it, but to leave it up to my own discretion.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

A few years ago I called the church office building and asked the sweet older woman a question about green tea. I'd heard it helped Alzheimer's. She was able to get a Priesthood Holder to come to the phone. He was only able to tell me that some doctor friend drank it, but to leave it up to my own discretion.

What?  You called the general info line? That's not going to get you much. She probably just grabbed some random dude walking by to give his opinion. 

Oh man, our Church is so funny in some ways.  "well" says a nice meaning woman, "we better ask a priesthood holder the question.  He'll know the answer.  A sweet old lady like me, can't do that.  I just answer the phones." 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

well except:

versus:

So is it that it's abominable before God that David and Solomon had many wives and concubines, or is it that David did not sin except in the one case of Uriah and his wife and otherwise they were all given unto him by God?

To the extent that David and Solomon had one or more wives and/or concubines not approved of God, the practice was an abomination. Apparently, the only offense David committed in this regard was with the wife of Uriah. Solomon apparently wasn't as limited in his sinning.

Bottom line: It is an abomination to have more than one wife, unless commanded or approved by God. That's the takeaway point for those of us living today and for whom the Book of Mormon was expressly brought forth.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The Church is haunted by the ghosts of Polygamy past, present and future.  And UNTIL it deals with and disavowals all 3...each will continue to haunt the Church

The Ghost of Polygamy Past: Is a millstone around the neck of the modern church...having to be in the awkward position of both justifying its practice, explaining away its abandonment via the manifesto yet dealing with the reality that despite the manifesto it continued on for another 15+ years.  So how exactly does the church deal with it?  They don't.  They just ignore the 500lbs gorilla in the room hoping it just remains quiet and behaved.  Well guess what...its waking up.

The Ghost of Polygamy Present: Both that practiced by active believing members when a male is sealed to multiple wives flowing the death of a spouse and the continue association with fundamentalist polygamy.  Within the church, multiple wives, though one is dead, continues the "Practice" and keeps it alive.  And despite the disavowal of fundamentalists temporal polygamy, by its very adherence to Celestial Polygamy, the church is stained by association.

The Ghost of Polygamy Future:  The church seems oblivious to the damage and pain caused to the faithful women of the church who quietly keep hidden their fears of having to share their husbands with "Other" women in the eternities.  It's a problem, it exists, it's real and NO OFFICIAL IN THE CHURCH WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT and so it quietly simmers...but it's a bout to boil over

I find this to be quite overwrought.  And twaddle to boot.

I predict that the concept of polygamy is on its way to becoming more sociopolitically palatable in the United State, not less.  Unlike the novelty of same-sex marriage, polygamy has a long, long pedigree in the world.  There are plenty of reasoned arguments that the decriminalization and subsequent legalization of polygamy has already begun:

• Huffington Pot: Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding. By Jillian Keenan
• Vice: After Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy?  By Harry Cheadle
• CNN: It's time to reconsider polygamy. By Mark Goldfeder
• The New American: Is Polygamy the Next Form of "Marriage" to be Legalized? By Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
• Verdict, by Justia: Is Three Still a Crowd? Polygamy and the Law After Obergefell v. Hodges. By Joanna L. Grossman and Lawrence M. Friedman
• Emory Law School: Can polygamy bans survive a legal challenge? By Emory University School of Law
• TheWeek: How gay marriage paves the way for legal polygamy. By Michael Brendan Dougherty
• ListLand: Top 10 Reasons The US Should Legalize Polygamy

My personal opinion is that legalization of polygamy is a matter of when, not if.  Once the traditional understanding of marriage is destroyed (SSM is doing that), once marriage as a concept is decoupled from procreation (SSM is doing that), once marriage becomes just another type of contract (SSM is doing that), then polygamy is essentially indistinguishable from same-sex marriage.  So if the latter is a constitutional right, then so is the former.  If the states are constitutionally prohibited from defining marriage as to gender, how on earth can they be constitutionally permitted to define marriage as to number?  The eventual answer to this question is . . . they are not so permitted.  We have destroyed the traditional purpose and function of marriage (from the government's point of view, anyway).  We did so by legalizing same-sex marriage.  So polygamy is, I think, well on its way.

So back to the above-referenced melodramatic twaddle.  I may be wrong, but isn't a fair bit of this stuff coming from the same factions within the Church which have embraces same-sex marriage, which have criticized the Church's stance on SSM?  If so, that's . . . pretty weird.  And inconsistent.  

