Musings and Thoughts from My Meeting with Members of the Ex-Mormon Community

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I've read accounts that there were children, but apparently their offspring probably haven't been tested.

We have a list of his wives.

We have a list of their children that could have been conceived during Joseph's life.
Who exactly hasn't been tested at this point?

And even if they are his, that's a good thing!  It shows Joseph was doing his best to live the law of plural marriage in its fullness despite the difficult circumstances that made it almost impossible.  I would LOVE to discover a plural child of Joseph's existed.

Edited March 10, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We have a list of his wives.

We have a list of their children that could have been conceived during Joseph's life.
Who exactly hasn't been tested at this point?

And even if they are his, that's a good thing!  It shows Joseph was doing his best to live the law of plural marriage in its fullness despite the difficult circumstances that made it almost impossible.  I would LOVE to discover a plural child of Joseph's existed.

Well, then there is hope: "http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226318/DNA-tests-rule-out-2-as-Smith-descendants.html "The list of approximately 12 people alleged to have been Smith's children "may grow over time," Perego said, noting historical documents continue to surface. "I'm not saying the list I have is definitive or complete at all. But out of those we have data for, there is no evidence from DNA at this point that Joseph Smith had any children from women other than Emma Smith."

Edited March 10, 2017 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

The fruits of polygamy seem to be, for the most part, bad. In some cases, very, very bad.  That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Just like some gay people seem to find value in lifelong celibacy (as do some straight people, like in the Catholic church). 

When the people practicing it are all consenting adults and there is no abuse of religious authority, it seems like the fruits of polygamy are pretty good.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

If the choice was between never marrying or being in a polygamist marriage, then that teaching would be ungodly.  So much of the happiness in the gospel as well as the very human desire for companionship is built around a marriage and family relationships that to rip that option off the table is problematic.  If you took marriage and family away from the gospel plan, what would you have left?  Yet that is exactly what the church has done to someone who is gay. 

I'm not really commenting on any of that.  I'm commenting on the idea that if someone is happy doing something, then that automatically means it's condoned by God.   That seems like an obviously flawed argument, given that people claim that all sorts of things bring them happiness (from adultery to  membership in suicide cults, and beyond...).

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

If the choice was between never marrying or being in a polygamist marriage, then that teaching would be ungodly.

Why?

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When the people practicing it are all consenting adults and there is no abuse of religious authority, it seems like the fruits of polygamy are pretty good.

Do we have examples of that? 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/utah-cops-swear-mysterious-voice-crying-for-help-led-them-to-unconscious-toddler-in-submerged-car/#.VP8ydn_Pubc.facebook

Just wanted to post this that I saw on FB just now, my sister re-posted from awhile back. I had forgotten or maybe didn't know about this. Gives me hope there is an afterlife for those atheist or agnostics on this thread. I struggle ever since losing my faith in the church. 

I love good stories like this...it sure does give me hope and explains a few things that have happened in my own life..not like this..but close.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do we have examples of that? 

Yes, i believe we do, especially if we are just taking people's word for it. I can name three or four polygamist families off of the top of my head (from seeing them on t.v. and/or reading their stories) that are very very happy living polygamy.

I just googled 'positive polygamy stories' to see what was out there and there seem to be quite a few people who claim that polygamy has brought them a lot of joy.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, i believe we do, especially if we are just taking people's word for it. I can name three or four polygamist families off of the top of my head (from seeing them on t.v. and/or reading their stories) that are very very happy living polygamy.

I just googled 'positive polygamy stories' to see what was out there and there seem to be quite a few people who claim that polygamy has brought them a lot of joy.

Many 19th Century polygamous wives said the same thing.

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, i believe we do, especially if we are just taking people's word for it. I can name three or four polygamist families off of the top of my head (from seeing them on t.v. and/or reading their stories) that are very very happy living polygamy.

I just googled 'positive polygamy stories' to see what was out there and there seem to be quite a few people who claim that polygamy has brought them a lot of joy.

First, should a civilized society which values freedom of choice create laws restricting the practice of polygamy?  

Second, do we consider polygamy to be morally and ethically on equal standing with monogamy?  

Personally, I don't think we should restrict polygamy by law for consenting adults, but I also don't find it to be on equal standing with monogamy, and I would advocate against polygamy on moral grounds, but I would stop short of advocating for laws to outlaw the practice.  

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

The fruits of polygamy seem to be, for the most part, bad. In some cases, very, very bad.  That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Just like some gay people seem to find value in lifelong celibacy (as do some straight people, like in the Catholic church). 

More likely one is most likely hear about the bad polygamy examples than the good ones.  The bad examples of anything get the most attention.  The good examples tend to be boring.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

More likely one is most likely hear about the bad polygamy examples than the good ones.  The bad examples of anything get the most attention.  The good examples tend to be boring.

I've noticed that too.  Seems like many people prefer to complain and argue against things than to look for things that promote a more peaceful lifestyle, as if being at peace and in agreement with people is boring.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?

Because family and marriage are central to the plan of salvation. 

