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

[Calm]

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??

It would be most likely their daughter's choice as it was Helen Mar Kimball's.

-----

O (can't remember the rest),

Your problem is not your disagreement.  It is the sources you are choosing to present your disagreement as reasonable.  There are better ones if you wish to be critical.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

  I just wonder if those polygamous women had  a chance to feel their importance too.

Purely from a gospel perspective, I think they understood and felt their importance far better than our sisters in the Church today.

Mother's blessings
Queens and Priestesses
Blessing meetings
Potential Goddesses/Mother Eves (in those days)

Heck, Wyoming and Utah were the first states to allow women to vote.  Congress chose to remove the right for women to vote in Utah as part of their fight against polygamy.
So under polygamy women had more legal rights than they did in the rest of the country.

Brigham Young taught that women could choose their husbands and would grant them divorce but taught that men had no right to a divorce.  Utah had some of the most liberal divorce laws for women in the country.

They knew what they were working towards and sacrificing for.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would be most likely their daughter's choice as it was Helen Mar Kimball's.

Absolutely.
Placing someone under a covenant outside of their own free will and choice would nullify the covenant to my thinking.

D&C 121:36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

That is why the will and choice qualifier is used all throughout the temple.  Covenants without it would be meaningless.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours 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.  

I made no such claims.  I spoke to your deliberate ignorance of good historiography, of your careless rumormongering, and to your clearly anti-Mormon diatribe.  An honest man would never engage in that type of behavior.  I have no problem with your opinion of the proper ages of marriage for either gender, nor that you don't believe that Polygyny is of God, etc.  Lots of people share those modern views, and many others held such views in the past.  However, that does not require anyone to bear false witness about historical events in order to maliciously tar and feather someone or some group.  I don't do that to other religions or ideological groups, and I expect them to practice the same restraint.

Modern Mormons do not marry young at all, and do not practice polygyny.  Could it be that there have been some cultural changes in American society over the last 150 years?  Could it be that Mormons have been a part of that cultural change?  Would be very odd if they had not.  Meantime, you might want to consult some facts about the past:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/ .

Nicholas L. Syrett, American Child Bride: A History of Minors and Marriage in the United States (Univ of North Carolina Press, 2016), online at https://books.google.com/books?id=T4gwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=american+child+bride+syrett&source=bl&ots=KywbtEr-pY&sig=n4FnPAorGR--KI_CHNuaHEKfySw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTtLuCyZDQAhUrxFQKHa2mCoUQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=american child bride syrett&f=false .

Edited November 5, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Ouagadougou]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I made no such claims.  I spoke to your deliberate ignorance of good historiography, of your careless rumormongering, and to your clearly anti-Mormon diatribe.  An honest man would never engage in that type of behavior.  I have no problem with your opinion of the proper ages of marriage for either gender, nor that you don't believe that Polygyny is of God, etc.  Lots of people share those modern views, and many others held such views in the past.  However, that does not require anyone to bear false witness about historical events in order to maliciously tar and feather someone or some group.  I don't to that to other religions or ideological groups, and I expect them to practice the same restraint.

Modern Mormons do not marry young at all, and do not practice polygyny.  Could it be that there have been some cultural changes in American society over the last 150 years?  Could it be that Mormons have been a part of that cultural change?  Would be very odd if they had not.  Meantime, you might want to consult some facts about the past:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/ .

Nicholas L. Syrett, American Child Bride: A History of Minors and Marriage in the United States (Univ of North Carolina Press, 2016), online at https://books.google.com/books?id=T4gwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=american+child+bride+syrett&source=bl&ots=KywbtEr-pY&sig=n4FnPAorGR--KI_CHNuaHEKfySw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTtLuCyZDQAhUrxFQKHa2mCoUQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=american child bride syrett&f=false .

And yet another ad hominem.  So now I'm not an "honest man" who is trying to "tar and feather a group?"  Although we have different opinions, I try to take the higher road and not accuse and attack people personally like you have.  The FLDS would never be in existence today if it were not for the DOCTRINE of polygamy taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  After all, they are just trying to fulfill the Celestial Order of Marriage (in a crazy manner).  Mormons still practice spiritual polygamy.    

