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

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

We do have the Book of Mormon which explains it.  Apparently the Brass Plates have the details.

I was speaking about the OT genocide commandment specifically, but generally, I stand by my statement as well.  You're assuming the brass plates contained original records using modern historical standards for recording history?  Scholars start dating the earliest writings in the OT to the 8th century BCE.   The BoM doesn't even claim that these writings are originals, and we all know about the Isaiah problems with dating and the BoM.  Not sure how your argument really stacks up.  

[Jeanne]

Uhg!  I wish I could sit down today and talk to pioneer women...in fact talk to those given to David or whatever...what the heck!  Who has the right to give anyone to anyone?  Why didn't more than a few just say I am not yours to be taken...nor yours to be given.  I admire these women in what they went through...but darn..I don't think they had to...where is the backbone of these wonderful individuals???  I wish they had all said NO!!!!! (Yes, this gets my ire up and not understanding the will of God..against the will of the women)

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The latter.  While women were often presented as property and treated that way, at other times they were not...for example, how can a person be "one flesh" with property?  The concept of giving in this case may be more custodial (as in caregiver) than transfer of property.

Your reading of "one flesh" sounds very charitable to me, but I would like to hope that was the case.  Lately I've been somewhat saddened by our present culture's treatment of women (pop culture, politics, etc).  I should try to look on the bright side, there are some good examples in the bible to point to, got to find those diamonds in the rough! 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Uhg!  I wish I could sit down today and talk to pioneer women...in fact talk to those given to David or whatever...what the heck!  Who has the right to give anyone to anyone?  Why didn't more than a few just say I am not yours to be taken...nor yours to be given.  I admire these women in what they went through...but darn..I don't think they had to...where is the backbone of these wonderful individuals???  I wish they had all said NO!!!!! (Yes, this gets my ire up and not understanding the will of God..against the will of the women)

Pioneer women and the women in David's age had to deal with two different situations.  Most women in David's age had no ability to say 'no'.  They were basically viewed as the property of their father or their husband and there was no way to get out of that.  

Pioneer women were not 'given' to their husbands without their consent.  Just because they didn't see things the same way you see them doesn't mean they didn't have a backbone.  What you think about their decisions is really irrelevant, just like what they think about your decisions is.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Uhg!  I wish I could sit down today and talk to pioneer women...in fact talk to those given to David or whatever...what the heck!  Who has the right to give anyone to anyone?  Why didn't more than a few just say I am not yours to be taken...nor yours to be given.  I admire these women in what they went through...but darn..I don't think they had to...where is the backbone of these wonderful individuals???  I wish they had all said NO!!!!! (Yes, this gets my ire up and not understanding the will of God..against the will of the women)

Thank you Jeanne, I love to hear your words of passion about this issue.  So cool!  I think this is a big problem in society and Mormonism today as well.  Women are frequently not treated as equal on so many levels.  I find it sad when I see women defending the status quo for being treated disparately.  I don't understand all the psychology that goes into defending patriarchal structures, this baffles me.  I want to be more of an advocate for women today, as this was an area I feel like I handled very poorly (my attitudes towards the role of women in the past) and I feel a need to make some recompense.  

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Uhg!  I wish I could sit down today and talk to pioneer women...in fact talk to those given to David or whatever...what the heck!  Who has the right to give anyone to anyone?  Why didn't more than a few just say I am not yours to be taken...nor yours to be given.  I admire these women in what they went through...but darn..I don't think they had to...where is the backbone of these wonderful individuals???  I wish they had all said NO!!!!! (Yes, this gets my ire up and not understanding the will of God..against the will of the women)

Can't speak about the OT women.
But as for the pioneer women - this is a complete mischaracterization.  First of all "given" - who has the right to give them?  They do.

In Mormonism the woman is asked if she gives herself to him of her own free will and choice.  There are many protestant traditions where the Father of the Bride still has to "give her" away.  In Mormonism her marriage is a function of her agency.

