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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Either way.   That's not really my concern.  But it does appear that Sarai despised Hagar.  whoever despised first doesn't matter, huh? 

By her actions, it would seem so, but the scripture only refer directly to Hagar despising Sarah and Sarah responding by showing her who was boss with harshness (definitely not appropriate to us, a slave who was contemptuous of their master/mistress would innmany ways be seen as more sinful than a master/mistress who punished them for their arrogance unfortunately.

There is also a suggestion by some scholars due to the Hebrew language used that what got Sarah angry when she saw Ishamael playing with the much younger Isaac wasn't just play as we think of it, but sexual 'playing' that would establish Ishmael as the dominant, superior male in their relationship.

The biblical story of Hagar is defintely an apologetic for the superiority of Israel over Ishmael's descendants, imo.

Not sure what the despising has to do with the discussion though. It wouldn't be the first time two people despised each other because they were in competition.

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was an historical practice.  How we feel about it today is irrelevant.

Well, with respect, when you use the terminology for the historical practice that is still demeaning to women ("lesser wives") to defend your position, "how we feel about it today" is very relevant insomuch as it tends to reflect further light and knowledge.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Not at all.  I only referred to mistress because Bluebell said there was no mistress involved here.

And there wasn't in the sense that Bluebell was using.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Polygamy was restored?  

Really?

Please show me where polygamy was ever tied to receiving exaltation and the highest rewards God has for us.  Use the Book of Mormon or the Bible. 

Joseph and Brighams polygamy doctrine was simply unique.  Nothing like it before. 

I don't know why it would have to be tied to those things to be a restoration of an earlier practice?

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I hear what you are saying, Bluebell.

But to a greater or lesser degree, don't we already do that with parts of the Old Testament?

Like the part about not suffering a witch to live?  We pretty much disavow that for no other reason than it offends our modern sensibilities.

Or the part about stoning kids who act rudely to their parents?

There is no revelation overturning these parts of the scriptures, and yet we pretty much universally disavow them today.

 

Consigliri,

   You also are fully aware that the Mosaic law under which those edicts were given has been fulfilled. We are no longer living the Mosaic law. It would be impossible for us to live that law and practice all of its edicts here in the United States in any event. We would be arrested for certain of those practices that you mentioned, such as stoning a child that is rude to its parents, or putting a witch, if it could be ascertained that a person is indeed a witch (I don't even want to go there ), etc. 

That is not as good as some of your others.

Glenn

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Not at all.  I only referred to mistress because Bluebell said there was no mistress involved here.

I would suggest it feels weird to call Hagar Abraham's wife, but it really doesn't matter, because Hagar is not said to be Abraham's concubine (the term used in section 132).  He had multiple concubines outside of Sarai and Hagar is the claim in section 132.  I think in both cases it is rather questionable to say his concubines were his wives and to claim Hagar was his wife. 

I meant mistress as it's used to denote a man and the woman he is committing adultery with.  Sarah was Hagar's mistress, but that is irrelevant to the point i was making.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, with respect, when you use the terminology for the historical practice that is still demeaning to women ("lesser wives") to defend your position, "how we feel about it today" is very relevant insomuch as it tends to reflect further light and knowledge.

I really have no idea what you are trying to say.  Maybe you could clarify.

I'm not using concubines to defend my position. There is no reason to even try to do so.  They existed.  They were considered lesser wives in their culture.  Those are simply facts.  How we feel about them today is irrelevant because our feelings have absolutely no bearing on their previous existence or their place in earlier cultures.

[VideoGameJunkie]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

VGJ.  I hope that you always keep your strong testimony.  For your sake..I hope all you believe is truth.  I care about you.

I stumbled a bit when I read the CES letter the first time and when getting my head confused on the topic of polygamy from this board. But I think I'm ok.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

God didn't need to "at the very inception of the Nephite civilization" because there absolutely gobs of other people and civilizations nearby, coming and going and intermingling with them to the point that they didn't have to. 

The early saints in Nauvoo, on the other hand, could only grow the nascent Church by marrying plurally (not counting missionary work and/or marriage to the rest of the millions of people in the discovered world at that time). 

Also, apparently Joseph Smith didn't have children under the principle, so it was more of a symbolic gesture, I guess.

