How can God not give exact instructions on how to obey a commandment?

[Calm]

 

58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

The source you cite has not been updated since 2008, and does not include rational, factual discussions of Mormon polygyny...

It has in the past and likely still does combined and edited quotes from Helen Mar Kimball so that it misrepresented what she said (documented this years ago, thread likely deleted...will do it again sometime if needed).  It had to be intentional (taking stuff from multiple places and times and combining into one).

Edited November 4, 2016 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yes, I see God ordaining marriage between two people who are of the appropriate age and love each other. 

In other words, marriages like those in 20th century America.  Got it. 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

 

I apologize.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your deeply held anti-Mormon prejudice is obvious here since you persist in applying 2016 concepts of marriage age to a period in which those concepts did not apply.  Worse, you falsify real history on that matter.  The graph you used for the era before 1890 is not based on factual data, but is a hostile projection which ignores actual practice and legal status of such marriages.  These standards have changed radically over time, as have many other American cultural practices.  We have had detailed, factual discussions of this entire issue on this board in the recent past, and you would likely profit from consulting those earlier discussions.

The source you cite has not been updated since 2008, and does not include rational, factual discussions of Mormon polygyny, such as the more objective and up to date website,http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ .

Brian C. Hales (with Don Bradley), Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology, 3 vols. (Kofford Books, 2013).

Brian C. Hales and Laura H. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding (Kofford, 2015).

John Dehlin Mormon Stories podcast # 403, “Brian Hales Pt. 2 – 12 Myths Regarding Joseph Smith’s Polygamy,” February 21, 2013, online at http://www.mormonstories.org/brian-hales-12-myths-regarding-joseph-smiths-polygamy/ .  .

The age of some of the early prophets' wives, along with census data is "anti-Mormon prejudice?  I don't see how that is possible...

The http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/14-year-old-wives-teenage-brides/ website states:

"Matrimonies for females who were fourteen years of age were eyebrow-raising but not scandalous in the 1840s."

Just "eyebrow-raising," huh?  

"Sexual relations are documented in several of the plural marriages between Joseph and the older seven plural wives, but there is no documentation supporting that the plural sealings to the two fourteen-year-old wives was consummated."

There is no documentation to support that  he did not consummate these marriages as well, right? And I don't consider Brian Hales as an objective source.  

Isn't a major purpose of marriage, according the the church, to the procreate? 

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” 1

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/strengthening-the-family-multiply-and-replenish-the-earth?lang=eng

So, Joseph Smith just wanted to get sealed to them for the afterlife and that was it?  That directly contradicts the Plan of Salvation and the first commandment God gave to Adam and Eve.    

What about this account?  

“Consequently it was with a shocked surprise that the people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night.... it was felt that she [Emma] certainly must have had some very good reason for her action. By degrees it became whispered about that Joseph's love for his adopted daughter was by no means a paternal affection, and his wife, discovering the fact, at once took measures to place the girl beyond his reach.”

- Ann Eliza Webb Young, see In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, by Todd Compton, p. 34

Why would Emma be so mad over such a relationship that was just a sealing in the afterlife?  Because it was more than that, in my opinion.  

 

[Ouagadougou]

14 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I apologize.

For what?  No worries...I have thick skin and I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers...just stating my opinion.  😀

[cdowis]

11 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

"Matrimonies for females who were fourteen years of age were eyebrow-raising but not scandalous in the 1840s."

Just "eyebrow-raising," huh?  

Can we assume you are unaware that the Queen of England was 13 years old when she bore King Henry VII.

"Sexual relations are documented in several of the plural marriages between Joseph and the older seven plural wives, but there is no documentation supporting that the plural sealings to the two fourteen-year-old wives was consummated."

There is no documentation to support that  he did not consummate these marriages as well, right? And I don't consider Brian Hales as an objective source.  

Isn't a major purpose of marriage, according the the church, to the procreate? 

snip

While I agree with your conclusion, that they were married in a temporal sense,  and this is implied in the article published by the church, I am not impressed by your reasoning.  It was very simply that they had a temporal marriage, by consent of the bride and her father.  Why should I defend the natural affections of a husband to his wife, if I assume that polygamy was a proper relationship.  Nothing to be embarrassed about.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[Ouagadougou]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

Did Emma approve of these marriages?  She should have, according to D&C 132.  

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Did Emma approve of these marriages?  She should have, according to D&C 132.  

It has been suggested that, after a great deal of resistance, she agreed to it in principle,   But her knowledge or consent was not sought in each individual case.  I am guessing that , once approved, he pretty much avoided talking with her about it.   

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Did Emma approve of these marriages?  She should have, according to D&C 132.  

Correct.  She was required to approve of them.
If she refused he was no longer obligated to ask.

