Tacenda Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: 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. Well the show portrays it that way. Maybe I need to read the book. I guess all marriages aren't perfect and there are many unhappy times. And I do like how the Browns are all about their children.
bluebell Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 20 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. I'm referring to verse 30- 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. If God wants to raise up seed unto Him, He'll command polygamy, otherwise, monogamy is the rule. Beyond that, I feel good in saying that having hundreds of wives and concubines (as david and the like had) would never been o.k. with God. In other scriptures God clarifies and says that it was in taking those wives and concubines that were not given by the Lord (were not sanctioned by Him) where David and Solomon went wrong. Not in having more than one. 1
stemelbow Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Just now, bluebell said: I'm referring to verse 30- 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. If God wants to raise up seed unto Him, He'll command polygamy, otherwise, monogamy is the rule. Beyond that, I feel good in saying that having hundreds of wives and concubines (as david and the like had) would never been o.k. with God. In other scriptures God clarifies and says that it was in taking those wives and concubines that were not given by the Lord (were not sanctioned by Him) where David and Solomon went wrong. Not in having more than one. Yeah..I got ya. I just don't see the text saying if I do command that means that having more wives and concubines is not whoredoms as I said and is not an abomination to me. Anyway, I was just commenting in that it doesn't specify that. 1
bluebell Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Well the show portrays it that way. Maybe I need to read the book. I guess all marriages aren't perfect and there are many unhappy times. And I do like how the Browns are all about their children. I don't believe the show portrays it that way. A part from normal husband and wife issues, the women seem very happy.
rockpond Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm referring to verse 30- 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. If God wants to raise up seed unto Him, He'll command polygamy, otherwise, monogamy is the rule. Beyond that, I feel good in saying that having hundreds of wives and concubines (as david and the like had) would never been o.k. with God. In other scriptures God clarifies and says that it was in taking those wives and concubines that were not given by the Lord (were not sanctioned by Him) where David and Solomon went wrong. Not in having more than one. I'm forced to question our interpretation of that verse given the Lord refers to the practice as a whoredom and abomination multiple times in the same verse. 1
bluebell Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: But, the way that JS and BY practiced polygamy was harmful to women. I don't feel like i have enough information to judge that. I get it that you feel like you have the ability to righteously accuse those men of such sins. And I don't say that in a snarky manner or as an insult to you. It explains why we see some of this so differently. 1
stemelbow Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I don't believe the show portrays it that way. A part from normal husband and wife issues, the women seem very happy. married women very happy? well then, maybe polygamy is better than monogamy.
rockpond Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I don't feel like i have enough information to judge that. I get it that you feel like you have the ability to righteously accuse those men of such sins. And I don't say that in a snarky manner or as an insult to you. It explains why we see some of this so differently. I didn't accuse them of a sin. I'm just stating what we know from studying the practice and the accounts of those women. 2
bluebell Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm forced to question our interpretation of that verse given the Lord refers to the practice as a whoredom and abomination multiple times in the same verse. He says that about having lots of wives and concubines like David had. Besides that, sex outside of the bonds the Lord has set has always been described as whoredoms and abominations. Clearly, having more than one wife for the Nephites was outside of the bounds the Lord has set for them and would be sinful. Edited August 3, 2016 by bluebell 1
ksfisher Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't believe the show portrays it that way. A part from normal husband and wife issues, the women seem very happy. It's a TV show. They're getting paid to appear however the producers of the show decide they should appear. 2
stemelbow Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 1 minute ago, bluebell said: He says that about having lots of wives and concubines like David had. Besides that, sex outside of the bonds the Lord has set has always been described as whoredoms and abominations. Clearly, having more than one wife for the Nephites was outside of the bounds the Lord has set for them and would be sinful. If he meant like David had, why did he flip the script in section 132 saying David didn't sin regarding his taking of wives and concubines, except in the case of Uriah and his wife? Quote and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife --vs 39. In Jacob 2 he says having more wives than 1 and concubines is what is the whoredom and abomination. previous to that in verse 26 he says he doesn't want them doing as they did of old in terms of having more wives and concubines.
Calm Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Well, she believes the "doctrine" of polygamy did, anyway. She alsobelieves marriages ans sealings took place, just that he had sex with just very few, if any.
Okrahomer Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: It is a scary thought. Why?
Calm Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 4 hours ago, rockpond said: Since we still seal men to more than one woman, polygamy is expected to return in the Celestial Kingdom. We also seal women to more than one man. So who knows exactly how it will all shake out. 4
Johnnie Cake Posted August 3, 2016 Author Posted August 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: We also seal women to more than one man. So who knows exactly how it will all shake out. Did you know that your header translates from Latin into English as "Sweet lips speak from the heart and live insects"? At least according to google translate.
