stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Stem, do you agree that concubines were not engaged in adultery with their husbands/masters? I can't possibly agree with that blanket statement, Calm. It seems pretty evident that in some cases sex was had between a man and his concubine and there's no telling in some cases whether the man and his concubine were legally and lawfully wedded. Are you simply concluding that there was no adultery? on what basis? Guesswork? Or are you assuming because of section 132 we must accept that God saw any concubinage with those mentions (Abraham, David etc) as legal and lawful marriages? That's easy enough to assume, I guess. But hard to maintain or prove, I'd think.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, DBMormon said: weird, lets go back and see who quotes and initiates dialogue with other more....... your funny Also in terms of my vilifying Joseph.... that is also false as I go out my way in the presentation to caution people to recognize the duress Joseph seems to be under as he contemplates implementing plural marriage. So you're saying he had a rough go of it even as he allowed himself to be deceived by Satan and in turn misled his own followers? That's meager mitigation for what you are accusing him of. Quote again CFR. What is it you want references for? My opinion? I am the reference for my own opinion. CFR answered. Quote Seems your not very stable........... in your argument. You are entitled to your opinion -- such as it is. But I won't require you to cite a reference for your own opinion, as you did me for mine.
Flexible Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I said, I cast my lot with the prophets. Yes...you did say that. This non-responsive, repetitive robot reflex isn't really helping though. 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Yes...you did say that. This non-responsive, repetitive robot reflex isn't really helping though. Stem, do you agree that concubines were not engaged in adultery with their husbands/masters? 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I said, I cast my lot with the prophets. So back to the 14 fundamentals? I see no conflict between casting your lot with the prophets while at the same time having enough spiritual maturity to be honest about the difficulties engulfing some of their teachings. And why are the prophets today so reluctant to even mention the "P" word? Ever since the Manifesto they have skated over the thin ice of this doctrine. Some of our leaders treat it like a field of ground mines or like an anachronistic embarrassment whi ch must be kept in the shadows. I don't think the church can have much of a future if it can't do a better job of the narratives around these types of things. Or can they at least honestly acknowledge the thorny questions the doctrine fosters and admit that the Lord has not yet answered them?
JulieM Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you're saying he had a rough go of it even as he allowed himself to be deceived by Satan and in turn misled his own followers? That's meager mitigation for what you are accusing him of. What is it you want references for? My opinion? I am the reference for my own opinion. CFR answered. You are entitled to your opinion -- such as it is. But I won't require you to cite a reference for your own opinion, as you did me for mine. Scott, have you actually listened or read DB's entire presentation? If not, you might want to before commenting more, as that would help your credibility with any of your accusations here. Edited August 2, 2016 by JulieM 1
Calm Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Maybe in some cases. But I don't know it's good to use that blanket statement, particularly since it's all very questionable. as times changed and as culture changed the whole concept seemed to vary as well. I appreciate that. I was getting told, rather dogmatically, or dismissively, that it couldn't possibly be viewed as adultery. I'm not so sure that's true, and it's good to see you agree. I may take it a step further in thinking the message in D&C 132 may be viewed as God condoning or blessing adultery particularly since we don't know whether concubines were considered married in God's eyes or not--in spite of how it was practiced anciently. I don't think I do agree. I do not see it as possibly adultery even if a marriage ceremony (which they didn't have in the sense we do) or full wife or lower wife contract was not involved since there would still, I believe, be a more limited contractual relationship (if there was not, the term "concubine" is not applicable at all in my understanding). Just because they had a variety of legal relationships involving sexual relationships between a man and a woman that we do not currently have doesn't mean that some of those relationships were considered moral and some were not, either by themselves or God. All were legal relationships even if not by the standard we hold today, just as early LDS would have accepted commonlaw marriages that met community standards even lacking a ceremony as valid while the Church these days requires a government sanctioned contract to be involved, but that does not mean the commonlaw marriages of the past are looked at as adulterous (though current ones would be). And I would err on the side of caution in speculating in regards to 132 because there is no evidence that those referred to did not have contractual concubines, even if they were handmaids that were seen as secondary wives. I see no evidence that God condoned adultery as was understood by the past society in the past or would condone adultery as is understood now for our current society.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, DBMormon said: I don't vilify him at all. CFR for such a claim? You are a journalist and have a responsibility to be accurate. I am awaiting a source. 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: You have publicly accused the Church of "dismissing {C}hrist." I don't think the Church had "dismiss{ed} Christ" at all. CFR for such a claim? You are a member of the Church and have a responsibility to be honest in your dealings with you fellow men. I am awaiting a source. Right back atcha... -Smac I don't have any greater responsibility to provide an outside source for my own opinion than does a carpet salesman-turned-pawnbroker.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: What I see in his presentation is an assertion of a position directly and blatantly at odds with the prophets, apostles and the Church of Jesus Christ (not to mention vilifying the Prophet of the Restoration). I am recognizing that dichotomy and stating my personal choice as to which of the polar-opposite positions I embrace. I am entitled to do that. You really ought to listen to the presentation. Joseph isn't being vilified. In fact, Bill is presenting a middle ground position for people who don't agree with polygamy to still consider Joseph a prophet. He's building a framework outside the false dichotomy of "Joseph is a fraud" and "Joseph perfectly spoke for God in all things." You seem more interested in tearing down Bill than engaging the idea. 3
