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

[bluebell]

26 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") 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.

 

 

Calm provided a link which showed the difference between a concubine and someone the man just chose to sleep with, as it was outlined in the Hammurabi code.  Abraham was from the same part of the world (Mesopotamia) where the code is from, and from the same time frame, so it's probably a good document to go by.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This sounds terrible.

Yep.  It was more terrible though for women who had sexual relationships with men without any legal protection though.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This sounds terrible.

99% of history regarding women is terrible.

[Calm]

49 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") 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.

I don't know about any ceremony, though I suspect with the more wealthy who used written contracts there would be some ceremony attached to the agreement.  All women in such contracts were in some fashion slaves, even wives, since they were not allowed to share sex with anyone but a husband/master and were even required by law to find a substitute for procreation with their husband if they were barren to ensure he had children (though it protected her too in the case of his death) and limited in behaviours they could engage in while forced to do others or be found in violation of the contract and divorced.  

If we apply the connotation of "wife" as we use it in our society in terms of what is most important in that relationship for those involved, I think we never understand what was intended in the scriptures even when modern scriptures speak of ancient peoples.

[Bobbieaware]

If this thread doesn't clearly demonstrate how those who are spiritually immature choke and gag on the deeper principles and doctrines of the Gospel, there's no other thread will. It's sad to see how so many are setting themselves up for bitter disappointments in the future,  and even possible eventual apostasies when the Church leaders refuse capitulate to the childish clamoring for a revisionist version of the Gospel that's easier the spiritually immature to agree with and digest.

[juliann]

44 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 do think that if God spent time reforming the entire culture nothing else would get done. And what century reforms would he use? No sense in stopping at the 20th century....why not turn the Iron Age into the 45th century? For whatever reason there is obviously an intent to keep things organic and evolutionary. I certainly don't think the uglier parts of that culture were engineered by God, though. I no longer buy that God is telling people to slaughter entire populations, for example. But again, it goes back to theodicy and that is the weakest part of religion.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

If this thread doesn't clearly demonstrate how those who are spiritually immature choke and gag on the deeper principles and doctrines of the Gospel, there's no other thread will. It's sad to see how so many are setting themselves up for bitter disappointments in the future,  and even possible eventual apostasies when the Church leaders refuse capitulate to the childish clamoring for a revisionist version of the Gospel that's easier the spiritually immature to agree with and digest.

That is an impressive Ramp of Rameumpton you have built. And be sure to raise your hands high as you proclaim your superiority! 

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

If the past legal status of concubines was viewed by their society as that of a lesser wife, what do you think would be an appropriate term to use to describe their legal status that would still be respectful?

Bluebell, imo, is not defending the practice of concubinage, but simply arguing that it was not adultery in their society and should not be described as such simply because our society has different laws.

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

If God commanded concubines, it would have imo been part of a lesser law like divorce is allowed.  Divorce would have allowed a scorned wife another chance to be married and some protection from a husband who had kicked her out from claiming she  was committing adultery, though it is possible that stigma prevented many divorcees from doing so and the law definitely still favoured the man:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_05269.html

Concubines at least were given dignity in the society and not viewed as prostitutes or immoral as a mistress (in the sexual sense) would be.  It would be a step forward in protecting women even if not satisfying to us.  God won't force a change of worldview or steal children from their parents so they can be brought up in a different, more advanced in terms of equality culture.  Instead he teaches line upon line and it is only, imo, our hard hearts and minds that make this take centuries and not days.  Women and slaves have a number of rights in the Bible, many that were in the surrounding cultures, others that were not.  As time went on, more rights were given and attitudes towards the "other" were changed as well, preparing the way for some pretty dramatic advancements in Jesus' teachings...which unfortunately were not all taken to heart and some even corrupted Christians.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/christs-emancipation-of-women-in-the-new-testament

 

[Glenn101]

A few last thoughts (in this thread at least) on the subject. I a way Brother reel is correct. There are parts of Section 132 that have already been disavowed by the church, at least for the foreseeable future and any member of the church who tries to participate in certain parts of section 132 will be excommunicated.