Calm Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: God apparently gave the message to us in our modern day that he blessed concubinage at one time. If, as you suggest, we should see concubinage in our modern day as adultery, then my point has been made. This was my initial point. Two main themes came back at me, stated as certainty, by bluebell and I believe you supported it--concubines are really just wives. But we've already seen the questionable nature of that statement. That's hardly a resolved point even for the various times and cultures in which it was practiced in the Bible. And when it's pointed out that it's adultery to our modern ears, that's what the message in D&C 132 amounts to, it was said it is not adultery. Again, another piece of guesswork stated as absolute. It doesn't appear there was any legality nor contract attached to the concept of concubines in the various times it is mentioned and then in D&C 132 supported. To me this marks clearly another reason to think D&C 132 is not to be taken as scripture. And sadly, to your point of not having handmaid slots. I think Joseph taking on Fanny Alger may be a pretty good parallel. It seems Fanny's slot was as a maid, a teenager, but a maid nonetheless. They may have called them hired help. It is interesting though. If Abraham's story was an appeal for Joseph, then Fanny seems to be something akin to Hagar. And if so, perhaps it didn't take much for Joseph to justify his own practice---after all the message we get in 132 is that Abraham was justified in sleeping with other women (it's a shame but hopefully Joseph didn't take that to mean girls). Emma was not barren, that eliminates the handmaid possibility. 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. 1
Calm Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Did you know that your header translates from Latin into English as "Sweet lips speak from the heart and live insects"? At least according to google translate. See last line: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/florus-poems/1934/pb_LCL434.427.xml
Flexible Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 16 hours ago, Calm said: I highly doubt any of them would say the Church has not been honest in its dealings with its fellow men. There is a difference between lack of openness and lack of honesty. Please define "lack of openness". If by that you mean intentionally withholding information that in hindsight would appear to be important to those materially impacted by such withholding, I would disagree with you. Such "lack of openness" constitutes dishonesty. As an example, if I am selling you a product and only focus on the positive reviews, intentionally withholding negative reviews that would help me make a more informed and balanced purchase decision, I would call that dishonesty.
Johnnie Cake Posted August 3, 2016 Author Posted August 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: See last line: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/florus-poems/1934/pb_LCL434.427.xml Thanks...so much for the veracity of Google translate to get it right. :-)
jkwilliams Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 28 minutes ago, Calm said: She alsobelieves marriages ans sealings took place, just that he had sex with just very few, if any. Last I heard, she said she was open to the possibility that some of the marriages were consummated but sees no evidence for it and plenty against.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: For give me Scott...I shouldn't hold you to a higher standard then I require of myself...I was just surprised you'd take a cheep shot (even if done in defense)...seemed more like something I'd do (and get banned for) than you...that's all If you believe, as you have stated, that carpet salesman and pawnbroker are both "noble" occupations, why is it a "cheap shot" for me to state correctly that both apply to Bill Reel? Or if you think it a "cheap shot" for me to even bring up his occupation in the discussion, why did you apparently give him a pass when he endeavored to make my occupation a point of discussion and a reason for criticizing my behavior? I would never have mentioned his being a carpet salesman-turned-pawnbroker had he not done that.
Calm Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 3 hours ago, ALarson said: Again, who are the "polygamy advocates" that you a juliann are referring to? I will let Juliann answer that to ensure precision, we might have different nuances to our thoughts and it is can be answered in a basic general way (those who in their discussion of plural marriage show an eagerness to have it back, promote its appearance, go on about the opportunity to have more wives) or it can be more precisely defined
stemelbow Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 31 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: Why? I was just playing a bit.
Johnnie Cake Posted August 3, 2016 Author Posted August 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you believe, as you have stated, that carpet salesman and pawnbroker are both "noble" occupations, why is it a "cheap shot" for me to state correctly that both apply to Bill Reel? Or if you think it a "cheap shot" for me to even bring up his occupation in the discussion, why did you apparently give him a pass when he endeavored to make my occupation a point of discussion and a reason for criticizing my behavior? I would never have mentioned his being a carpet salesman-turned-pawnbroker had he not done that. I've said all I'm going to say on this subject...moving on
Scott Lloyd Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 59 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm forced to question our interpretation of that verse given the Lord refers to the practice as a whoredom and abomination multiple times in the same verse. 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.
Recommended Posts