let us reason together

[Gray]

59 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The definition of race has changed over time.

Over time as they were writing the wiki article?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The flaw in your reply is based on ignoring all previous discussions on this board:  You speak as though Jews only practiced polygyny in ancient nomadic times, when in fact they practiced it up until modern times, without qualm in Sephardic tradition.  You ignore the specific regulation of polygyny in God's law (Ex 21:10, Deut 21:15-17, 25:5-10), along with God specifically giving multiple wives to King David (II Sam 12:7, Ps 45:9).

Martin Luther: 

Why is this important?  Because a society in which polygyny is normal (and polygyny has been the most common form of marriage in history), then it does not need to be ordered by an angel with flaming sword.  That would only be necessary in Western society, where polygyny seemed abhorrent to most people (which is why Western Jews outlawed it in modern Israel).  The remainder of the issue turns on whether there is in fact a God, and whether he in fact ordered Joseph to practice polygyny.  That finally is the only real issue.

Can you show me where in Judaism or the Old Testament that plural marriage is required for exaltation?

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you show me where in Judaism or the Old Testament that plural marriage is required for exaltation?

Nowhere.  Because under the Mosaic law exaltation wasn't really an option.
You know, what with the lack of Melchizedek ordinances etc.

Same reason plural marriage is virtually non-existent in the Book of Mormon.  Most of the history operated under the Law of Moses.
Plural Marriage is an eternal law, not a temporal one.
 

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nowhere.  Because under the Mosaic law exaltation wasn't really an option.
You know, what with the lack of Melchizedek ordinances etc.

Same reason plural marriage is virtually non-existent in the Book of Mormon.  Most of the history operated under the Law of Moses.
Plural Marriage is an eternal law, not a temporal one.
 

Can you say mental gymnastics?  Honestly..... let me see.  Moses still held the MP as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at least according to LDS doctrine.  As did BoM prophets.  So what you are saying is while the practice of plural wives was alive and well in ancient Israel it was nothing more than a cultural thing.  So what did Joseph allegedly restore?

And also are you saying nobody qualified for exaltation under the law of Moses?

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you say mental gymnastics?  Honestly..... let me see.

No, it's called applying reason.  Give it a shot.

Quote

Moses still held the MP as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at least according to LDS doctrine.

Yes, and according to LDS doctrine they were all polygamists.  Even the Bible says that except for Isaac.
Only some Book of Mormon prophets held the Melchizedek priesthood.  And we know nothing of any of their families.  Although the Brother of Jared's was big enough to be polygamous.

Quote

 So what you are saying is while the practice of plural wives was alive and well in ancient Israel it was nothing more than a cultural thing.

Temporal might be a better term than cultural.  But yes.  Moses may have been sealed to plural wives under the Melchizedek priesthood, the Children of Israel had no such authority so it would only have been a temporal practice that was part of their culture.  How could the practice of plural marriage among the Children of Israel be anything more than cultural without MP?

Quote

So what did Joseph allegedly restore?

Everything necessary for exaltation.

Quote

And also are you saying nobody qualified for exaltation under the law of Moses?

The Law of Moses did not have any exalting authority, correct.  Doesn't mean none of those people will be exalted.  But it won't be by following a temporal law.
Same rules apply to everyone .
 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Can you show me where in Judaism or the Old Testament that plural marriage is required for exaltation?

Not at all, but that is not the issue we have been discussing.  As usual, when checkmated just change the rules . . .

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I'm going to go by my God-given intuition that it was wrong, before I'm going to go by a mortal man's intuition. ETA: I know this was directed to Calm but feel strongly about this, couldn't help it. 

Tacenda, you have every right not to like something. You invoke God's name in this. I hope that you still believe in God and that He will answer your prayers. Because those people were acting on their God given testimonies of plural marriage. Joseph and at least one other person (Mary Rollins Lightner) testified that they had seen angels.

As an aside, there have been some posters that questioned whether Joseph may have been deceived by an angel of the devil, but they are way behind the curve on this. Mary Rollins Lightner  posed such a question to Joseph.

In her own words:

"I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things. "Well," said I, "don't you think it was an angel of the devil that told you these things?" Said he, "No, it was an angel of God. God Almighty showed me the difference between an angel of light and Satan's angels. The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me. "But," said he, "they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before. I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie; all that he gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me." http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/MLightner.html

I just wanted to clarify a bit on something that you quoted about Mary in an earlier post.

