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

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, yes, and yes (if we desire the blessings attached to the law but not at the expense of agency).

Interesting.  I can't accept polygamy or that God is a polygamist personally.  I guess it's something I will never agree with; I don't see anything holy about it  and believe it was/is something that came from men, not God.  That goes against a lot of core LDS doctrine, but that's my own belief.  

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Interesting.  I can't accept polygamy or that God is a polygamist personally.  I guess it's something I will never agree with; I don't see anything holy about it  and believe it was/is something that came from men, not God.  That goes against a lot of core LDS doctrine, but that's my own belief.  

And you are not alone.
There are quite a few people on this board that agree with you and reject D&C 132.  And are still good members of the Church.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/

Not really a reliable source.
But most scholars agree that Mary was 14 when she had Christ.  And that the father of her child (either Joseph or God) was much older.

That argument gets really old on here.  You do not know how old Mary was when she married and even if you did, that has nothing to do with what took place when older men (who already had several or more wives) married young teens (especially when it was done in secret behind their wife's back).  

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That argument gets really old on here. 

Pot.  Kettle.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Pot.  Kettle.

No.  Just stating a fact.  How old Mary was when she married is not relevant to the fact that older, already married men deceived their wives and married young teens.  And your argument is especially weak because you do not even know old Mary was when she married.  My argument is based on facts.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No.  Just stating a fact.  How old Mary was when she married is not relevant to the fact that older, already married men deceived their wives and married young teens.  And your argument is especially weak because you do not even know hold Mary was when she married.  My argument is based on facts.

Not going to go through the steps of this argument again.
Just going to skip to the end.

(We usually get along much better than we have today...probably my fault.  Sorry.)
 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not going to go through the steps of this argument again.
Just going to skip to the end.

(We usually get along much better than we have today...probably my fault.  Sorry.)
 

Yeah...I'm kind of in a mood today too.

Let's just agree to disagree on everything today 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

So you believe polygamy was something Joseph Smith thought up (not from God)? 

I don't think God literally speaks any words. So every scripture or commandment was originally something someone thought up. When you remove the idea that God is speaking directly, suddenly you're free to evaluate these things on their own merits, and so discern what is positive and beneficial from what is harmful.  I believe polygamy is mostly harmful, especially the way it was practiced in the church. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

But none of them were sealed (married by priesthood authority from God) to other men.
There are some historical accounts stating that Joseph didn't recognize civil marriages as binding before God at that time.

Isn't that something like not recognizing the sovereignty of other nations and using that as a pretext for unlawful invasion? 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/

Not really a reliable source.
But most scholars agree that Mary was 14 when she had Christ.  And that the father of her child (either Joseph or God) was much older.

We know practically nothing about the historical mother and father of Jesus. Those are assumptions. In any case, not particularly relevant here. 

[Ouagadougou]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Isn't that something like not recognizing the sovereignty of other nations and using that as a pretext for unlawful invasion? 

"12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

*Unless a prophet has a higher priesthood and convinces other men's wives that they need to be sealed to him in order to receive an even higher glory.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But none of them were sealed (married by priesthood authority from God) to other men.
There are some historical accounts stating that Joseph didn't recognize civil marriages as binding before God at that time.

This thought just occurred to me.  Do you think Joseph might not have considered his original 1820s marriage to Emma as binding because it wasn't performed through priesthood authority.  Could this be a potential theory for why Joseph didn't follow the specific instructions in D&C 132 pertaining to Emma, because he didn't consider his original marriage to her as legitimate. Could this have been part of the rational for the secretive behavior?  Never thought of this before, but I'm wondering if this might partially explain it?  

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

And you are not alone.
There are quite a few people on this board that agree with you and reject D&C 132.  And are still good members of the Church.

That's good to know.  I don't know if I would consider myself "a good member of the church" because there are other doctrine/policies I don't accept and I'm really not very active (I attend once every 1-3 months or so).  Oh, and I do drink tea... 😀

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, 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? 

Because we are not to be commanded in all things

We get to figure it our for ourselves through our own revelation, otherwise we would be robots.

Quote

 

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is aslothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agentsunto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

 29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment withdoubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

 

D&C 58

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This thought just occurred to me.  Do you think Joseph might not have considered his original 1820s marriage to Emma as binding because it wasn't performed through priesthood authority.  Could this be a potential theory for why Joseph didn't follow the specific instructions in D&C 132 pertaining to Emma, because he didn't consider his original marriage to her as legitimate. Could this have been part of the rational for the secretive behavior?  Never thought of this before, but I'm wondering if this might partially explain it?  

But then wouldn't they have all been sinners and fornicators?  I don't see how that rational works.  What about those women who were sealed to Joseph, but still civilly married to other men and they even had children with together?   Were those not considered to be legitimate marriages either and were they living in sin? It becomes so convoluted and twisted to think or believe that polygamy came from God and make any sense out of how it was practiced in the early days of the church.  It seems the rules were just made up as they went along to suit whatever they wanted at that moment. 

.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Ouagadougou]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Because we are not to be commanded in all things

We get to figure it our for ourselves through our own revelation, otherwise we would be robots.

D&C 58

If anything, those poor women who had to practice polygamy were treated like robots (it wasn't their fault), in my opinion.  Those poor women were treated like cattle and told it was required of them to enter into the practice of polygamy.  

Do you think polygamy was/is a "good cause?"    

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Around 1/3 of Joseph Smith's wives were already legally married to other men.  This is a correct principle?  

