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

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.  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.

Then where does polyandry fit in?  If Joseph did consider the civil marriages to be valid, how was it right for him to marry another man's wife?  The polyandry is what I have the most issues with (for both the men and the women involved).  

[mfbukowski]

27 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?"    

I'd say that is pretty insulting to the intellects of women.   Gosh I think women knew about sex even 200 years ago, and the devices men might use unrighteously to seduce women. Clearly these Christian women knew that sex outside of marriage is wrong unless you are alleging forcible rape in every case.  It was common for women in royal courts for example to use sexual favors to get a "higher" social position.  If they did so obviously it was immoral, but that is on them, not on the practice of polygamy or anyone who practiced it righteously

Clearly that was not the case that there was forcible rape in any case I am aware of, and if it was done it sin- well that is what humans do.  Many extolled the blessings and advantages of polygamy.  It's like anything else- we can make any activity sinful or not- it is about agency.

Edited November 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

 

Quote

Teach each your children self-respect. Teach them that their bodies are the creation of the Almighty. What a miraculous, wonderful, and beautiful thing is the human body.

As has been said here tonight, Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, declared: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).

Now comes the craze of tattooing one’s body. I cannot understand why any young man—or young woman, for that matter—would wish to undergo the painful process of disfiguring the skin with various multicolored representations of people, animals, and various symbols. With tattoos, the process is permanent, unless there is another painful and costly undertaking to remove it. Fathers, caution your sons against having their bodies tattooed. They may resist your talk now, but the time will come when they will thank you. A tattoo is graffiti on the temple of the body.

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng&_r=1

If there is seen a growing trend among the youth that leaders see as troubling, is it that surprising they would speak together and decide on what the official standard would be that they would encourage parents to teach and children to follow...but a standard that states "discourage" and not "do not", I am not sure that qualifies as a commandment.  Was it ever put on the temple recommend interview that those with tattoos or more than one earring would not be able to renew their TR?

Edited November 2, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then where does polyandry fit in?  If Joseph did consider the civil marriages to be valid, how was it right for him to marry another man's wife?  The polyandry is what I have the most issues with (for both the men and the women involved).  

The same way that polygyny fit in, imo.  Why is it okay for a man who is civilly married to more than one wife, but not for a woman?

So I came across a quote a bit back that seemed to me to indicate that the husbands were considered as part of those blessed by the wife being sealed to JS, it did not remove the unsealed husband out of the relationship, but rather imo put that relationship in essence in orbit around Joseph Smith as the center of the celestial family on earth with the sealing to the wife as being the equivalent of the gravitational pull that keeps things in orbit around the earth.  I will try and find it.

And of course, in the celestial kingdom of heaven the center of the orbit would be the Father and the Son, much like how the planets revolve around Sol in our system, but the system as a whole revolves around the center of the galaxy so there are the various relationships of planets to moon, moons-planet groupings to Sol (the sun), solar systems to the galaxy as well as all the individual relationships to each other...Joseph wasn't supplanting God in being sealed to all these families, but rather was organizing the families into a way that they could move together into relationship with God.  However, there was a better form of organization that eventually fully replaced plural marriage/law of adoption for that purpose.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng&_r=1

If there is seen a growing trend among the youth that leaders see as troubling, is it that surprising they would speak together and decide on what the official standard would be that they would encourage parents to teach and children to follow...but a standard that states "discourage" and not "do not", I am not sure that qualifies as a commandment.  Was it ever put on the temple recommend interview that those with tattoos or more than one earring would not be able to renew their TR?

Oh I agree.  I was just trying some humor (I know...I'm not that good at it )

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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).

I think that is what we have to deal with.  If you believe in infallible prophets, which I do not, that could be a loss of a testimony, that Joseph was a "fallen prophet"

If you believe that prophets are men with an extraordinary gift but still human subject to sin and error, it is a different story.  As you know, the trend is toward the latter position- and it has always really been that way, even in Joseph's time.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh I agree.  I was just trying some humor (I know...I'm not that good at it )

No problem, I woke up early and am trying to stay up so that I can shift my sleep back from waking up between 12-2 every day.  (my body hasn't figured out yet that there is no more night duty with an overly depressed daughter...though today makes me wonder if it is starting up again, sigh)

Anyway, I am a bit dull in brain and body at the moment.  Not sure if I am going to make it to 10 which is when my body normally wakes up for the day (yes, that is 10 PM...that is why we say I have a sleep disorder) so I can then last until my supposed to be bedtime of 1 AM (which means I can wake up at 9 and feel reasonably refreshed...babbling, first sign of sleep deprivation)

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think that is what we have to deal with.  If you believe in infallible prophets, which I do not, that could be a loss of a testimony, that Joseph was a "fallen prophet"

If you believe that prophets are men with an extraordinary gift but still human subject to sin and error, it is a different story.  As you know, the trend is toward the latter position- and it has always really been that way, even in Joseph's time.

