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

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's important to God to do anything at the expense of women. But because of the weaknesses of both men and women that sometimes happens.  Beyond that, we don't have any specific answers on why He does what He does sometimes.

hm...well getting back to section 132.  It is said that God blessed Abraham in taking concubines because they had his children.  I'm curious to know if the women involved would have been better off without Abraham, considering your certainty in that God doesn't do anything at the expense of women. 

I'd agree with that notion, of course.  I just can't buy some of scripture--which I thought you were defending--precisely because it tries to suggest that God blessed a man at the expense of women. 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Our difference is that i haven't needed a faith transition and I believe the same thing.

Did you mean to say you haven't needed an explanation? 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think sometimes He does.  For example, isn't there a prophecy that the prophet of the restoration would have the same name as his father?  I could be really mangling that, but yes, i think that sometimes people need to have certain names.

That's one specific prophecy about one man.  I don't think we can extrapolate that into a justification for polygamy.

The point that was made was: "Polygamy creates faithful lineages in a way that monogamy often can't."  I'm not seeing any evidence of that.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Our difference is that i haven't needed a faith transition and I believe the same thing.

If you believe the same thing than I don't understand how you can make this statement:  "I don't think it's important to God to do anything at the expense of women. But because of the weaknesses of both men and women that sometimes happens.  Beyond that, we don't have any specific answers on why He does what He does sometimes."

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Brigham Young, or Bring'em Young as some will say, was kind of not a nice man.

He was very intelligent in the way he could create and design a city/state..but I wonder about him as a gentleman.  Hey...I had always heard it was "breed um young"

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's one specific prophecy about one man.  I don't think we can extrapolate that into a justification for polygamy.

The point that was made was: "Polygamy creates faithful lineages in a way that monogamy often can't."  I'm not seeing any evidence of that.

Surely we would have found offspring by Joseph Smith if this were true.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, the fact that both of them may have washed dishes for a prophet of God, and both were female, is an important similarity to point out?

Hey Bluebell, I don't care if you dismiss my point.  Be my guest.  It's not important to me, at this juncture at all.  You can go back and re-read what I said, which, at least to me, is not suggesting as you've suggested, or you can leave it at that. 

Abraham was apparently brought up to Joseph in justifying polygamy.  It's possible Joseph seeing Abraham took what might be a maid and had a child with her might have meant something to Joseph.  I don't know, but the similarity was interesting to me, seeing as Joseph's first attempt, at least that we know of, was with a live-in maid. 

With that said, I can happily acknowledge that the connection might not have been in Joseph's consideration at all. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's one specific prophecy about one man.  I don't think we can extrapolate that into a justification for polygamy.

The point that was made was: "Polygamy creates faithful lineages in a way that monogamy often can't."  I'm not seeing any evidence of that.

I'm not saying that that specific issue is definitely a reason for polygamy.  My reasoning mentioned earlier (about creating lineages) stands even without the issue of carrying on a specific name.  I gave you  an example which is evidence supporting that.  Polygamy gave Cody Brown a lineage that monogamy was not capable of producing.

Plus, the Lord says in the BOM that that's why He sometimes commands polygamy, which is more evidence about the importance of seed.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Surely we would have found offspring by Joseph Smith if this were true.

Are you saying that JS's case proves that a man can't have more children with multiple wives than he can have with one?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not saying that that specific issue is definitely a reason for polygamy.  My reasoning mentioned earlier (about creating lineages) stands even without the issue of carrying on a specific name.  I gave you  an example which is evidence supporting that.  Polygamy gave Cody Brown a lineage that monogamy was not capable of producing.

Plus, the Lord says in the BOM that that's why He sometimes commands polygamy, which is more evidence about the importance of seed.

In Jacob he also says having more wives and concubines is a whoredom and an abomination.  One of the additional issues I'd have with polygamy as practiced by Joseph is how many wives he had.  Okay, so a wife or two, maybe 4 wives help men to have more kids...but 30-40?  Seems ridiculous.  Would be safe to assume, in your estimation, that polygamy, at least, got out of hand? 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If you believe the same thing than I don't understand how you can make this statement:  "I don't think it's important to God to do anything at the expense of women. But because of the weaknesses of both men and women that sometimes happens.  Beyond that, we don't have any specific answers on why He does what He does sometimes."

I'm not sure i understand what you mean.

I don't think that God has ever commanded anything that was immoral or harmful to women.  I don't believe that polygamy is inherently harmful to women and i think that the brown family is a good example of that.  There are many commandments that men and women can implement in a harmful way (I don't think there is a single commandment that can't be twisted in some way to cause harm) but that doesn't mean the commandment itself was immoral.

Childbearing, for example, can sometimes happen at the expense of women, but that doesn't mean that the commandment to have children is immoral.  The same goes for monogamy.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you mean to say you haven't needed an explanation? 

No, i didn't mean to say that.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In Jacob he also says having more wives and concubines is a whoredom and an abomination. 

Unless He commands it. That's the relevant part. 

Quote

Would be safe to assume, in your estimation, that polygamy, at least, got out of hand? 

I really don't feel qualified to say that.  I'm not comfortable judging that with the limited knowledge that I have. I don't feel like it would be a righteous judgement for me to try to make.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless He commands it. That's the relevant part. 

well it didn't go that far.  he just said having more wives and concubines is whoredom and abomination.  But, if read as you do, when he says he commands, it doesn't say when I do command it's not really whoredom and abomination.  That was left unaddressed.  You'd be right though if it said that.  That would be a relevant part. 
It just doesn't say that. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really don't feel qualified to say that.  I'm not comfortable judging that with the limited knowledge that I have. I don't feel like it would be a righteous judgement for me to try to make.

thanks.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure i understand what you mean.