One does not have to look for reasons not to disavow it. And really, it does no one any good to keep scratching on the scabs and starting the bleeding all over again. It serves no purpose.

We do not understand polygamy as it was practiced in the Old Testament, but we do know that it was not only allowed under the Mosaic law, but in some instances it was actually commanded.

We also know that God gave the former wives of King Saul to David.

Anyone who has really given serious study to the little we know about polygamy as it was introduced and practiced in Nauvoo, knows that it was not something to satisfy Joseph's libido. But people are free to believe what they wish.

Those who wish to believe that Joseph lied about the angel are probably doing so because they do not want to believe in polygamy. That part is okay. But are they not also usurping God's right to judgement? There is no way that we can determine historically that the angel with the sword incident did not happen, or that the First Vision did happen. Of course, Joseph could have been deceived, but do any of you think that he did not try those spirits? The initial response by just about everyone who received that commandment was pretty much the same. Brigham Young is reported as wishing that he could just die. The ladies that were approached had similar responses. However, our historical annals show that some of the men and some of the women had powerful spiritual experiences that convinced them of the correctness of the principle. Vilate Kimball, wife of Heber C. Kimball, was an exception, if the anecdotal report by Helen Marr Kimbal is accurate. She had a revelation before her husband broached the subject to her. I certainly am not going to go on record as saying that those men and women, many who unmatched records of service in the early church in Utah, were deceived or lying.

I have never received a testimony about polygamy. I gave never been asked to live the principle and have had no reason to have to accept it or reject it. I do have a testimony of the New and Everlasting Covenant, of the sealing power that can and does bind a man and a woman together for time and eternity. The power taht seals families together for time and eternity. I do not know just how that will work in eternity, but I am grateful for that principle.

There were many people in the church at Nauvoo who learned about polygamy who did not gain a testimony. Some left the church. I do not know that all did, but they had their choices.

And there are active members here today who disagree with polygamy, but none of us have been asked to practice it. And probably will not in this life. There is nothing that we can do about it, but we will all know sometime in the future.

I for one know that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God. Anyone who wishes to call me on that will have to wait until a later date for me to prove my words. I look forward to meeting all of you on the other side. My time is a heck of a lot closer than it used to be. I hope that I will not be too awfully scorched when I do get to meet my cyber friends that I only know by their handles.

Glenn

[Jeanne]

I understand what you are saying.   Thank you for your perspectives on things.  I am hoping that there is a good reason. 

Quote

 

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

The word concubine seems to have been used in a couple of ways in the Old Testament translations. I was just pointing out that a concubine could have been a legal wife as far as the Lord was concerned. It is evident that they were considered wives under the Mosaic law if we can infer anything from Judges 19:1-3.

Glenn

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

If God commanded concubines, it would have imo been part of a lesser law like divorce is allowed.  Divorce would have allowed a scorned wife another chance to be married and some protection from a husband who had kicked her out from claiming she  was committing adultery, though it is possible that stigma prevented many divorcees from doing so and the law definitely still favoured the man:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_05269.html

Concubines at least were given dignity in the society and not viewed as prostitutes or immoral as a mistress (in the sexual sense) would be.  It would be a step forward in protecting women even if not satisfying to us.  God won't force a change of worldview or steal children from their parents so they can be brought up in a different, more advanced in terms of equality culture.  Instead he teaches line upon line and it is only, imo, our hard hearts and minds that make this take centuries and not days.  Women and slaves have a number of rights in the Bible, many that were in the surrounding cultures, others that were not.  As time went on, more rights were given and attitudes towards the "other" were changed as well, preparing the way for some pretty dramatic advancements in Jesus' teachings...which unfortunately were not all taken to heart and some even corrupted Christians.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/christs-emancipation-of-women-in-the-new-testament

 

Thanks for the links and some clarification.   You did for some good in some of this.  I am surprised at some of the protection they did have..and I guess be grateful for that. I so wish that history somewhere had more respect for women. Thank again.

