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

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

God didn't need it or any other of the numerous things that cause people to reflect on where their loyalties really lie, but it was good imo for the Church and its members to have a longterm stable leadership rather than the high turnover, often conflicted leadership that occurred in the first years.  I think in many ways it speeded up the process as well as encouraged rejection up front from those who might have joined with less commitment (because of confused expectations) than needed to endure many of the hardships that would have occurred even without plural marriage (remember they had to leave at least two places way before plural marriage came into the picture), thus perhaps saving a great deal of both physical and spiritual hardship for those individuals.  For those who stayed, plural marriage offered through its pressure cooker effect a level of opportunities of growth that might not have been available to most people of the time in their lifetime.  

In some ways, the better technology of communication has had a pressurecooker effect on our faith that was lacking in previous years.

God appears to be quite willing to give people plenty of opportunities to make important choices at various times during history.  It seems society coasts for awhile with the status quo and then God throws in something to shake things up...Abraham to reinvigorate the Covenant, Moses to shift the Covenant people back to independence, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lehi to challenge authority thinking, the disperal of the Israelities and then Jews, John the Baptist and Christ of course and then the early turmoil of the LDS Saints.  It seems that if a society stays too long in a certain path, it becomes a rut, so God presents other pathways for those who put spiritual progression as their highest desire even if it means their physical and emotional needs have to take second or third place in attention for awhile.

 I personally think that is the primary purpose of this existence, even more important for most (not all) than getting a body.  Ensuring that the best range of of options of growth is available without intruding on the limits of agency must be a huge balancing act even for someone of infinite knowledge.

I think I remember seeing "sifting of the saints" in "The Work and the Glory" series. Can't remember which book.

[Johnnie Cake]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I suppose I should apologize.  I found the references of polygamy as a haunting ghost to be melodramatic ("The Ghost of Polygamy Past..." " 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 a bout to boil over...") and overwrought (I don't think it is a big concern for most members of the Church, and is instead a pet project for a noisy few, so ominous threats that "it's about to boil over" seem to be quite an exaggeration).

I went to some effort to present my opinion of the situation generally, and to avoid critiquing your personal position.  As you correctly noted, I don't know you.  Hence my remarks pertained to those who A) have previously embraced same-sex marriage, but B) are presently exhibiting all sorts of pearl-clutching histrionics about polygamy as a 'ghost' that 'haunts' the Church."  In retrospect, I should not have quoted you when referencing "those who...", and for that I apologize.  But then, I'm not sure I was quoting you, as I actually had Carol Lynn Pearson's book in mind (which, for the record, I find to be melodramatic twaddle).

But that is neither here nor there.  I do not know you.  I was making observations about "broad generalities," and did so in a careless way that implicated you.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Whoa...new found respect for -Smac  Didn't expect that from you..

As for my "its about to boil over" comment...I was specifically thinking of Carol Lynn Pearson's book when I made that comment...which I have not read but would not consider "Twaddle".  I believe her position speaks to a lot of active believing woman in the church who suffer greatly at the thought of an eternity sharing their husband with multiple wives...particularly after having had him all to themselves in this life.  Were the church to ever disavow eternal polygamy...it would bring great comfort nd peace to these women.

Thanks,

-Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Were the Levites commanded to practice plural marriage?

They already had polygamy at the time so they would't have needed to be commanded in the first place, but also they already were set up in a tribal configuration with tight ties within families, bringing children up in an extended family culture.  The family cultural structure  that plural marriage may have been intended to create was already present for them.

[Johnnie Cake]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm under no obligation to respond to your badgering with questions I have already answered. (I notice that in badgering me with your questions, you have ignored mine.)

And as I don't live and die by what you think of me, it's of little concern to me whether you retract your unjust accusation.

I've already denied it, and that's where things stand.

Fair enough I merely reconsidered weighing in upon your request that I reengage...I'm fine letting it lay.

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well sure for Hagar.  But, I don't know it is known that it was always a step up. 

We don't know all the individual cases, but feel free to argue with the historians who have come to this conclusion about the general state of women.

[Jeanne]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it still works.  

It seems reasonable, even if JS was not able to use it to produce seed himself, that the prophet who restored it would need to be following the commandment if he expected others to do so.  The 'do what i say and not what i do' line of reasoning rarely works on anyone.  Think of how it would have been for something as hard as polygamy to know that the man who is saying 'God says we need to do this' was also saying 'everyone but me I mean'.  

It's not like JS knew he would never have children with those women, right?  Or are you saying that he never slept with any of them so he should have known his life would not follow the BOM verse on why polygamy is sometimes o.k.?  Maybe i'm misunderstanding you.

I see your point.  These sealings would also mean in the doctrine that he would be able to have families in the eternities.  Bluebell, I have learned on this thread that you have more faith than almost anybody I know!