Raising up seed may refer more to creating a covenant society, where even adults adopted into the community are God's righteous seed...after all, he doesn't state they are the seed/children of the Nephites, but "seed unto me".  Now why plural marriage would be a part of that, I don't know but perhaps it was simply to ensure everyone had the ability to take on God's covenant in mortality and thus become part of God's seed though sealing, whether as a child, marriage partner or adopted adult (until the temple was built where proxy family sealings could take place).  Perhaps the covenants available to the Nephites at that time were not as full or perhaps the concubines and polygynous wives were not part of the spirtual community or had other opportunities as children to be sealed into the covenant and thus be a part of the covenant community.  Perhaps plural marriage needed to be restored in order to quickly provide sufficient opportunities for all who were worthy for sealings along with the Law of Adoption, but once the community was large enough to sustain the primary ways of sealing that we continue today they were dispensed with, though due to tradition it took sometime for their cessation to occur even after they were no longer needed.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I meant mistress as it's used to denote a man and the woman he is committing adultery with.  Sarah was Hagar's mistress, but that is irrelevant to the point i was making.

I actually doubt that there was any type of marriage ceremony performed between men and their concubines.  That some loosely use the term "wife" (for who was really a "female slave") is debatable as to how accurate that is (from reading on the different sites where I tried to look this up).  Is there really anything definitive here?  Just wondering...  I guess it really is not that important, and is just sort of a side note here.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by ALarson

[VideoGameJunkie]

It would be so convenient if a modern apostle today or the prophet came out and openly talked about the subject of polygamy. That's what I wish for most. Because they are not speaking on it, so many people and even posters here are confused on the issue. It's gotta be addressed eventually, right? Many people have concerns.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I just find it interesting that all the active mormons on the board are defending polygamy and all the exmormons and anti mormons on the board are saying polygamy was a mistake. Look at who's saying what.

There are a number of active members who are saying plural marriage was a mistake or at least no longer needed as a commandment.

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Honestly, by your posts you came off to me as an exmormon or anti Mormon and I take a look at what posters hit like on the other posts. It seems to be a pattern of who likes who's posts always.

Then you truly do not know what an anti Mormon looks like  

I believe there are very, very few actual anti's here.  You can certainly find them online if you go looking though.

[Jeanne]

Old

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I actually doubt that there was any type of marriage ceremony performed between men and their concubines.  That some loosely use the term "wife" (for who was really a "female slave") accurately is even debatable (from the different sites where I tried to look this up).  Is there really anything definitive here?  Just wondering...  I guess it really is not that important, and is just sort of a side note here.

 

 

Salve, concubines, mistresses..it IS morally relevant  to me.  I have a hard time with God with this,  Even as a TBM, I could not see God commanding such a thing for any reason.  Is this only because I do not understand the OT?  Or is it because I believe in a higher love.  I know that sounds silly. I am okay with that.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I stumbled a bit when I read the CES letter the first time and when getting my head confused on the topic of polygamy from this board. But I think I'm ok.

I just want you to be happy always...!  Just know that  a lot of exmormons are pretty good people okay?

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

It would be so convenient if a modern apostle today or the prophet came out and openly talked about the subject of polygamy. That's what I wish for most. Because they are not speaking on it, so many people and even posters here are confused on the issue. It's gotta be addressed eventually, right? Many people have concerns.

This is what we would all like to see.  After all these years..and even the essays, I am still confused.  The essays are definitely a good start..the conversation with the Elders need to continue. 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The definition of concubines are those who were not married to him.  At least that's what I thought.  how else do we read it?  Are you saying some prophets who are otherwise married are allowed to sleep with women whom they aren't married to and such action is not adultery?

That is one of the definitions of a concubine. But the 1828 Webster's Dictionary also lists this definition:

"2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws."

I checked that out a long time ago. Even before the internet.

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In Bill's Sunstone presentation http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/07/sunstone-presentation-july-2016-handshakes-drawn-swords/ Bill offers a path by which faithful members of the church who are disturbed by Section 132 of the D&C can maintain faith and yet still disavow it's offending parts.

While this post won't do his presentation justice and I certainly hope Bill's weighs in this post, the jest of the presentation is that prophets are fallible and make mistakes and just as Brigham's Adam God doctrine, D&C Section 109 which originally stated that a man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again; and the removal of the Lectures on Faith, have all been either removed from scriptural status or disavowed...so can Section 132.  That basically Joseph got it wrong, that the angel with drawn sword was not a messenger from God but from Satan and that Joseph was deceived by said angel and succumbed to his baser instincts when he introduced polygamy.  While I found his reasoning compelling I just can not imagine a day when the church would disavow D&C 132, but maybe Bill has found a logical path whereby faithful members can reject 132 and still remain faithful-believers in all else.  This post is best understood after listening to Bill's podcast...to get his full reasoning and argument.

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

In a word, No.  Not at all likely.  And I don't say that in jest, while I do appreciate the gist of what Bill said.  He hasn't generally met with strong agreement here on this board.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

. I don't know if I can say this without being tacky but I can see where it would be beautiful to share my wife's love with another man who has none, who has never experienced the deep love she gives me, provided she felt the same way. Please don't make it into some cheap, I'm not talking about just the flesh. So yeah polygamy, polyandry, if that what Heavenly Father requires of us, so be it. Thy will be done.