"Initially, Mary did not accept Joseph’s proposal.  She wanted a witness from God.  Mary recalls, “If ever a poor mortal prayed I did”.  By February 1842 Joseph had convinced her it was a correct principle and she, “went forward and was sealed to him."

Mary did not say that Joseph convinced her. In the excerpt above she says, "I was not sealed to him until I had a witness." She also said ""My husband did not belong to the Church. I begged him and pled with him to join but he would not. He said he did not believe in it, though he thought a great deal of Joseph. He sacrificed his property rather than testify against Joseph, Hyrum and George A. Smith. After he said this, I went forward and was sealed to Joseph for eternity."

Glenn

 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not at all, but that is not the issue we have been discussing.  As usual, when checkmated just change the rules . . .

How so?   I repsonded to your ludicrous post where you compared Mormom plural marrriage to Judaic plural marriage which clearly is nonesense.

[maxrep12]

On 9/22/2016 at 9:52 AM, thesometimesaint said:

 14 years old was the age of legal consent to marry clear into the 20th Century in many states in America. 

You forgot to point out the illegal nature of polygamy, and how he broke his own rules, or the rules he said god said he should be following when engaging in spiritual wifery...and on and on.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

I think it's a reasonable standard given the cognitive limitations of kids that age.

http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx

 

Takes me to registration page, nothing informative there.

My position is we need a way to determine what is nurture development and what is biological development.  In many societies in the past kids were making adult decisions or at least living what we would view as adult lives.  Adolescence is a modern concept, I believe.  Why was that seen as workable back then for centuries, but not now?  It could have been the nature of those decisions were very limited for everyone, you did what your father did as work, you got married to who your parents wanted you to or the best available suitor and had kids.  Or it could be with the right training and expectation set, they were ready for those decisions so their community didn't have constant issues from the consequences of immature decisions as we get today with teenage pregnancies, car accidents, binge parties, dropping out of school, etc.

Does the article address that?

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

No, just my observation based on what I know about LDS polygamy as well as FLDS polygamy. Both disastrous, IMO. 

And both very atypical of the culture they are embedded in.  What about polygamy that is mainstream normal or even preferred in a society?

[Calm]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Cain, and his offspring, skin color was turned black so the white skinned colored ones wouldn't intermarry with them.

CFR that was believed by anyone before it caught on to justify slavery.

[maxrep12]

On 9/22/2016 at 0:29 PM, stemelbow said:

I think people like to give Joseph a pass on the age thing with Helen, and lest we forget another of his brides was 14 as well.  It just so happened she was months younger than Helen at the time of the marriage, so she rarely gets mention.  But I don't see many argue that it was pretty ok and normal for 30 something old men to marry 14 year olds while that 30 something year old was married to other women and teenagers.  To say, it was ok for Joseph to marry a young teenager because there were other cases in society where a 14 year old girl got married is jumping off the boat and seems to, in my mind, confirm Dehlin's point which sparked all of this.  It wasn't normal for 14 year olds to get married even if some did.  And it was beyond ok for a 30 something year to marry a 14 year old girl.  And to add to all of that, he was already married to many other women, some of which were married to other men. 

I think the downplaying of it, at every opportunity, is exactly what Dehlin is talking about. 

In my view, this is precisely the dishonest tactical nature that infects the foundations of apologetics.  

[Calm]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I hadn't read through the rest of this thread yet, apparently there were many more young children from Kirtland who Joseph later married.  If it were just one incident you could chalk it up to coincidence.  I haven't read George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy yet so I wasn't as familiar with that material.  It's so sad to see these patterns of behavior.  To me, it sounds like Joseph had a real problem...

Huh?  Of course he would marry young women from families he knew well and who trusted him.  Suggesting it was because he had a chance to groom them is unnecessary.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

. She did have some problems with it for a while because her parents constrained her from attending some youth dances, etc. at an age where she was eager to engage in such social activities. 

I am dumbfounded at times how deeply rooted this false narrative is.  The girl was singing in the Nauvoo Choir and acting in the local theatre group at the same time these dances were going on and her dad was taking her all over the place, for goodness sake.  It was one set of dances starting 6, 7 months after the sealing where her brother was almost barred from going because of the disreputable men who were known to be hanging out there, but he was a smooth talker and conned his dad into letting him go.  It had nothing to do with the sealing, just the "blacklegs".  For all we know Joseph told all his close friends with daughters who were likely to attend the same thing.  She was grateful her reputation had been protected.  Helen saw it as a way for Emma to make money.  Not being aware apparently of how Joseph made it difficult to care for his own children due to giving stuff away to those in need, she looked on Emma as making money her god, iirc.  (Looking back as an adult knowing that Emma had left the Church, which colored her as well as many others in the church's opinion about Emma unfortunately.)