I think Joseph got a glimpse of heaven and tried to repeat what he saw here on earth, but Brigham Young stated it was incomprehensible (the patterns of the celestial sociality if I understand him correctly), so it is not surprising to me that the mortal attempt at imitation/preparation doesn't make sense and likely has some significant error in it.  If the relationships and how they played out together are incomprehensible to mortals, then it isn't polygyny or polyandry or any combination of those as we can fully comprehend those as we have used them often enough in multiple combinations for a long, long time.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you believe that prophets are men with an extraordinary gift but still human subject to sin and error, 

I actually do believe this about Joseph Smith.  Studying him is absolutely fascinating and I believe he was incredibly brilliant, incredibly charismatic and loving and kind.  But, I do believe that polygamy was a huge mistake and I think he knew this towards the end of his life (at least there are some signs this was the case).  

[Traela]

1 hour 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?"    

Have you read any of the non-Mormon accounts of travels to SLC?  I believe it was Sir Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor)  who expected the women to behave pretty much as you describe.  Instead, he saw that they carried themselves like queens.  Susan B. Anthony knew Mormon women, and called them "the freest in the world."

 

[Traela]

1 hour 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?"    

Have you read any of the non-Mormon accounts of travels to SLC?  I believe it was Sir Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor)  who expected the women to behave pretty much as you describe.  Instead, he saw that they carried themselves like queens.  Susan B. Anthony knew Mormon women, and called them "the freest in the world."

 

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I am here with a straightforward question in good faith.  I think I pose a very valid, sincere question that, up to this point, nobody has been able to give me an answer other than justifications and excuses as to why some of the polygamy-related behavior under early church leaders is still somehow inspiring and/or from God.  In my opinion, it is not from God and something we should be ashamed of, especially when you take into consideration the "fruits of polygamy."  What good came from it all?

 

Further, studying history is important, just like the First Vision or other major events that took place almost 200 years ago.  Joseph Smith made mistakes (as we all do) and it's my belief that he used his position of trust and power to manipulate impressionable girls/women (along with their families) into practicing polygamy.    

Edited November 3, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I'd say that is pretty insulting to the intellects of women.   Gosh I think women knew about sex even 200 years ago, and the devices men might use unrighteously to seduce women. Clearly these Christian women knew that sex outside of marriage is wrong unless you are alleging forcible rape in every case.  It was common for women in royal courts for example to use sexual favors to get a "higher" social position.  If they did so obviously it was immoral, but that is on them, not on the practice of polygamy or anyone who practiced it righteously

Clearly that was not the case that there was forcible rape in any case I am aware of, and if it was done it sin- well that is what humans do.  Many extolled the blessings and advantages of polygamy.  It's like anything else- we can make any activity sinful or not- it is about agency.

Polygamy is what is insulting to women.  

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Traela said:

Have you read any of the non-Mormon accounts of travels to SLC?  I believe it was Sir Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor)  who expected the women to behave pretty much as you describe.  Instead, he saw that they carried themselves like queens.  Susan B. Anthony knew Mormon women, and called them "the freest in the world."

 

No, I haven't read it, but I don't think polygamy was something that brought women who practiced it great joy and peace in this life.  

[Traela]

4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I am here with a straightforward question in good faith.  I think I pose a very valid, sincere question that, up to this point, nobody has been able to give me an answer other than justifications and excuses as to why some of the polygamy-related behavior under early church leaders is still somehow inspiring and/or from God.  In my opinion, it is not from God and something we should be ashamed of, especially when you take into consideration the "fruits of polygamy."  What good came from it all?