Edited November 4, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The age of some of the early prophets' wives, along with census data is "anti-Mormon prejudice?  I don't see how that is possible...

The http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/14-year-old-wives-teenage-brides/ website states:

"Matrimonies for females who were fourteen years of age were eyebrow-raising but not scandalous in the 1840s."

Just "eyebrow-raising," huh?  

"Sexual relations are documented in several of the plural marriages between Joseph and the older seven plural wives, but there is no documentation supporting that the plural sealings to the two fourteen-year-old wives was consummated."

There is no documentation to support that  he did not consummate these marriages as well, right? And I don't consider Brian Hales as an objective source.  

Isn't a major purpose of marriage, according the the church, to the procreate? 

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” 1

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/strengthening-the-family-multiply-and-replenish-the-earth?lang=eng

So, Joseph Smith just wanted to get sealed to them for the afterlife and that was it?  That directly contradicts the Plan of Salvation and the first commandment God gave to Adam and Eve.    

What about this account?  

“Consequently it was with a shocked surprise that the people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night.... it was felt that she [Emma] certainly must have had some very good reason for her action. By degrees it became whispered about that Joseph's love for his adopted daughter was by no means a paternal affection, and his wife, discovering the fact, at once took measures to place the girl beyond his reach.”

- Ann Eliza Webb Young, see In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, by Todd Compton, p. 34

Why would Emma be so mad over such a relationship that was just a sealing in the afterlife?  Because it was more than that, in my opinion.  

Adopting dishonest anti-Mormon propaganda is not the same thing as responsible analysis of real history, and that bespeaks a clearcut polemic purpose in your rant.  You make mere rumor more important than actual evidence, and you depend upon plainly flawed sources in making your case.  Is that really how you want to be understood?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Adopting dishonest anti-Mormon propaganda is not the same thing as responsible analysis of real history, and that bespeaks a clearcut polemic purpose in your rant.  You make mere rumor more important than actual evidence, and you depend upon plainly flawed sources in making your case.  Is that really how you want to be understood?

Yep

His intent seemed off from the beginning.

I really can't stand sneaky anti's who pretend to be one thing and then show themselves later.

And this one does not even have coherent arguments and has no clue about what sealings are, or their purpose 

[Ouagadougou]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Adopting dishonest anti-Mormon propaganda is not the same thing as responsible analysis of real history, and that bespeaks a clearcut polemic purpose in your rant.  You make mere rumor more important than actual evidence, and you depend upon plainly flawed sources in making your case.  Is that really how you want to be understood?

My opinion that older men should not marry teenage girls does not make me anti; my opinion that polygamy is not of God does not make me anti; my opinion that the church's essay on polygamy is confusing does not make me anti.  

[Ouagadougou]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep

His intent seemed off from the beginning.

I really can't stand sneaky anti's who pretend to be one thing and then show themselves later.

And this one does not even have coherent arguments and has no clue about what sealings are, or their purpose 

"Sneaky anti?" That's a pretty broad assumption and judgmental, especially considering I still attend church (although not every week).  Just because my personal opinion on polygamy doesn't fit your or the church's correlated narrative, I am automatically labeled an "anti-Mormon?" It seems to me that many people on this site (and in and out of the church) have similar opinions on this matter as I do.  We can agree to disagree, but I won't caste judgement and/or blindly label somebody (as you have) just because they have a different opinion than my own.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

My opinion that older men should not marry teenage girls does not make me anti; my opinion that polygamy is not of God does not make me anti; my opinion that the church's essay on polygamy is confusing does not make me anti.

Anti = against or opposed to

You may not be anti-Mormon as in "opposed to the Church" but you are anti-Mormon as in "opposed to one of the teachings of the Church".
But then, I think almost everyone is "anti" something about the Church.  Except maybe our good friend Scott. 


 

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Anti = against or opposed to

You may not be anti-Mormon as in "opposed to the Church" but you are anti-Mormon as in "opposed to one of the teachings of the Church".
But then, I think almost everyone is "anti" something about the Church.  Except maybe our good friend Scott. 


 

If polygamy was again instituted today by God in this church, would you...or even Scott..give up a daughter or g-daughter to an older apostle??

[Ouagadougou]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Anti = against or opposed to

You may not be anti-Mormon as in "opposed to the Church" but you are anti-Mormon as in "opposed to one of the teachings of the Church".
But then, I think almost everyone is "anti" something about the Church.  Except maybe our good friend Scott. 


 

I hear you...and I'm not offended...I've got thick skin.  But if you look at some of the comments on this thread, there is plenty of ad hominem in my direction.  Some of it is almost comical 😀

[James Tunney]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Adopting dishonest anti-Mormon propaganda is not the same thing as responsible analysis of real history, and that bespeaks a clearcut polemic purpose in your rant.  You make mere rumor more important than actual evidence, and you depend upon plainly flawed sources in making your case.  Is that really how you want to be understood?