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, Flexible said: So back to the 14 fundamentals? I see no conflict between casting your lot with the prophets while at the same time having enough spiritual maturity to be honest about the difficulties engulfing some of their teachings. And why are the prophets today so reluctant to even mention the "P" word? Ever since the Manifesto they have skated over the thin ice of this doctrine. Some of our leaders treat it like a field of ground mines or like an anachronistic embarrassment whi ch must be kept in the shadows. I don't think the church can have much of a future if it can't do a better job of the narratives around these types of things. Or can they at least honestly acknowledge the thorny questions the doctrine fosters and admit that the Lord has not yet answered them? Excellent post, and welcome. 3
DBMormon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you're saying he had a rough go of it even as he allowed himself to be deceived by Satan and in turn misled his own followers? That's meager mitigation for what you are accusing him of. "he allowed himself".... that seems like faulty logic as I didn't say that nor does it seem reasonable. did deceiving angels and Satan himself attempt to deceive god's messengers and even Jesus? Did God give Joseph a way to discern? what would be the point of both previous points if God's prophets could not be deceived? and if any prophet fell for the adversary's deception, that would be impossible in your mind or simply discussing said possibility is wrong and unfaithful? Do you think others see your argument as fair and reasonable?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: You really ought to listen to the presentation. Joseph isn't being vilified. In fact, Bill is presenting a middle ground position for people who don't agree with polygamy to still consider Joseph a prophet. He's building a framework outside the false dichotomy of "Joseph is a fraud" and "Joseph perfectly spoke for God in all things." You seem more interested in tearing down Bill than engaging the idea. Your opinion is noted. But I won't issue a CFR on it.
DBMormon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Your opinion is noted. But I won't issue a CFR on it. do you agree with him or disagree with his opinion that you would rather disparage me than actually tackle the argument reasonably? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, DBMormon said: Scott do other Deseret News journalists use the same liberty of defining words and making interpretations? this seems like a trait that would not make for accurate reporting? I don't know. Do other carpet salesmen-turned-pawnbrokers do it? Edited August 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
JulieM Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't have any greater responsibility to provide an outside source for my own opinion than does a carpet salesman-turned-pawnbroker. You should at least listen to the presentation if you're going to make the accusations you've made. It would also help you with the CFR that was issued for you, if you could actually supply quotes from DB's presentation. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, DBMormon said: do you agree with him or disagree with his opinion that you would rather disparage me than actually tackle the argument reasonably? Smac has already "tackle[d] the argument" quite reasonably. I implied my assent to what he said when I indicated which side I come down on between yours and the prophets'. Edited August 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I don't think I do agree. I do not see it as possibly adultery even if a marriage ceremony (which they didn't have in the sense we do) or full wife or lower wife contract was not involved since there would still, I believe, be a more limited contractual relationship (if there was not, the term "concubine" is not applicable at all in my understanding). What contract are you talking about? 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Just because they had a variety of legal relationships involving sexual relationships between a man and a woman that we do not currently have doesn't mean that some of those relationships were considered moral and some were not, either by themselves or God. All were legal relationships even if not by the standard we hold today, just as early LDS would have accepted commonlaw marriages that met community standards even lacking a ceremony as valid while the Church these days requires a government sanctioned contract to be involved, but that does not mean the commonlaw marriages of the past are looked at as adulterous (though current ones would be). how do you know the legality stretching across cultures and time? That's impressive. I have a couple of issues here. I don't know anything about the legality of their relationships. I do not know God condoned any of it. I think we (ok, maybe not me) assume as much. I don't know the reality of Abraham, or if he lived whether the story we read about him in the Bible and PofGP are anywhere near accurate portrayals of him or if the stories were rather mythic variations. My concern here is whether the message in D&C 132 should be considered genuinely from God, in any sense. We are told God blessed Abraham in his multiple relationships with women. David, for some reason, was condemned for at least one relationship in the Bible, so we are told he, at least is condemned by God for taking women he wasn't given. And Solomon and Moses (oddly?) were also part of the condemnation in taking what they weren't given. But there's no clarity there. What is a concubine that is given of God? beats me. Sounds awfully silly. Did God just let it happen because it was cultural that women were treated in such a way? I don't buy that kind of thinking. God is God and is the purveyor, if nothing else, of good. I think what this all suggests is D&C 132 is simply not good scripture. It was added, but I don't think it divine. I just don't think God works that way. 3 minutes ago, Calm said: And I would err on the side of caution in speculating in regards to 132 because there is no evidence that those referred to did not have contractual concubines, even if they were handmaids that were seen as secondary wives. I see no evidence that God condoned adultery as was understood by the past society in the past or would condone adultery as is understood now for our current society. I don't think God would condone any such concubinage to be clear. This is one reason why I don't buy into D&C 132. It is effectively ignored in the Church today anyway. I hate to think any man could come along and feel justified in taking on concubines whom he gets to treat as some sort of second class citizens. Sorry, I see no blessing from God, for this stuff. It doesn't work for me.