Oh

I thought you were here with a straightforward question in good faith.  Being sealed is not the same as "being married".  Other men were also sealed to Joseph as adopted "sons" so that they would be in Joseph's spiritual lineage, which they believed would be favorable in the Celestial Kingdom

We no longer believe that.

Since I was not in everyone's bedroom for every night of many people's lives, I do not believe there were any improprieties

Even if there were improprieties however, Joseph was human and got to make mistakes just as anyone else does.  We do not believe in the infallibility of prophets or that they are super human.

There is no reason to worry about what happened nearly 200 years ago- I am too busy trying to live the gospel myself right now to make up imaginary novellas.  It's none of my business.  God gets to judge, not me, for that very reason.   On the other hand, for those who can read minds and actually care what happened in bedrooms 200 years ago, be my guest and make up anything you like.

Life is too short.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If anything, those poor women who had to practice polygamy were treated like robots (it wasn't their fault), in my opinion.  Those poor women were treated like cattle and told it was required of them to enter into the practice of polygamy.  

Do you think polygamy was/is a "good cause?"    

Polygamy as a practice is neither good nor bad.  If it is done with consent, I have no problem with it.   It is not for me to judge.  If it is done under duress it is bad.  Seems pretty simple to me.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But then wouldn't they have all been sinners and fornicators?  I don't see how that rational works.  What about those women who were sealed to Joseph, but still civilly married to other men and even had children with together?   Were those not considered to be legitimate marriages either? It becomes so convoluted and twisted to ever try to think or believe that polygamy came from God. 

It is a total mess, but I'm trying to think this through a little.  If priesthood marriages are the higher law in the eyes of God, then all other marriages can be overridden by a priesthood marriage.  Perhaps Joseph on some level may have believed this.

Maybe Joseph didn't view non-priesthood marriages as illegitimate entirely, but perhaps he viewed them as something like the preparatory priesthood, a lesser form that once replaced with the higher form of marriage, the new and everlasting celestial polygamy, that the old marriage contracts are no longer in force and can be overridden by the higher law.  Just speculating here.  

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Because we are not to be commanded in all things.

Only for things as important as how many earrings the women in the church should wear 

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If anything, those poor women who had to practice polygamy were treated like robots (it wasn't their fault), in my opinion.  Those poor women were treated like cattle and told it was required of them to enter into the practice of polygamy.  

What of those who sought for answers from the Lord and received spiritual confirmation for themselves, including visions.  Do you see them as robots?

Do cattle tell their owner to buy more cattle?  Many of the women would tell their husbands it was time to raise their marriage to a higher standard and some even chose the new wife (happened to one, maybe two families in my ancestry...I may be conflating two reports into one; read of it happening in a number of other families...the wife being the instigator, desiring the blessings promised and anticipated).

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If anything, those poor women who had to practice polygamy were treated like robots (it wasn't their fault), in my opinion.  Those poor women were treated like cattle and told it was required of them to enter into the practice of polygamy.  

Do you think polygamy was/is a "good cause?"    

So are you derailing your own thread?

The OP is about free will vs determinism and why God does not give exact directions.  You have obviously made it about polygamy 

Sounds like you are preaching at this point.  That is an issue for the mods.   It appears to me you have come here with an agenda, and not to ask questions at all.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It is a total mess, but I'm trying to think this through a little.  If priesthood marriages are the higher law in the eyes of God, then all other marriages can be overridden by a priesthood marriage.  Perhaps Joseph on some level may have believed this.

Maybe Joseph didn't view non-priesthood marriages as illegitimate entirely, but perhaps he viewed them as something like the preparatory priesthood, a lesser form that once replaced with the higher form of marriage, the new and everlasting celestial polygamy, that the old marriage contracts are no longer in force and can be overridden by the higher law.  Just speculating here.  

There appears to have been no rush or push by Joseph to have non priesthood marriages replaced as quickly as possible nor did he ever tell those in such marriages they were living in sin and had to repent before they were sealed that I can recall.  The quotes that have been posted in the past (I have skipped some pages today) seem to indicate to me he viewed ordained sealings/marriages as the higher law that supplanted unsealed marriages, but not that such marriages were completely invalid not only in the eternities, but in mortality as well.  More like they were legitimate in the arena where the authority they were performed under existed, outside that authority they were null.  He may have differed from various government officials, etc. on just where their authority began and ended though.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

"12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

*Unless a prophet has a higher priesthood and convinces other men's wives that they need to be sealed to him in order to receive an even higher glory.  

So you already knew the answer to your own question- they were sealed to get a "higher glory" (no longer believed) and yet now you want to read minds and allege that there was sexual relations involved?

Get your story straight at least, next time.  Self contradiction does not lead to credibility- in fact it makes one look like a troll.

Even if one could prove infidelity all it would show is that (NEWSFLASH!) humans sin.  

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It is a total mess, but I'm trying to think this through a little.  If priesthood marriages are the higher law in the eyes of God, then all other marriages can be overridden by a priesthood marriage.  Perhaps Joseph on some level may have believed this.

Maybe Joseph didn't view non-priesthood marriages as illegitimate entirely, but perhaps he viewed them as something like the preparatory priesthood, a lesser form that once replaced with the higher form of marriage, the new and everlasting celestial polygamy, that the old marriage contracts are no longer in force and can be overridden by the higher law.  Just speculating here.  

I think you are right about how Joseph at least justified much of what he did.  It really crumbles when you use any logic and really study how it was practiced (especially the polyandry part).