What is the dishonest anti-mormon propaganda that he supposedly adopts?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

What is the dishonest anti-mormon propaganda that he supposedly adopts?

Yeah...I was trying to find that too...????

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

If polygamy was again instituted today by God in this church, would you...or even Scott..give up a daughter or g-daughter to an older apostle??

If you mean, "give up" ==  to sell, transfer ownership, give up the property rights, no, I would not.  It is an insulting question to suppose that we treat our daughters as chattel or property.

But if you mean that she willingly and of her own free will decided to marry an apostle, without undue influence, I would not object that she would join and become part of his eternal family.  I have four daughters, and five g-daughters.

I believe you owe us an apology.

Update:  apology was given (see post below)

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

If polygamy was again instituted today by God in this church, would you...or even Scott..give up a daughter or g-daughter to an older apostle??

Yes - if SHE wanted to join his family AND she was of an age to make that decision wisely (based on maturity, not number).
AND of course, if I felt that was the family God wanted her to join.

So no, not without any considerations.  But I would not say no based on nothing other than age.
Nor would I pressure her  - marriage is a covenant and must be entered into of our own free will and choice.

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, cdowis said:

If you mean, "give up" ==  to sell, transfer ownership, give up the property rights, no, I would not.  It is an insulting question to suppose that we treat our daughters as chattel or property.

But if you mean that she willingly and of her own free will decided to marry an apostle, without undue influence, I would not object that she would join and become part of his eternal family.  I have four daughters, and five g-daughters.

I believe you owe us an apology.

 

Hey...I just asked a question but I apologize for whatever. 

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes - if SHE wanted to join his family AND she was of an age to make that decision wisely (based on maturity, not number).
AND of course, if I felt that was the family God wanted her to join.

So no, not without any considerations.  But I would not say no based on nothing other than age.
Nor would I pressure her  - marriage is a covenant and must be entered into of our own free will and choice.

Thank you for your honest answer.  I apologize if I have offended you in any way. 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for your honest answer.  I apologize if I have offended you in any way.

I am not offended.  I felt some offense on behalf of those faithful young women who lived their faith no matter how hard or how much they sacrificed.
I hate it when people think these young women were mindless cattle, regardless of any "ownership" terminology that was used back then.

[James Tunney]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, it is true that (in the Citizens United case) the U.S. Supreme Court goes along with the legal notion that corporations have the same rights as individual humans, even if it is a logical fallacy to equate the two.  So there is an advantage to personifying institutions, even if they are not actually persons -- at least from the POV of elite CEOs who want to freely influence legislation and elections to the economic advantage of their companies.

It is also true that we refer metaphorically to the church triumphant as the Body of Christ, or the Bride of Christ (who is termed the Bridegroom), but we don't mean that to be taken literally.  Same for Jesus referring to the bread & wine of his last Passover meal as his body and blood.  Those expressions are meant to be taken figuratively, even though Roman Catholic theology has missed the point and had them actually transformed into his body and blood.  Literally.  So, when one refers to the church as the Kingdom of God on Earth, what does that mean?  Especially since the church is an evanescent, temporary institution, which will disappear at the end time.

As for who defines theology, it would be well to bear in mind that the Brethren are not trained in that academic subject and do not actually deal with it.  Academics can derived a formal theology from the Scriptures and from the comments made in general by church leaders, but the LDS Church leaders themselves simply do not write books on theology -- with the exception of B. H. Roberts.  In the case of B. R. McConkie, he specifically termed his deeply flawed book Mormon Doctrine, thus avoiding the professional academic category.  Thus, when the Brethren use such omni-terminology, they do so innocently, not realizing the far-reaching implications of their statements.  Moreover, the general membership of the Church likewise misses the point, but that doesn't really matter since it will not impact their lives and testimonies.

Its unfortunate to say the least that one is supposed to trust and sustain a leadership that apparently doesn't know the true character of God. Is he omnipotent, and omniscient or not? They claim he is but you say its not backed by scripture.  One would think the "special witness" status, whatever that means, would entail knowing who God is. But maybe thats asking too much of the busy leaders.

[Jeanne]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am not offended.  I felt some offense on behalf of those faithful young women who lived their faith no matter how hard or how much they sacrificed.
I hate it when people think these young women were mindless cattle, regardless of any "ownership" terminology that was used back then.

 

That was the point I was trying to make yesterday.  I agree with everything you say here and then some.  I just wonder if those polygamous women had  a chance to feel their importance too.  No one is owned.  Your daughters can't be given away.  Perhaps I should have asked the question a different way.  I agree with you.