[Kenngo1969]

I have to say, in some respects, I like your take on living the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  A teaspoon of this, a cup of that, a tablespoon of something else, and three cups of still something else, bake at 375° for 45 minutes, and, Voila!  The perfect recipe for exaltation!  But that ain't the way this messy thing we call mortal life works. Why wouldn't God tell us exactly how to do something?

• God values moral agency.
• We're in mortality to learn "by our own experience the good from the evil."
• "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:26).
• To allow for adaptation as necessary according to individual circumstances.
• "[T]he power is in [us], wherein [we] are agents unto [our]selves" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:28).
• We're not automatons who simply respond to our programming.

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/3/2016 at 9:03 AM, Ouagadougou said:

The Boof of Mormon also contradicts polygamy:  

Jacob 2:

"27 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.

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

Jacob is here depending on a rule enunciated by Father Lehi.  Until then, the rule had been that polygyny was always permitted and regulated within Judaism, and this continued to be the case within Judaism for another two millennia.  For the Lehites, however, a special rule was implemented forbidding polygyny,  The reason why this needed to be mentioned by Jacob was because polygyny was being practiced, as has been normal in most societies throughout ancient history.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And yet another ad hominem.  So now I'm not an "honest man" who is trying to "tar and feather a group?"  Although we have different opinions, I try to take the higher road and not accuse and attack people personally like you have.  The FLDS would never be in existence today if it were not for the DOCTRINE of polygamy taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  After all, they are just trying to fulfill the Celestial Order of Marriage (in a crazy manner).  Mormons still practice spiritual polygamy.    

Once again, instead of responding to my substantive remarks you take the low road of anti-Mormon diatribe, while at the same time telling us what a nice guy you are.  You might try the route of serious discussion, if you are at all sincere.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

 The FLDS would never be in existence today if it were not for the DOCTRINE of polygamy taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  After all, they are just trying to fulfill the Celestial Order of Marriage (in a crazy manner).

That's like saying the Westboro Baptists wouldn't exist without Christ.

[Ouagadougou]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's like saying the Westboro Baptists wouldn't exist without Christ.

Where in the Bible did Christ suggest people should practice hate like the Westboro Baptist Church?  The FLDS are still following polygamy (their own version) as taught by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith.  There are numerous sources that show how early church leaders taught polygamy. The Westboro Baptist Church has no relevance in this thread.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Where in the Bible did Christ suggest people should practice hate like the Westboro Baptist Church?  The FLDS are still following polygamy (their own version) as taught by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith.  There are numerous sources that show how early church leaders taught polygamy. The Westboro Baptist Church has no relevance in this thread.  

Maybe JLHPROF thought that you were playing the blame game.  Instead of dealing with substantive issues.

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Where in the Bible did Christ suggest people should practice hate like the Westboro Baptist Church?  The FLDS are still following polygamy (their own version) as taught by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith.  There are numerous sources that show how early church leaders taught polygamy. The Westboro Baptist Church has no relevance in this thread.  

Not at all.

Saying the FLDS are still following the polygamy taught by Joseph and Brigham is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church is following the teachings of Christ.
Neither are true.   Both follow corrupted twisted versions.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not at all.

Saying the FLDS are still following the polygamy taught by Joseph and Brigham is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church is following the teachings of Christ.
Neither are true.   Both follow corrupted twisted versions.

So whose polygamy are the FLDS following?  Did they originate from a different religion?  Are they not a break-off from the LDS Church?  If an organization "breaks away" from its parent organization (like the FLDS), then they would never be in existence today if it weren't for the DOCTRINE of polygamy taught and practiced by early LDS prophets and leaders; it's a consequence of polygamy.  A random comparison between Christ to the Westboro Baptist Church has nothing to do with polygamy and some of the similarities between the FLDS and LDS.  