As for their "backbone" - just read some diaries.  They have more backbone than most women today seem to.  They were willing to sacrifice, fight for their beliefs, and give their all to their God, even to their lives.  That takes far more courage.
I find the statement " I wish they had all said NO" an insult to this strong, courageous, often independent women.
 

[Jeanne]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Can't speak about the OT women.
But as for the pioneer women - this is a complete mischaracterization.  First of all "given" - who has the right to give them?  They do.

In Mormonism the woman is asked if she gives herself to him of her own free will and choice.  There are many protestant traditions where the Father of the Bride still has to "give her" away.  In Mormonism her marriage is a function of her agency.

As for their "backbone" - just read some diaries.  They have more backbone than most women today seem to.  They were willing to sacrifice, fight for their beliefs, and give their all to their God, even to their lives.  That takes far more courage.
I find the statement " I wish they had all said NO" an insult to this strong, courageous, often independent women.
 

I love them for who they are...my anger stems from the question of whether to be given in free will or not...should never have been asked.  They are not cattle or a piece of jewelry to be owned.  It is what it makes them look like...and they are worth so much more!  The children who gave up the chance of being a young adult and in love..you know what I am talking about.  I mean no shaming on these women here..I want to know more about them!!  I have read some diaries...they did the very best under sometimes very trying conditions.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I love them for who they are...my anger stems from the question of whether to be given in free will or not...should never have been asked.  They are not cattle or a piece of jewelry to be owned.  It is what it makes them look like...and they are worth so much more!  The children who gave up the chance of being a young adult and in love..you know what I am talking about.  I mean no shaming on these women here..I want to know more about them!!  I have read some diaries...they did the very best under sometimes very trying conditions.

Oh for pete's sake...we are ALL property.

Just read the scriptures.
And we all have our agency as to whether we give ourselves to someone or not.

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thank you Jeanne, I love to hear your words of passion about this issue.  So cool!  I think this is a big problem in society and Mormonism today as well.  Women are frequently not treated as equal on so many levels.  I find it sad when I see women defending the status quo for being treated disparately.  I don't understand all the psychology that goes into defending patriarchal structures, this baffles me.  I want to be more of an advocate for women today, as this was an area I feel like I handled very poorly (my attitudes towards the role of women in the past) and I feel a need to make some recompense.  

Quote

 

Thank you for trying to understand what I was trying to say.  In their day and time..this was probably an impossible thing to actually say....NO!  In my heart I just want to love and shake them at the same time...this is because I don't believe that God wanted this.  That young women should have a small life first before marriage..even back then.  To fall in love and have a family with ONE man.

[Ouagadougou]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

That is a huge mass of humanity you are condemning given the history of marriage.  It seems strange to me to look at the world as only approaching doing marriage right in the last 100 years or so and the previous 5,500 years or so of history where we sort of know how marriage was done in many communities were so culturally off.

Do you see God as ordaining any type of marriage btw?

Yes, I see God ordaining marriage between two people who are of the appropriate age and love each other.  For those who support polygamy (regardless of time) do you agree with the fact that the FLDS still practices a form of polygamy today?  Because in my opinion, you can't defend polygamy the early saints practiced and then say the FLDS is entirely wrong (granted they take polygamy to an extremely crazy/weird level).  Or, was the revelation to end polygamy just a point in time in which God changed his mind?  I'm sure you have heard this before:  Edited:  Review the board guidelines. Do not compare Joseph Smith to Warren Jeffs, (if one believed both were/are prophets.). Technically, the LDS church still practices spiritual polygamy today, but it's a principle I can't accept or believe is from God.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Robert, I agree with your views that God is not omniscient and omnipotent, etc.  The leaders who make up the "church" aren't quite there yet but they are probably only speaking as men, right?  By the way, who defines LDS theology if not the apostles and members of the first presidency?  So, can't we say that lds theology, according to church leaders, posits that God is omnipotent and omniscient?  If not, then who defines what lds theology is?