JulieM Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Smac has already "tackle[d] the argument" quite reasonably. I implied my assent to what he said when I indicated which side I come down on, yours or the prophets'. Has SMAC made the accusations you've made (and does he have a CFR issued on him?) How about you speak for yourself here since you made the claims against DB?
DBMormon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know. Do other carpet salemen-turned-pawnbrokers do it? Pawn Brokers have a lot more leeway ;-) 1
DBMormon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, JulieM said: You should at least listen to the presentation if you're going to make the accusations you've made. It would also help you with the CFR that was issued for you, if you could actually supply quotes from DB's presentation. thanks Julie.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know. Do other carpet salesmen-turned-pawnbrokers do it? Congratulations. Once again you've derailed a conversation by personally attacking individuals instead of ideas. I'm pretty sure that was your plan. You're very good at it. Edited August 2, 2016 by HappyJackWagon
Scott Lloyd Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, JulieM said: Has SMAC made the accusations you've made (and does he have a CFR issued on him?) How about you speak for yourself here since you made the claims against DB? What accusations? What claims? I simply indicated the choice I make between Bill Reel's position and the prophets' position. I am speaking for myself. In doing so, I am entitled to include by reference things that others have said. Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 41 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I can't possibly agree with that blanket statement, Calm. It seems pretty evident that in some cases sex was had between a man and his concubine and there's no telling in some cases whether the man and his concubine were legally and lawfully wedded. Are you simply concluding that there was no adultery? on what basis? If concubine is defined as having a legal relationship, why would it not be legal? Just as the use of the term "wife" assumes a certain legal relationship, so does the term "concubine". I think the Bible makes it clear that while concubines did not have the status of full wives, they had a legal status, often referred to as secondary wives. I am not guessing but basing my conclusion on how authoritative texts speak about it: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/concubine/ http://biblehub.com/topical/c/concubine.htm http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/concubine-of-levite-bible (first discussing the relationship) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12148-pilegesh 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: What accusations? What claims? I simply indicated the choice I make between Bill Reel's position and the prophets' position. I am speaking for myself. In doing so, I am entitled to include by reference things that others have said. Don't play coy. You made the incendiary accusation that Bill vilified Joseph. When asked for examples, you simply said it was your opinion and hence no CFR response was necessary. So the idea the Bill "vilified the prophet" just hovers without any responsibility. You're a bad actor in this conversation.
consiglieri Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, DBMormon said: Scott do other Deseret News journalists use the same liberty of defining words and making interpretations? It's actually part of the job description.
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: If concubine is defined as having a legal relationship, why would it not be legal? Just as the use of the term "wife" assumes a certain legal relationship, so does the term "concubine". I think the Bible makes it clear that while concubines did not have the status of full wives, they had a legal status, often referred to as secondary wives. I am not guessing but basing my conclusion on how authoritative texts speak about it: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/concubine/ http://biblehub.com/topical/c/concubine.htm http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/concubine-of-levite-bible (first discussing the relationship) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12148-pilegesh Hey Calm, I have to say I'm confused by yoru links. None seem to indicate contractual relationships or legality when ti comes to concubines, at least from what I saw. This is interesting as it pertains to our discussion though: Quote Christianity has restored the sacred institution of marriage to its original character, and concubinage is ranked with the sins of fornication and adultery Here is a claim from one of your links that would agree, speaking of concubines, well, it is adultery.
consiglieri Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I said, I cast my lot with the prophets. “Men are not so much the keepers of herds as herds are the keepers of men.” ― Henry David Thoreau, Walden
Recommended Posts