I feel the same way.  I feel so blessed by the companionship of my husband and I want to others to have just as wonderful of a relaionship.  I figure that this will most likely come through companionship with other wonderful and perfected men, but if it can only come for some other wonderful and perfect woman through an eternal relationship with my husband, I am personally okay with it at this point in my life.  Perhaps I will see things differently as I grow older, but I have so far always in my life seen it this way.  Competition or deprivation or any negative emotions have never been a part of my concept of heaven (which is one reason I don't buy the 'more wives the better' teachings of the past) while infinity of resources and expression and love have.

I also don't see it as something God asks of us eternally.  Rather it will be (if it actually exists) something both God and ourselves will understand is pathway for those involved to fullest joy and knowledge (for whatever reason that might be).  Much like how Christ took on his role.  God shared his knowledge of His Plan, Christ understood it and offered himself in the role of Redeemer as God accepted that this was appropriate...both understood what was necessary for the fullest progression of themselves as well as all others and moved forward together to ensure the fulfillment.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That is one of the definitions of a concubine. But the 1828 Webster's Dictionary also lists this definition:

"2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws."

I checked that out a long time ago. Even before the internet.

Yes, but the legal status of concubines is not always clear.  Roman law required monogamy, but female slaves could be used as concubines -- and frequently were. In the case of Jacob, his two wives were Leah & Rachel, while their handmaids were allowed status as concubines, all twelve sons having legal status -- although Reuben was firstborn of the first wife, and so thought himself important (his tribe was later decimated by Ammonites), yet Joseph, the firstborn of the second wife, was the most important in God's eyes.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

According to the definition, yes.  They were a lesser wife, afforded some benefits but not the same one's a wife received.  I really don't know much about the practice other than the very basics.

Perhaps it would help to discard for the discussion the term "wife" and instead just discuss the legal and covenantal contracts between a man and a woman that related to provision of her needs and the needs of any children produced from the relationship.

Some women had limited contracts (written or not) that provided some protection and some resources.  For some this would be very minimal.  Others had more, but stll limited in what they could legally demand for themselves or children. Some even continued to live with their father's family.  The man in the contract had exclusive sexual and procreative rights to her as long as the contract was in force.  Other women had many more benefits and stronger protections for themselves and their children.  Inheritance was automatic and did not require legal recognition (because such was done through the contract).  Again, the man had full legal exclusive sexual and procreative rights in regards to her.

[juliann]

32 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

It would be so convenient if a modern apostle today or the prophet came out and openly talked about the subject of polygamy. That's what I wish for most. Because they are not speaking on it, so many people and even posters here are confused on the issue. It's gotta be addressed eventually, right? Many people have concerns.

That I can agree with. What they have said is immediately discarded by polygamy advocates so it does need to be addressed more directly and I think the August Presidency Ensign message is a cautious step in that direction. One does NOT have to assign 19 c. polygamy to devils in order to make a plain statement that the Proc on the Family is the eternal law, not a relatively short and badly implemented deviation. 

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Old

Salve, concubines, mistresses..it IS morally relevant  to me.  I have a hard time with God with this,  Even as a TBM, I could not see God commanding such a thing for any reason.  Is this only because I do not understand the OT?  Or is it because I believe in a higher love.  I know that sounds silly. I am okay with that.

I don't believe God did, I think too many prophets used God to get what they want.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps it would help to discard for the discussion the term "wife" and instead just discuss the legal and covenantal contracts between a man and a woman that related to provision of her needs and the needs of any children produced from the relationship.

Some women had limited contracts (written or not) that provided some protection and some resources.  For some this would be very minimal.  Others had more, but stll limited in what they could legally demand for themselves or children. Some even continued to live with their father's family.  The man in the contract had exclusive sexual and procreative rights to her as long as the contract was in force.  Other women had many more benefits and stronger protections for themselves and their children.  Inheritance was automatic and did not require legal recognition (because such was done through the contract).  Again, the man had full legal exclusive sexual and procreative rights in regards to her.

This sounds terrible.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Are you an exmormon or a practicing mormon? I honestly am curious because of the way you critique the prophets and male leaders of the church. I can't tell if you are aware of your open rebellion against the Brethren. 

She is not in any way in open rebellion to the Brethern.  That is just ridiculous.  Not only is she a staunch and faithful member, she is willing to back it up with her time, resources, and talents.  She is the Founder of Fairmormon, she was the one who ensured its survival through the early tough financial times by donating thousands and thousands of dollars and she was the one pushing the others to put stuff on record, made sure projects were followed through on, etc.  And she still works hard and devotes much time and money and talent to making sure we stay on mission.

It is bizarre you think she is in open rebellion.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Calm