As for personifying the church, that from D&C 1:30 where it says that the church is living - equating the church to the living God.  It also comes from the apologetic to explain how leaders can make mistakes but somehow the church escapes any taint from the mistakes made because the church is equivalent to the living God and God doesn't make mistakes.  He also never needs to apologize so the church doesn't apologize like Oaks inferred here:  http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

Incidentally, Oaks personifies the church too by saying that it has the capacity to apologize.  Aren't corporations people too as Romney 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.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Ouagadougou said:

 For those who support polygamy (regardless of time) do you agree with the fact that the FLDS still practices a form of polygamy today?  Because in my opinion, you can't defend polygamy the early saints practiced and then say the FLDS is entirely wrong (granted they take polygamy to an extremely crazy/weird level).  Or, was the revelation to end polygamy just a point in time in which God changed his mind?

I support the practice when lived righteously.
The FLDS do not live it righteously.  Force marriages, forced divorces (reassignments), and all kinds of abuse.
The only issue I have with some of the other fundamentalists is that they have no priesthood authority to legitimize the practice.

Quote

 I'm sure you have heard this before:  The only thing separating Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith is about 150 years, (if one believed both were/are prophets.). 

Disgusting and inaccurate.
 

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I certainly believe that physical, mental, and spiritual maturity should be a consideration.  I do think there should be minimal ages for marriage based on those considerations.

But I just don't think numerical years matter as much as those conditions, especially age differences.  If Joseph was 20 when he married a 15 year old nobody would care.  If he was 18 nobody would care.  The fact that he and other prophets were "older" means nothing.
 

I have a different opinion.  Some of the young teenage girls Joseph Smith married (still not adults) were young and impressionable and told that marriage would get them the highest degree of the Celestially Kingdom.  

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I have a different opinion.  Some of the young teenage girls Joseph Smith married (still not adults) were young and impressionable and told that marriage would get them the highest degree of the Celestially Kingdom.  

And that was true.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

However, if we just look at the ages of the participants, the range is within the community's norm for Joseph (if he were multiple men, it is not an anomalous percentage of young women marrying older men).  The average age of Joseph's wives was not 14, 15, or 16.  The one problem is that it was done within the co text of polygyny/polyandry.  Those two issues is all that needs to be focused on IMO (and more than enough IMO for those who wish to reject).

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Age_of_wives

(see the charts on age differences)

"To my knowledge, the issue of age disparity was not a charge raised by critics in Joseph's day. It is difficult to prove a negative, but the absence of much comment on this point is probably best explained by the fact that plural marriage was scandalous, but marriages with teenage women were, if not the norm, at least not uncommon enough to occasion comment. For example, to disguise the practice of plural marriage, Joseph had eighteen-year-old Sarah Whitney pretend to marry Joseph Kingsbury, who was days away from thirty-one. [19] If this age gap would have occasioned comment, Joseph Smith would not have used Kingsbury as a decoy.

One hundred and eighty Nauvoo-era civil marriages have husbands and wives with known ages and marriage dates. [20] Chart 12 2 demonstrates that these marriages follow the general pattern of wives being younger than husbands.

Chart 12-2

When the age of husband is plotted against the age of each wife, it becomes clear that almost all brides younger than twenty married men between five and twenty years older (see Chart 12-3).

Chart 12-3

This same pattern appears in 879 marriages from the 1850 U.S. Census (see Chart 12 4). Non-Mormon age differences easily exceeded Joseph's except for age fourteen. We should not make too much of this, since the sample size is very small (one or two cases for Joseph; three for the census) and dynastic motives likely played a large role in Joseph's choice, as discussed above.

Chart 12-4 

In short, Mormon civil marriage patterns likely mimicked those of their gentile neighbors. Neither Mormons or their critics would have found broad age differences to be an impediment to conjugal marriage. In fact, the age difference between wives and their husbands was greatest in the teen years, and decreased steadily until around Joseph's age, between 30–40 years, when the spread between spouses' ages was narrowest (note the bright pink bars in Chart 12-5)."

Yes, these weren't the average ages, but nearly 1/3 of Joseph Smith's wives were still underage.  It still doesn't take away or diminish the fact that early leaders had young, teenage wives, when the average age of marriage at that time was higher than 18 (around 20 years I think was the average). 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Pioneer women and the women in David's age had to deal with two different situations.  Most women in David's age had no ability to say 'no'.  They were basically viewed as the property of their father or their husband and there was no way to get out of that.  

