ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 1 minute ago, bluebell said: At the very least, the OT seems to support the assertion that God did not ever try to stop His prophets from living polygamy, nor ever even tell them it they shouldn't do it. Neither did being a polygamist mean that a man couldn't also be a true prophet of God. Even if polygamy is completely man-made, that much still seems to be supported by the scriptural record. I agree that the record we have shows that God at least allowed it at times in different cultures. But that's different than being commanded.
JLHPROF Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Oh....this. It sounds great...I am so impressed with BY. Because a man that abuses a wife to get her to leave should be allowed to marry another? 2
JLHPROF Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: I agree that the record we have shows that God at least allowed it at times in different cultures. But that's different than being commanded. While I do believe it was commanded, I have already agreed with you that there is no record of a command in the OT and explained why I believe that to be the case. But I also think scripture clearly shows that God has exactly ZERO issues with people being polygamists unless they are living it wickedly. Edited November 3, 2016 by JLHPROF 2
Jeanne Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Because a man that abuses a wife to get her to leave should be allowed to marry another? My apologies...I didn't see "no right"...I thought it said "the right"...ugh. forgive me. 2
bluebell Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: I agree that the record we have shows that God at least allowed it at times in different cultures. But that's different than being commanded. I agree. Not only did He allow it, but He allowed it without any condemnation or revocation of any blessings or priesthood power or authority. To me, that is the basic definition of God condoning polygamy at certain times. 3
ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: While I do believe it was commanded, I have already agreed with you that there is no record of a command in the OT and explained why I believe that to be the case. But I also think scripture clearly shows that God has exactly ZERO issues with people being polygamists unless they are living it wickedly. Yes, and that's what would need to be determined by each of us regarding how it was lived in the early days of the church (which was different in some ways from any polygamy lived in the Bible when you look at the details). Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson
JLHPROF Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: Yes, and that's what would need to be determined by each of us regarding how it was lived in the early days of the church (which was quite different than any polygamy lived in the Bible when you look at the details). If it were lived identically to how it was lived in the Bible you would still reject it. You believe polygamy to be always wrong. God on the other hand has never declared the practice to be sinful in any way unless lived wickedly. Merely having plural wives is not a sin.
hope_for_things Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So you'd rather think that God gave women to be property than wives? Your hatred of polygamy is that strong that you would rather read a scripture quoting God to mean that? I'm not saying that God said any of it. The authors of the text said it. I personally don't think any of the words are God breathed, I'm not a scriptural literalist. I do think we can find inspiration in scripture, sometimes by recognizing the moral complexities in the narratives, and inspire us to make different choices that resonate with what we find moral and good. Other times the scriptures can prick us to make changes and be better.
ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree. Not only did He allow it, but He allowed it without any condemnation or revocation of any blessings or priesthood power or authority. To me, that is the basic definition of God condoning polygamy at certain times. I believe God allowed it at times, I do not believe He sanctioned it or commanded it. And polyandry? Do you have record of God "condoning" this as well? 1
ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: If it were lived identically to how it was lived in the Bible you would still reject it. Possibly, but I really do not have any issue with people living polygamy who are all consenting adults (and all know about each other ). The marrying of teenagers, the coercion involved, and the deceit that was involved (Joseph marrying other men's wives behind their backs and also marrying girls and women behind Emma's back, etc.) is what I have issues with. Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson 2
hope_for_things Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 41 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm talking about God specifically blessing the polygamist unions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with spiritual blessings. The house of Israel exists because of polygamy. Polygamy is how the blessings promised to the house of Israel spread thru the world. Incest however, was spoken of twice in the OT (I think, i'm definitely not an expert in any form and maybe there are more examples i'm forgetting). Once, it was treated neutrally. The second time (with Reuben and his step mother), Reuben lost his birthright and it was given to Joseph specifically for that reason. The OT evidence supports that God allowed His prophets to practice polygamy with no condemnation. By this logic God also condoned genocide, murder, abuse, etc, in the OT. Actually, this is problematic especially the genocide which the text says that God specifically commanded. We can probably agree that the OT text doesn't command polygamy. I also don't see that the OT is condoning polygamy, I just see it as neutral towards the practice. The assumption you're bringing to this interpretation, is that because God is blessing a prophet and his posterity that God is approving of the practice of polygamy specifically. Or perhaps you assume that prophets have God's approval inherently otherwise that person would have been removed out of his position as a prophet. I just don't agree with these assumptions.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: I believe God allowed it at times, I do not believe He sanctioned it or commanded it. And polyandry? Do you have record of God "condoning" this as well? It's not like i have secret records in my basement that i'm using to support my assertions. My records are the same as your's. The scriptures don't seem to speak to polyandry, other than i believe there are parts of section 132 that people believe support polyandry. I haven't looked into it enough to even remember which part it is.
ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's not like i have secret records in my basement that i'm using to support my assertions. My records are the same as your's. You know which "records" we've been discussing here.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: By this logic God also condoned genocide, murder, abuse, etc, in the OT. Actually, this is problematic especially the genocide which the text says that God specifically commanded. It's true. I don't think the OT on it's own is a good way to find God's doctrine. I'm glad we aren't believers in sola scriptura. There are definitely some parts of the OT that I don't believe truly represent God's will. My logic is that we have other scriptural records than just the BOM to use to try to judge how God views polygamy. 2
bluebell Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: You know which "records" we've been discussing here. I do, which is why i thought the use of 'do you have record' to be kind of weird. We have the same record, right? Edited November 3, 2016 by bluebell
JLHPROF Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Actually, this is problematic especially the genocide which the text says that God specifically commanded. And we're back to the "God wouldn't do that despite the record because we don't like it" argument.
ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: I do, which is why i thought the use of 'do you have record' to be kind of weird. We have the same record, right? Of course, but I don't claim that there is a record of God commanding or condoning polygamy within them as you do. So, I was wondering if you felt they also condoned polyandry anywhere within them.
ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: And we're back to the "God wouldn't do that despite the record because we don't like it" argument. We're really back to not knowing what God commanded or caused to happen vs. whether man (or woman ) did it or caused it and then claimed that it came from God. Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson
bluebell Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: Of course, but I don't claim that there is a record of God commanding or condoning polygamy within them as you do. So, I was wondering if you felt they also condoned polyandry anywhere within them. What's the difference between God allowing something and God condoning something? And no, i don't think we have a record of God condoning polyandry, (unless, as i said earlier, you agree with those who believe section 132 says that). 1
Ouagadougou Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: By George, I think that you have finally got it -- a proper definition of "presentism," even though you are unable to apply it to real history. You allow your deeply held prejudices to captivate you in this instance. You as much as admit that you are a presentist and that polemic, not fairness, is your objective. Real history: - Joseph Smith (age 37) married a 14-year-old - Brigham Young (age 45) married a 16-year-old - Willford Woodruff (age 46) married a 15-year-old - Lorenzo Snow (age 57) married a 15-year-old The average age of marriage was not 14, 15 or 16 when these prophets lived. Nothing prejudice here: seven of Joseph Smith's wives were under the age of 18; and another 11 were married to other men. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Age.htm
thesometimesaint Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 31 minutes ago, ALarson said: Possibly, but I really do not have any issue with people living polygamy who are all consenting adults (and all know about each other ). The marrying of teenagers, the coercion involved, and the deceit that was involved (Joseph marrying other men's wives behind their backs and also marrying girls and women behind Emma's back, etc.) is what I have issues with. 14 years old was the age of consent to marry in the USA at the time. Emma know of at least some of those marriages.
JLHPROF Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Real history: - Joseph Smith (age 37) married a 14-year-old - Brigham Young (age 45) married a 16-year-old - Willford Woodruff (age 46) married a 15-year-old - Lorenzo Snow (age 57) married a 15-year-old The average age of marriage was not 14, 15 or 16 when these prophets lived. Nothing prejudice here: seven of Joseph Smith's wives were under the age of 18; and another 11 were married to other men. Fanny Young (56), Rhoda Richards (58), Elizabeth Durfee (50), Sarah Cleveland (53) and Patty Sessions (47) all married a 37 year old Joseph. What a bunch of cougars! How dare they marry a man who was anywhere from 10-20 years their junior. Why, they would have been in their 30s when he was 14! 1
ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: 14 years old was the age of consent to marry in the USA at the time. Emma know of at least some of those marriages. This is the best you got? It's ok that Emma was only deceived by her husband part of the time? And the deceit involved in polyandry was only part of the time too, so you're ok with that as well? Even if some girls married as young as 14 back in the 1800's, the average age was still around 21 years of age. Also those who did marry as a teen were not marrying men 20 years older than themselves for the most part and men who already had more than 20 wives. . Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson 1
ALarson Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Fanny Young (56), Rhoda Richards (58), Elizabeth Durfee (50), Sarah Cleveland (53) and Patty Sessions (47) all married a 37 year old Joseph. What a bunch of cougars! How dare they marry a man who was anywhere from 10-20 years their junior. Why, they would have been in their 30s when he was 14! Not the same. But you know that. They didn't marry Joseph when he was only 14 years old, did they? They were all adults when the marriages took place. We can debate what is a child vs. an adult. But let's not play ignorant here. Edited November 3, 2016 by ALarson 1
Ouagadougou Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Fanny Young (56), Rhoda Richards (58), Elizabeth Durfee (50), Sarah Cleveland (53) and Patty Sessions (47) all married a 37 year old Joseph. What a bunch of cougars! How dare they marry a man who was anywhere from 10-20 years their junior. Why, they would have been in their 30s when he was 14! So inspiring and ordained of God, right? Mentioning that Joseph was married to older women (cougars) as well does not justify why teenage girls (as young as 14) were married to him. If anything, it reconfirmes how crazy, weird and unnecessary polygamy was, in my opinion.
Recommended Posts