The FLDS are still trying to fulfill the Celestial Order of Marriage as Brigham Young and Joseph Smith both taught.  Some of the fundamentalists feel they are, in fact, true Mormons because they follow what both of these prophets taught and practiced themselves.  The FLDS also believes the following:

- Joseph Smith
- Brigham Young
- Book of Mormon
- Prophets 
- Temples
- Priesthood
- Pearl of Great Price
- Restoration 
- Parts of D&C 
- Plus they have taken polygamy to a whole new level of crazy level 

If we like it or not, the FLDS is a consequence of early Mormon doctrine (polygamy), as taught and practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  If Joesph Smith and Brigham Young came back today, they would probably ask why the saints (LDS) are not practicing polygamy now.  I'm not embracing the FLDS or saying they are Mormons today; rather, I'm pointing out that they are a consequence of polygamy and early Mormon doctrine.  

And the LDS church still embraces spiritual polygamy today...so it is still doctrine I guess.  

Edited November 5, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Calm]

There are many versions of plural marriage break offs from the Church.  The current FLDS approach varies significantly from many other of these groups and thus is a result of the modern leaders' ideas, instructions, and examples; not the original teachings.  

One likely would find a closer connection for cause and consequence to the government's interference with religious practice with the FLDS as the practice of plural marriage was becoming a less common occurrence in the LDS community and likely would have become limited to few families, who would be very visible in the open community, reducing chances for abuse as well as raising the ages of the women involved (lower ages is a result of a closed community with less of a pool to draw participants from).

Edited November 5, 2016 by Calm

[Raingirl]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I have to say, in some respects, I like your take on living the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  A teaspoon of this, a cup of that, a tablespoon of something else, and three cups of still something else, bake at 375° for 45 minutes, and, Voila!  The perfect recipe for exaltation!  But that ain't the way this messy thing we call mortal life works. Why wouldn't God tell us exactly how to do something?

• God values moral agency.
• We're in mortality to learn "by our own experience the good from the evil."
• "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:26).
• To allow for adaptation as necessary according to individual circumstances.
• "[T]he power is in [us], wherein [we] are agents unto [our]selves" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:28).
• We're not automatons who simply respond to our programming.

 

I find the OP's whining about "exact instructions" to be dishonest and hypocritical.   It is clear from the threads the OP has created, that they would have no intention of following instructions on anything, exact or otherwise, because they feel they are superior to everyone, and that they 'know better' than everyone, including church leaders and God himself. I don't see any good faith effort by the OP in either thread to have a genuine, respectful discussion, but rather just feeble attempts to flaunt their self-perceived superiority and attack the church, the teachings and the members.

[ERayR]

On 11/2/2016 at 0:38 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Hello everyone! 

I recently read the church’s “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” essay in the link below and was astonished by the following statement: 

"Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

How can God “not give exact instructions on how to obey” a commandment, especially one that was supposedly as important as polygamy (The Celestial Order of Marriage)?  Are we to believe that God can send an angel with a flaming sword to command Joseph Smith to practice polygamy – but in turn – he (God) doesn’t really give clear instructions on how this purportedly extremely critical commandment should be practiced?  I’m sure the church essays have been carefully reviewed by the top leadership in the church, so I would be hesitant to say that this statement is just an oversight on their part.    

In retrospect, the struggles, problems, and overall turmoil associated with the adoption of polygamy are ultimately God’s blunder?  This statement in this essay goes against everything I was taught and understand about God being omnipotent and omniscient. 

Further, are we to believe that over 150 years ago God couldn’t give exact instructions on how to obey an extremely important commandment – but today – he can give us exact instructions on the following?

• Age we should start dating (16)

• How many earrings we should have

• What drinks we can and cannot consume

• What type of clothing is appropriate

• Recommended movies we should watch

• And the list goes on and on

Or, is it just presentism—and we don’t understand how commandments were given by God at that time?  Did God not give clear commandments over 150 years ago just to test the saints’ faith? 