Pioneer women were not 'given' to their husbands without their consent.  Just because they didn't see things the same way you see them doesn't mean they didn't have a backbone.  What you think about their decisions is really irrelevant, just like what they think about your decisions is.

I am understanding what you are saying.  What I meant about backbone did not come out right.  I just wish...for all their agency..that they did not have to decide one way or the other.  We can say they had a choice..but for some..it was not a choice.  Their families were being tied to a said celestial family with the Prophet Joseph...and who is going to say No to an angel with a flaming sword.  I want to know them.

[Ouagadougou]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I support the practice when lived righteously.
The FLDS do not live it righteously.  Force marriages, forced divorces (reassignments), and all kinds of abuse.
The only issue I have with some of the other fundamentalists is that they have no priesthood authority to legitimize the practice.

Disgusting and inaccurate.
 

I said the FLDS take it to a different level, but I don't see how one can call Joseph Smith's or other early polygamy "holy" and "ordained of God," and then claim that Warren Jeffs is simply disgusting; there are many parallels and similarities between the two.  If Joseph Smith or Brigham Young came back today, I think they would ask why the LDS church is not practicing polygamy - it was very important to them.  

[bluebell]

22 hours 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.  

I agree it would be awesome to allow them to speak for themselves.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

I said the FLDS take it to a different level, but I don't see how one can call Joseph Smith's or other early polygamy "holy" and "ordained of God," and then claim that Warren Jeffs is simply disgusting; there are many parallels and similarities between the two.

We can call one holy and the other disgusting because that is an accurate description.
If you cannot see the differences I would recommend more study.

Quote

  If Joseph Smith or Brigham Young came back today, I think they would ask why the LDS church is not practicing polygamy - it was very important to them.  

Because they believed it was required by God.  But I agree.  And it is just one way they wouldn't recognize the Church today.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

Frankly, I don't think you really know what God thinks or does.

For those who support polygamy (regardless of time) do you agree with the fact that the FLDS still practices a form of polygamy today?  Because in my opinion, you can't defend polygamy the early saints practiced and then say the FLDS is entirely wrong (granted they take polygamy to an extremely crazy/weird level).  

Well, let''s try  it.  The early saints were justified in practicing polygamy, and Warren Jeffs and the FLDS were entirely wrong.

Or, was the revelation to end polygamy just a point in time in which God changed his mind?  

Have you actually  read the entire Bible?  Thee are several instances where "God hanged his mind".  In this very post you pretend to know how God thinks, but you have failed miserably.

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[Jeanne]

Not even for Pete's sake will I ever be owned.  Would I share my love...you bet.  Give and receive ...you bet.  My choice.  I know great posterity has been borne from polygamy.  Good people...but to put women in "this place" is like being lesser than and I know God thinks more of His daughters than Joseph did.

[ALarson]

 

6 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Well, let''s try  it.  The early saints were justified in practicing polygamy, and Warren Jeffs and the FLDS were entirely wrong

Why do you believe that the early saints were "justified" in practicing polygamy?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours 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.  

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Age.htm

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/ .  .

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not even for Pete's sake will I ever be owned.

Want to bet on that?

I Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

You are already owned.
And as his possession God has the right to give you to anyone he chooses, starting with Christ as his inheritance purchased with his blood.

We are ALL owned.  But we all have agency.  They aren't contradictory.

[Ouagadougou]

35 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

Well, I was answering a question when the following was asked:

"Do you see God as ordaining any type of marriage btw?"

 

When you answer a question, it is ok to use the same verb/word(s) that are in that same question.  But for you, I BELIEVE that God recognizes marriages betweeen two people.

 

I read the Bible as far as it is translated correctly; I have read the New Testament numerous times and about 3/4 of the Old Testament.  

 

How can you hear the ring of my words coming from my mouth if my words are, in fact, written?  

 

Just saying...😀