 

Further, studying history is is important, just like the First Vision or other major events that took place almost 200 years ago.  Joseph Smith made mistakes (as we all do) and it's my belief that he used his position of trust and power to manipulate impressionable girls/women (along with their families) into practicing polygamy.    

What good came from it all?  Many, many strong Mormon descendants.  Strong, independent women who had a much greater pool of men to choose from in a time when there were strong societal and financial pressure for women to get married, even if the only guy offering was total scum.  Women who had more options, period- for example, the wives who went east for medical training, an opportunity they couldn't have had in monogamous marriages.  No desperate women forced into prostitution - the fate for far too many orphaned teenage girls and youngish widows in the West.  More adults to handle the family farm- a definite plus back when married men got called on missions.  When done right, bonds of sisterhood- DH's ancestress, who grew up in a polygamous home, often talked about how fun it was with lots of kids and the sister wives all laughing and working together (at least until the government broke them up).  Even for the ancestors who found polygamy difficult, most of those difficulties came from families being broken up and fathers being on the run and in hiding.   

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I am here with a straightforward question in good faith.  I think I pose a very valid, sincere question that, up to this point, nobody has been able to give me an answer other than justifications and excuses as to why some of the polygamy-related behavior under early church leaders is still somehow inspiring and/or from God.  In my opinion, it is not from God and something we should be ashamed of, especially when you take into consideration the "fruits of polygamy."  What good came from it all?

 

Further, studying history is important, just like the First Vision or other major events that took place almost 200 years ago.  Joseph Smith made mistakes (as we all do) and it's my belief that he used his position of trust and power to manipulate impressionable girls/women (along with their families) into practicing polygamy.    

Are there any answers anyone could give to you that would convince you polygamy was of God?

[Ouagadougou]

Just now, bluebell said:

Are there any answers anyone could give to you that would convince you polygamy was of God?

Haha probably not at this point...I've heard them all but wanted to hear other opinions here.  😀

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

No, I haven't read it, but I don't think polygamy was something that brought women who practiced it great joy and peace in this life.  

Some have stated that it did (does) bring them great joy and peace in this life.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

Haha probably not at this point...I've heard them all but wanted to hear other opinions here.  😀

Then that's why MB has said that you weren't asking the question in good faith or sincerity.  You already have your answer and you asked the question knowing that you already have your answer and there's nothing anyone can say that would change your mind.

It seems like, rather than looking for answers, you wanted a chance to argue or debate your opinion with those who believe differently.  There's nothing wrong with that at all; it's just better to be upfront about it.

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

No, I haven't read it, but I don't think polygamy was something that brought women who practiced it great joy and peace in this life.  

Certainly not all or likely most, but according to her own words my gggreat grandmother felt it brought her a greater experience of love and joy than she had known before.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours 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.  

If you believe that you really need to do more reading on the subject.  

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then that's why MB has said that you weren't asking the question in good faith or sincerity.  You already have your answer and you asked the question knowing that you already have your answer and there's nothing anyone can say that would change your mind.

It seems like, rather than looking for answers, you wanted a chance to argue or debate your opinion with those who believe differently.  There's nothing wrong with that at all; it's just better to be upfront about it.

 

So because I don't believe I will be convinced my question wasn't in good faith?  Questions are only in good faith and sincere if you think your opinion will change?  My main question was to see if anybody else was confused after reading this particular essay.  

[Ouagadougou]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Certainly not all or likely most, but according to her own words my gggreat grandmother felt it brought her a greater experience of love and joy than she had known before.

To each his/her own I guess.  My grandfather was born into a polygamous family in the early 1900's and absolutely despised the entire practice. 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So because I don't believe I will be convinced my question wasn't in good faith?  Questions are only in good faith and sincere if you think your opinion will change?  My main question was to see if anybody else was confused after reading this particular essay.  

Typically, if you ask a question that you already know the answer to, it's not a sincere question (i.e. you're asking for different reasons that to find an answer).

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

Civil and celestial marriage are quite different, based on different principles.  You might want to read up on the history of all aspects of polygyny in the 19th century LDS Church, and figure out what sort of marriages those were.  Were they consummated?  Were any other types of polygynous marriages by Joseph consummated?  Why don't we have any offspring from those marriages by Joseph?  Clearly Joseph was fertile, since, all the while, he was having children by Emma.  Once you understand the likely circumstances, it will then be time to ask whether any particular sort of marriage was a correct principle.