I don't think that God has ever commanded anything that was immoral or harmful to women.  I don't believe that polygamy is inherently harmful to women and i think that the brown family is a good example of that.  There are many commandments that men and women can implement in a harmful way (I don't think there is a single commandment that can't be twisted in some way to cause harm) but that doesn't mean the commandment itself was immoral.

Childbearing, for example, can sometimes happen at the expense of women, but that doesn't mean that the commandment to have children is immoral.  The same goes for monogamy.

Did you watch last season's show? Do you think Mary is happy? I don't think they are really that happy, Cody's wives. Although, I think their kids turned out amazingly well. 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

hm...well getting back to section 132.  It is said that God blessed Abraham in taking concubines because they had his children.  I'm curious to know if the women involved would have been better off without Abraham, considering your certainty in that God doesn't do anything at the expense of women. 

Given the time and culture in which they lived, i sincerely doubt that those women would have been better off without Abraham.  They had rights and privileges thru Abraham that they would not have had otherwise, plus, they gained children, which are blessings in and of themselves.

We can't fall into the trap of judging the merits of the lives of ancient women based on our culture today.  We have rights and opportunities today that even the wealthiest and most powerful queens did not have back then.

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In Jacob he also says having more wives and concubines is a whoredom and an abomination.  

Not exactly.

Jacob 2:24

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

The Lord has always said Men should not have many wives. He said that kings shouldn't in the Torah. He didn't say that was whoredom. He said the Nephites were committing whoredom, because apparently what they were doing. They apparently weren't pursuing fully consensual relationships. Perhaps they weren't marrying because they no longer understood the concubine relationship.

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Given the time and culture in which they lived, i sincerely doubt that those women would have been better off without Abraham.  They had rights and privileges thru Abraham that they would not have had otherwise, plus, they gained children, which are blessings in and of themselves.

We can't fall into the trap of judging the merits of the lives of ancient women based on our culture today.  We have rights and opportunities today that even the wealthiest and most powerful queens did not have back then.

Well no.  There are women today who are close to every bit as poorly treated as they were in history. 

I guess we can doubt whether they would have been better off or not.  But we don't know.  That's what I mean.  It's certainly possible.  If so, and if you support the notion that God blessed their relations and all that, then it may be that God did indeed support the mistreating of women. 

But this all goes away when you realize, "hey...I don't have to accept D&C 132 as scripture...duh."  So just relent  If not, then you have a huge uphill battle to climb, which will not be resolved in our lifetimes. 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not saying that that specific issue is definitely a reason for polygamy.  My reasoning mentioned earlier (about creating lineages) stands even without the issue of carrying on a specific name.  I gave you  an example which is evidence supporting that.  Polygamy gave Cody Brown a lineage that monogamy was not capable of producing.

Plus, the Lord says in the BOM that that's why He sometimes commands polygamy, which is more evidence about the importance of seed.

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..

 

For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

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

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not exactly.

Jacob 2:24

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

The Lord has always said Men should not have many wives. He said that kings shouldn't in the Torah. He didn't say that was whoredom. He said the Nephites were committing whoredom, because apparently what they were doing. They apparently weren't pursuing fully consensual relationships. Perhaps they weren't marrying because they no longer understood the concubine relationship.

 

 

It could depend on how you read it;

Quote

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

He talks about not having wives and concubines and then suggests doing so is whoredomes and an abomination to Him.  That's what I was referring to. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you watch last season's show? Do you think Mary is happy? I don't think they are really that happy, Cody's wives. Although, I think their kids turned out amazingly well. 

Yes i did.  I've seen all the seasons from the beginning and read their book (it was fascinating!) And the thing that kept Mary in the family (per her own words) was the polygamist aspect.  She said that there were times she was very angry with Cody, but she never contemplated leaving because of the rest of the family.  She wanted to remain a part of it.  And her and Cody seem to be on the mend.

And the other women have repeatedly said that they would not want cody without the rest of the family as well.  

When you say you don't think they are really that happy, are you implying that the women are lying or are you implying that you know better how happy they are than they themselves know?  I have a real hard time with people who say they are all about the importance of women but then dismiss the words and feelings of women when they disagree with their own ideas.

[Johnnie Cake]

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 continued association in the publics mind 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 about to boil over

Edited August 3, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure i understand what you mean.

I don't think that God has ever commanded anything that was immoral or harmful to women.  I don't believe that polygamy is inherently harmful to women and i think that the brown family is a good example of that.  There are many commandments that men and women can implement in a harmful way (I don't think there is a single commandment that can't be twisted in some way to cause harm) but that doesn't mean the commandment itself was immoral.

Childbearing, for example, can sometimes happen at the expense of women, but that doesn't mean that the commandment to have children is immoral.  The same goes for monogamy.

I think that polygamy can be practiced in a way that isn't harmful to women.

But, the way that JS and BY practiced polygamy was harmful to women.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you watch last season's show? Do you think Mary is happy? I don't think they are really that happy, Cody's wives. Although, I think their kids turned out amazingly well. 

Yeah...but so did Trump's.  Hah...just playing.  I've never seen the show or know anything about them.

[Tacenda]

DEL

Edited August 3, 2016 by Tacenda