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh  my  goodness.  These poor women that thought this was coming straight from God? I think that's what you call taking the Lord God's name in vain, to a nth degree.

Or worse...what if Brigham was right?
What if you stood before God one day and he confirmed that principle as correct?

Or are we back to the "I have no evidence but God wouldn't do that" argument?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Or worse...what if Brigham was right?
What if you stood before God one day and he confirmed that principle as correct?

Or are we back to the "I have no evidence but God wouldn't do that" argument?

I guess I have faith that I'm right.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

No.  And, I think that's why many do not believe living plural marriage was a commandment in the early days of the church.  

I get the dismissing it from God because on the belief it is an abomination and Joseph was just making it up.  I don't get thinking 132 may be from God, but that he sees what he is commanding as whoredoms.  If stem is just arguing 132 can't be from God because polygamy is said elsewhere to be adultery, I wish he would say so.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I have faith that I'm right.

So does everyone.  Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, FLDS.
 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

No.  That's my point.  I find this as reason to reject D&C 132.  I also think OT scripture is in many cases suspect. 

So just say that you think Joseph made it up.  It makes it much clearer than how you have been arguing, which has given the appearance is that you saw God commanding concubines to be taken even though by his law it was immoral.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

How do you screw up when you're dealing with an angel with sword?

By being too frightened or worried about offending to not ask for clarification.

[Jeanne]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh  my  goodness.  These poor women that thought this was coming straight from God? I think that's what you call taking the Lord God's name in vain, to a nth degree.

And my fantasy continues..that God meets with Brigham and says..pick one.  i have a real hard time with Brigham Young.  It may have been his style, but his arrogance does not seem fitting for one who is God's mouthpiece.    

[VideoGameJunkie]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

God didn't need it or any other of the numerous things that cause people to reflect on where their loyalties really lie, but it was good imo for the Church and its members to have a longterm stable leadership rather than the high turnover, often conflicted leadership that occurred in the first years.  I think in many ways it speeded up the process as well as encouraged rejection up front from those who might have joined with less commitment (because of confused expectations) than needed to endure many of the hardships that would have occurred even without plural marriage (remember they had to leave at least two places way before plural marriage came into the picture), thus perhaps saving a great deal of both physical and spiritual hardship for those individuals.  For those who stayed, plural marriage offered through its pressure cooker effect a level of opportunities of growth that might not have been available to most people of the time in their lifetime.  

In some ways, the better technology of communication has had a pressurecooker effect on our faith that was lacking in previous years.

God appears to be quite willing to give people plenty of opportunities to make important choices at various times during history.  It seems society coasts for awhile with the status quo and then God throws in something to shake things up...Abraham to reinvigorate the Covenant, Moses to shift the Covenant people back to independence, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lehi to challenge authority thinking, the disperal of the Israelities and then Jews, John the Baptist and Christ of course and then the early turmoil of the LDS Saints.  It seems that if a society stays too long in a certain path, it becomes a rut, so God presents other pathways for those who put spiritual progression as their highest desire even if it means their physical and emotional needs have to take second or third place in attention for awhile.

 I personally think that is the primary purpose of this existence, even more important for most (not all) than getting a body.  Ensuring that the best range of of options of growth is available without intruding on the limits of agency must be a huge balancing act even for someone of infinite knowledge.

If every generation has one of those things at various times in history, do you see anything challenging us as Saints today in 2016 or in the near future? Is ours the handbook policy from November?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

.  What are spiritual offspring in the context of polygamy.  Isn't the Church today Joseph's spiritual offspring in some sense? 

People of the Covenant, both children and adults who have been taught and accepted the Covenant through baptism and temple ordinances.

Yes, we most definitely are Joseph's spiritual offspring in many ways.  Perhaps it would be more precise gor me to say covenantal offspring, those who are tied to each other though the various covenants of sealing.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

By being too frightened or worried about offending to not ask for clarification.

Maybe.  But communication would have a good thing to have for one who is restoring a church and priesthood.

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or worse...what if Brigham was right?
What if you stood before God one day and he confirmed that principle as correct?

Or are we back to the "I have no evidence but God wouldn't do that" argument?

Hmmmm let's see.....what are the odds Brigham was right?   Well if I were a betting man I would not put money on Brigham. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Angel with a sword sounds like an empty threat to me.  What's he going to do slash me with his sword I can't feel.  Bring it on, buster.  Plus, we don't know that Joseph ever shook his hand or offered to.  If he shook his hand and he could feel it, then I'd still wonder why God would send an angel to kill me when all he had to do is get some guy out there who was wanting to kill me anyway.  I don't know,..in short the angel with the sword sounds silly to me.