I

[Jeanne]

58 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If this thread doesn't clearly demonstrate how those who are spiritually immature choke and gag on the deeper principles and doctrines of the Gospel, there's no other thread will. It's sad to see how so many are setting themselves up for bitter disappointments in the future,  and even possible eventual apostasies when the Church leaders refuse capitulate to the childish clamoring for a revisionist version of the Gospel that's easier the spiritually immature to agree with and digest.

Ouch...I  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

If this thread doesn't clearly demonstrate how those who are spiritually immature choke and gag on the deeper principles and doctrines of the Gospel, there's no other thread will. It's sad to see how so many are setting themselves up for bitter disappointments in the future,  and even possible eventual apostasies when the Church leaders refuse capitulate to the childish clamoring for a revisionist version of the Gospel that's easier the spiritually immature to agree with and digest.

Or it demonstrates that the true believes are so entrenched in their cognitive dissonance that they post things like you do on and on that are simple a priori assumptions of their own dogma. 

[Calm]

I am thankful I live now.

I have no idea why God allowed this to go on save for agency, though for those who believe the Noah story in terms of a global flood, I think one would have a hard time reconciling how God would take the extreme measure of destroying the world but simply reserve his methods to line upon line when we are talking about eons long of what amounts to legally allowed abuse of half of mankind (though hopefully most men did not take advantage of what the  law allowed).

And that doesn't even take in actual slavery.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

If this thread doesn't clearly demonstrate how those who are spiritually immature choke and gag on the deeper principles and doctrines of the Gospel, there's no other thread will. It's sad to see how so many are setting themselves up for bitter disappointments in the future,  and even possible eventual apostasies when the Church leaders refuse capitulate to the childish clamoring for a revisionist version of the Gospel that's easier the spiritually immature to agree with and digest.

Agreed.
Although I think the disappointments will be less with the Church and more when the truth of God is made known by God himself.  There will be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
There will be much of this when all those who can't accept polygamy finally are told that Joseph was right and the practice is eternal in nature.

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed.
Although I think the disappointments will be less with the Church and more when the truth of God is made known by God himself.  There will be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
There will be much of this when all those who can't accept polygamy finally are told that Joseph was right and the practice is eternal in nature.

Or you may find out that your dogmatic assumptions are false. 

[Atheist Mormon]

11 hours ago, drums12 said:

I fear Brother Reel is setting himself up for church discipline if he continues on his present course.  

 

Johnny Cake

"Did you listen to or read his presentation?  I'd guess that he's standing on pretty firm ground"

You are both right...So far Bill is skillfully playing both sides.....

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Or it demonstrates that the true believes are so entrenched in their cognitive dissonance that they post things like you do on and on that are simple a priori assumptions of their own dogma. 

Yeh, but the shoe is as often on the other foot.  There is plenty of blame to go around.

[strappinglad]

If there is no God of afterlife then nothing I do here matters one whit. If there is a God and an afterlife then will 2 Nephi 28:8 kick in ? Or will Justice come to call and Mercy be provided according to some requirements? I suspect behavior in this life will have some effect on the next. Then again the whole thing could be fixed with a mulligan.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Or you may find out that your dogmatic assumptions are false. 

- God doesn't lie, regardless of whether YOU trust the source of his word.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

- God doesn't lie, regardless of whether YOU trust the source of his word.

Good thing you are not God nor do you speak for God not necessarily represent God's views even thought almost every post you put here you act like you do. 

[Damien the Leper]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

If D&C 132 is disavowed so will every sealing ever done.

I know many people who would be grateful for this. They deserve to not have this hanging over their heads. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

This is such a confusing subject I don't know what to believe. I've prayed for answers one way or the other but my mind is still open and I don't understand the answer. I wonder if a lot of people are confused like me.