I think those who A) have previously embraced same-sex marriage, but B) are presently exhibiting all sorts of pearl-clutching histrionics about polygamy as a "ghost" that "haunts" the Church . . . yeah, no.  Such flamboyance will be squelched as soon as society begins to view "prejudice" against polygamy as being the twin to "prejudice" against same-sex marriage.  That process has already started.  

I can't help but think of the quandary which will be encountered by the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd when they are the on the receiving end of hostilities from their compatriots: self-congratulatory "virtue signalling" social justice types, the transgressivists, the self-selected gainsayers who presume to dictate to the rest of us on matters of ethics.  And since polygamy is trangressive, I think it will be just a matter of time before we see more visible calls for legalization of its various forms: polygyny (one husband having multiple wives at the same time), polyandry (one wife having multiple wives at the same time) and group marriage (infinite variations on numbers of husbands, wives, all-same-sex polygamy, etc.).

I suspect that the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd, having abandoned prophetic counsel as a voice of influence, will be left without a viable moral code, and hence will not enjoy being accused by their fellows of being haters, of being polygamyphobic (or whatever neologism will be created to define people who oppose polygamy).  So . . . they will capitulate.  Sooner or later.

I certainly understand and respect people who oppose polygamy on actual, principled grounds.  On moral grounds.  On religious grounds.  Right or wrong, such folks are at least trying to do what they feel is right.  But I think there are broad swaths of transgressive, social justice types who are essentially crowd-followers, who abandon principle and capitulate to prevailing and popular social trends.  Who take their cues on morality more from Hollywood, Facebook and Twitter, and less from the judeo-christian tradition (and, for Latter-day Saints, from modern prophets and apostles).  Sadly, I also think there are some members of the LDS Church who are in the thrall of this crowd.  And some of these are the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd.  Frankly, I do not see a coherent line of reasoning for this, as support for the former seems to logically require support for the latter.

In any event, to such folks I say: Good luck!  Good luck embracing same-sex marriage on the one hand, but rejecting polygamy on the other!  Your transgressive compatriots will turn on you, sooner or later.  And it will be . . . unpleasant.  In the days ahead, should you attempt to voice opposition to polygamy, you will be excoriated.  You will be branded as haters and bigots.  You will be silenced.  That will be your lot, I think.  The folks who publicly call (or "screech" or "violently demand") the loudest for "tolerance" and "diversity" seem the least likely to actually either when it comes to the shibboleths of transgressivism and "social justice."

Meanwhile, in the long run I think the LDS Church will be in the somewhat ironic position of being criticized for not accepting or allowing its members to engage in polygamy (again, much as we are presently excoriated for not accepting same-sex marriage).  But unlike the SJW types, the Latter-day Saints have an actual, quantifiable moral code.  It's not always popular.  And we do not always perfectly understand it or implement it.  But it's ours, and we are working hard to adhere to it.  It is well-described in Ether 12:4:

Quote

Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.

So I predict that we will see the LDS Church as an institution which restricts its members from entering into not only same-sex marriage, but also polygyny, polyandry, and group marriages.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Psychology speaking, the more you invest or suffer for something, the more committed you become to it (if you don't get to the breaking point).  One could look on plural marriage as a sifter, quickly dividing out those who were in all the way from those who held back, even just a bit and thus overtime would likely fade in their devotion.  Once Joseph was gone, the leadership needed to be stalwart and consistent.  The number of apostacies among the higher ups and their wives (because their support for a strong leader would be needed) dropped significantly, I believe, once the plural marriage shake out was over and it became accepted.  Turnover rate went way down.  Whether it had the same effect on the lay membership, we really need a study.

I'm not saying your idea is not worth considering but I really hate the ramifications if there is any truth to it.  God needed polygamy to sift people out?  I find such a thought disturbing--probably why I'm feeling inclined to reject D&C 132. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

IBut there is no evidence to suggest that it is an increase in the overall faithful lineage had those women stayed with their husbands or married other husbands.

While there were sufficient numbers of men in Utah and surrounding areas such that polygamy was not necessary for women to have the chance to marry if numbers were all it took, one still needs to take into account the high numbers of miners and soldiers contributing to those numbers as well as the more mobile status of men and their consistently lower commitment to religion (something our current LDS culture counterdicts, perhaps because we created a culture where every man was needed, but it would take time for such a mindset to become the norm).  We really don't know the numbers of faithful LDS men in comparison to faithful LDS women.  Men who were already plurally married had demonstrated staying power, in terms of staying put with both the family and the Church.  I can see that being reassurring to women in an age and culture that was highly transient with a much greater cost to ripping up roots than we have now (of course I am not talking about a communal move, but individual families who included individuals who had already shown a willingness to make lifealtering choices).