The angel's threat, imo, was spiritual destruction.  The sword was a sign of authority.

An angel with a sword is very biblical.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And my fantasy continues..that God meets with Brigham and says..pick one.  i have a real hard time with Brigham Young.  It may have been his style, but his arrogance does not seem fitting for one who is God's mouthpiece.    

Well, Brigham Young's legacy is a mixed bag:

One one hand, he was an amazing leader who brought the Saints out to the Great Basin and colonized a big portion of the West.  He led the building up of Utah.  Serious accomplishments.

On the other hand, much of what he taught (or tried to teach) has ended up disavowed.

I guess it's all just more support for the principle taught in Section 124:  "...that I might show forth my wisdom through the weak things of the earth."

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, Brigham Young's legacy is a mixed bag:

One one hand, he was an amazing leader who brought the Saints out to the Great Basin and colonized a big portion of the West.  He led the building up of Utah.  Serious accomplishments.

On the other hand, much of what he taught (or tried to teach) has ended up disavowed.

I guess it's all just more support for the principle taught in Section 124:  "...that I might show forth my wisdom through the weak things of the earth."

Oh.I believe BY was very adept person to build a city and state and the way it is all laid out.  He is an intelligent leader..but he was born with a foot in mouth disease.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

During his 17 year (mortal) marriage to Emma, they had 11 kids.  Roughly one every year and a half.

Joseph married his second wife in 1833.  Over a decade before his death.

 

Fanny Alger did not stay around that long, even if the sealing stayed in place (I don't know), the relationship was lessthan a year iirc.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Whoa...new found respect for -Smac  Didn't expect that from you..As for my "its about to boil over" comment...I was specifically thinking of Carol Lynn Pearson's book when I made that comment...which I have not read but would not consider "Twaddle". 

That's what I'm anticipating.  She apparently does not present any evidence or analysis regarding the provenance of D&C 132 except to say that A) she does not like it, B) she conducted a sham Facebook poll, the results of which are empirically worthless, and C) some other people also dislike it.

She proposes that the LDS Church disavow a revealed doctrine because Carol Lynn Pearson doesn't like it.  That, in my mind, is twaddle ("trivial, feeble, silly, or tedious talk or writing").  It's childish.  It's unreasoned.  It's presumptuous.  It's insolent.  It's utterly incompatible with revealed principles of governance of the Church.

Twaddle. 

Quote

I believe her position speaks to a lot of active believing woman in the church who suffer greatly at the thought of an eternity sharing their husband with multiple wives...particularly after having had him all to themselves in this life. 

There are all sorts of things "wom{e}n in the church who suffer greatly at the thought" can do to address this issue.  Study.  Prayer.  Contemplation.  More study.  Discussion with local leaders.  Attendance at the temple.  More study.  More prayer.  Further discussion with local leaders.  Patience.  Humility.  More prayer.

There are all sorts of ways we can seek - and obtain - further light and knowledge on this issue.  But I don't think we'll get "further light and knowledge" by publicly disparaging the Lord's Church, or his servants, or joining with or otherwise cheering on self-selected critics - or perhaps even worse, dissidents members of the Church - who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, and who attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so.

Quote

Were the church to ever disavow eternal polygamy...it would bring great comfort nd peace to these women.

Is there a risk of bringing distress to other members of the Church?  Members whose ancestors left personal testimonies regarding the divinity of the practice?  Members who would be distressed at the Church capitulating to the coercive efforts of self-selected cranks and critics to compel the Church to disavow revealed doctrines?  Simply because those self-selected few dislike those doctrines?  

But most important: Might members expect the Brethren to seek and discern the will of God on such matters, rather than submit to the likes of Carol Lynn Pearson and her confederates?  (As far as I can tell, Carol Lynn Pearson has exactly nothing to say about the Brethren seeking revelation on this matter.  I am open to correction on that point.  But if that is the case, what does that say about her and her designs?)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2016 by smac97

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

The angel's threat, imo, was spiritual destruction.  The sword was a sign of authority.

An angel with a sword is very biblical.

That's where Joseph got it IMO, he got many things from the KJV.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

During his 17 year (mortal) marriage to Emma, they had 11 kids.  Roughly one every year and a half.

Joseph married his second wife in 1833.  Over a decade before his death.

Joseph married his third wife in 1838.  Six years before his death.

Three more wives in 1841.  He was married more than two years to each of them.

Eleven more wives in 1842.  Married more than a year to each of them.

Is it really your argument that he didn't have enough time to produce seed with any of those women?

All those women who had children after they were sealed to Joseph were bearing Joseph's children, whether he was the biological father or not. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

That's where Joseph got it IMO, he got many things from the KJV.

Quite possible.  Or it could be that God treats his modern prophets in the same way he treats his ancient ones.