In my opinion, why not just come clean and admit that polygamy was a fiasco and mistake (instead of blaming it on God)?  Ultimately, isn’t Joseph Smith to blame if he was the prophet at the time polygamy was first adopted?  I personally can’t accept this statement that God somehow “did not give exact instructions on how to obey this commandment.” 

Am I the only one who read this essay and was left absolutely bewildered? 

 

 

 

 

He that must be commanded in all things is a slothful and an unwise servant.   That was Satan's plan.

[Ouagadougou]

23 minutes ago, ERayR said:

He that must be commanded in all things is a slothful and an unwise servant.   That was Satan's plan.

And what about the 10th Commandment?

"17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

It seems that Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives (11 different women) was violating this commandment.  Or, do you believe that God allowed it because of the simple fact that Joseph Smith had a higher priesthood and, therefore, ensured these women were able to obtain the highest level of exaltation?  Some of these women's husbands he married, by the way, were members of the church.  

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And what about the 10th Commandment?

"17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

It seems that Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives (11 different women) was violating this commandment.  Or, do you believe that God allowed it because of the simple fact that Joseph Smith had a higher priesthood and, therefore, ensured these women were able to obtain the highest level of exaltation?  Some of these women's husbands he married, by the way, were members of the church.  

Given to Moses who was a polygamist.

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Given to Moses who was a polygamist.

And Moses married other men's wives?  

[thesometimesaint]

It is part of the law of Moses.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And what about the 10th Commandment?

"17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

It seems that Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives (11 different women) was violating this commandment. 

This is assuming the sealings were because Joseph coveted their wives.  It is possible, but there are other explanations (why was he only being sealed to married women for a year or two when he began sealing less hesitantly?  If it was solely desire for the woman, then why weren't single women mixed in at that time?)

Edited November 5, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And what about the 10th Commandment?

"17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

It seems that Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives (11 different women) was violating this commandment.  Or, do you believe that God allowed it because of the simple fact that Joseph Smith had a higher priesthood and, therefore, ensured these women were able to obtain the highest level of exaltation?  Some of these women's husbands he married, by the way, were members of the church.  

Am curious as to how this works into your OP or are you intentionally taking the thread off topic? (Your thread, your choice)

[Ouagadougou]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Am curious as to how this works into your OP or are you intentionally taking the thread off topic? (Your thread, your choice)

The thread is about polygamy in Kirkland and Nauvoo, so this is relevant.  It's part of the church's essay as well.  

[Ouagadougou]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is assuming the sealings were because Joseph coveted their wives.  It is possible, but there are other explanations (why was he only being sealed to married women for a year or two when he began sealing less hesitantly?  If it was solely desire for the woman, then why weren't single women mixed in at that time?)

It it is possible, but I don't know if there is an exact number of wives Joesph Smith was sealed to --I've read/heard different numbers.  If Orson Hyde was already an apostle of the church, then why was it required of Joseph Smith to, in turn, marry Hyde's wife, Marinda Johnson Hyde?  Was Hyde's position as an apostle not sufficient enough with God to ensure she received the highest level of exaltation?  Only the prophet, Joseph Smith, could ensure this?  I just can't accept or believe that is from God in my opinion.   

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I find the OP's whining about "exact instructions" to be dishonest and hypocritical.   It is clear from the threads the OP has created, that they would have no intention of following instructions on anything, exact or otherwise, because they feel they are superior to everyone, and that they 'know better' than everyone, including church leaders and God himself. I don't see any good faith effort by the OP in either thread to have a genuine, respectful discussion, but rather just feeble attempts to flaunt their self-perceived superiority and attack the church, the teachings and the members.

And yet another personal attack just because I have a different opinion on certain subject(s). Dishonest and and hypocritical?  How is my personal opinion on this matter dishonest?  And accusing me of being "superior" to others?  I am a member of the church by the way, although I don't accept certain doctrine and drink tea.  Your post just reconfirms how judgmental the LDS community can be, in general, especially if somebody does or doesn't have a certain belief, doesn't accept a certain narrative, or doesn't fit a certain mold.