[maxrep12]

On 9/22/2016 at 2:03 PM, Jeanne said:

I am so confused...is this not what we were taught..the birth story.  Then indeed, Jesus was a wonderful and regular man who was also a great philosopher.  Count me dismayed..even as an exmormon...totally dismayed.  Is there nothing I can believe in?  I have already given up Adam and Eve..and so many other things.  What dots am I not connecting that I should have any faith left at all?

 

it's all hobbits and unicorns...you are connecting the dots quite well.

[maxrep12]

On 9/22/2016 at 2:36 PM, JLHPROF said:

The presentism argument is against the age issue.
The hiding was a result of polygamy among a community still very much puritan in its thinking. 

The lying to Emma was for her own good. The angel might have drawn his sword and destroyed her, or God could have salt pillar'd her. She wasn't ready yet.

Bold mine.

[Calm]

Glenn, I am aware that Helen had a testimony of plural marriage, but I can't remember if she ever stated she could testify that God wanted her sealed at 14 to Joseph like her mother, Vilate,  had her own spiritual witness that her husband, was to marry another woman.  In my readings, it comes across more of a trust in her father and an acceptance of his teachings as well as a belief that Joseph was a prophet.  If you have a quote from her specifying a witness she had received in her lifetime that the timing of her sealing was appropriate and her father's desire to offer his "ewe lamb" was inspired, I would love to see it.  I am not claiming it was sinful, I use "mistake" very specifically.  I think it was an error in judgment based on good intentions by all involved wanting to do the right thing by God and for each other, her father wanting for his family to be of the highest eternal exaltationby being part of Joseph's family, Joseph by wanting to do right by his friend and his respected family, Vilate, wanting to do right by God and her husband and daughter eternally, and Helen wanting to show her love and trust in her father and provide the best of all blessings for her family.

One aspect I find quite interesting I don't think I mentioned before, but Vilate, her mother who probably knew Helen better than anyone (maybe even her father because of shared experiences of being female) appears to ha e felt at that time that Helen was mature enough to make the decision for herself.  She did not say 'well, if you think it's best, Heber' or 'you are the inspired one, Joseph', or "I know what is right for Helen", but rather "if Helen is willing, I have nothing more to say".  It appears to be Helen's opinion that mattered most to her in this matter.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/subject-can-bear-investigation-anguish-faith-and-joseph-smiths

Edited September 24, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Huh?  Of course he would marry young women from families he knew well and who trusted him.  Suggesting it was because he had a chance to groom them is unnecessary.

It should also be noted that from 41-42, the average age of the women he married was 32 (16 women, only Fanny Alger and Lucinda Pendleton, possibly married in 38, were married before this group).  Strange for a man who had been allegedly grooming these girls all these years.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Calm

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

It should also be noted that from 41-42, the average age of the women he married was 32 (16 women, only Fanny Alger and Lucinda Pendleton, possibly married in 38, were married before this group).  Strange for a man who had been allegedly grooming these girls all these years.

It would be interesting to see how old the 27 wives were when he married each of them (the ones he had met in Kirtland years before).  I read on this thread that Sarah Ann Whitney was only 17 but don't know about the others.  

I get that he married girls and women who he felt comfortable with, but it can also be viewed as taking advantage of this too or going after those who trusted him.  They were most likely the easiest to convince when it came to Joseph talking them into marrying him. I can see both sides.

Edited September 24, 2016 by JulieM

[Calm]

The Juvenile Instructor has an interesting post given the reason Joseph switched to marrying young, unmarried women a year or two before his death:

http://juvenileinstructor.org/my-father-had-but-one-ewe-lamb-joseph-smith-and-helen-heber-and-vilate-kimball/

"If a central purpose of polygamy was to bring people into Smith’s sacerdotal family,[25] then composite marriage, in which women could also marry multiple men, would work better for that purpose than would polygyny, because it allowed for more people to be connected to each other. The Bennett and Orson Pratt disasters of the summer of 1842 caused a change in the program, which resulted in a switch to younger, single women. Yet Heber C. Kimball still sought to be bound to Smith by having Smith marry his daughter. Polygynous linking was more limited, however, since it was only possible with those who had unmarried daughters and it also led Smith to marry younger wives, very young in the case of Helen Mar Kimball."

Edited September 24, 2016 by Calm