[california boy]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not really commenting on any of that.  I'm commenting on the idea that if someone is happy doing something, then that automatically means it's condoned by God.   That seems like an obviously flawed argument, given that people claim that all sorts of things bring them happiness (from adultery to  membership in suicide cults, and beyond...).

I can certainly understand why you are not commenting on what I wrote.  

Do you believe that wickedness never was happiness?

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I can't imagine anyone having to repent and/or apologize for loving someone.

It undoubtedly is hard, but it happens all the time when people repent of adultery.

You also appear to believe one should repent or apologize for plural marriage, unless I am mixing you up with others.

I am not equating homosexual love with adultery, just pointing out that there are many instances of love that are destructive, heterosexual and homosexual.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Because family and marriage are central to the plan of salvation. 

So why would a polygamy requirement change that as when you said "If the choice was between never marrying or being in a polygamist marriage, then that teaching would be ungodly"?
Is polygamy not about family and marriage?

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So why would a polygamy requirement change that as when you said "If the choice was between never marrying or being in a polygamist marriage, then that teaching would be ungodly"?
Is polygamy not about family and marriage?

I don't get your confusion.  Obviously a polygamist family is better than no family.  Polygamist still have families. 

Forbidding marriage and family goes completely against the plan of salvation.  When you take away marriage and family, there is 

no plan of salvation

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't get your confusion.  Obviously a polygamist family is better than no family.  Polygamist still have families. 

Forbidding marriage and family goes completely against the plan of salvation.  When you take away marriage and family, there is 

no plan of salvation

On that we agree.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I can certainly understand why you are not commenting on what I wrote.  

Do you believe that wickedness never was happiness?

Absolutely.  

Most people don't understand that verse in Alma 41 though.  They think that it's teaching that you can never be happy while doing something wicked.  That's obviously not true.  People find happiness in all kinds of wickedness, in this mortal world. 

That verse isn't teaching about this world though, it's teaching about the judgment, and what you will be rewarded with when this life is over and how it is determined by what kind of a life you lived.  If you lived an evil life, you get wickedness.  If you live a righteous life, you get happiness.

Read the whole sermon in context.  It's talking about the plan of salvation (Alma calls it the plan of restoration)-

 

1 And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astraybecause of this thing. And I perceive that thy mind has been worried also concerning this thing. But behold, I will explain it unto thee.

 2 I say unto thee, my son, that the plan of restoration is requisite with the justice of God; for it is requisite that all things should be restored to their proper order. Behold, it is requisite and just, according to the power and resurrection of Christ, that the soul of man should be restored to its body, and that every part of the body should be restored to itself.

 3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.

 4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortalityraised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—

 5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.

 6 And so it is on the other hand. If he hath repented of his sins, and desired righteousness until the end of his days, even so he shall be rewarded unto righteousness.

 7 These are they that are redeemed of the Lord; yea, these are they that are taken out, that are delivered from that endless night of darkness; and thus they stand or fall; for behold, they are their own judges, whether to do good or do evil.

 8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.

 9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.

 10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

 

I absolutely believe that wickedness during this life can never restore someone to happiness in the next.

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

It undoubtedly is hard, but it happens all the time when people repent of adultery.

You also appear to believe one should repent or apologize for plural marriage, unless I am mixing you up with others.

I am not equating homosexual love with adultery, just pointing out that there are many instances of love that are destructive, heterosexual and homosexual.

I can see the difference of course.  Actually, if consenting adults today want to live polygamy as a good way of life..I don't care.  I think the Browns are relatively happy and their kids are not required to accept polygamy..a different kind of family.  I just don't like incest...and young children married off to someone they don't love.  I am glad you are not equating homosexual love with adultery and that you see the difference there.  Honesty is key.  So many affairs could be avoided if spouses would just talk to eachother.

[Guest]

On March 10, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Meadowchik said:

Just a note about what we give to the organisational Church:

When we raise children in the Church we are almost guaranteed to "give" them to the Church to some extent, by transmitting our own authority over them to Church leaders.

The Church is not there to parent for you, and no parent should allow the Church to userp their power and authority. Any parent he lets the Church parent, or let the Church shoulder parenthood, have failed as parents. God entrusted children to their parents, and to no other. 

[clarkgoble]

On 3/10/2017 at 1:33 PM, bluebell said:

When the people practicing it are all consenting adults and there is no abuse of religious authority, it seems like the fruits of polygamy are pretty good.

I wouldn't go that far. I think if you look at most of the remaining less-fundamentalist types of Mormon polygamists (parts of the remaining Allread group or that other group I forget the name of in the Draper area) they have a lot of social struggles. I know some kids coming out of those groups and it honestly seems a huge struggle for even people with good intents and without the problems many in such groups get. However when the good ones struggle, the other ones frequently lead to pretty hard times for the wives and children. One wishes that Brigham Young when unveiling the principle in Utah at least put a limit on the number of wives such as developed in Islam. I think the people who lived it in Utah were devout. The stories of Eliza R. Snow and Zina Huntington in particular make them among the greatest of the first generation of saints in my opinion. They are heroes of mine. But I don't think one could say they were as happy had they been in monogamous marriages.

I've no idea why God made Joseph restore that, but I'm very glad we've returned to the period of Jacob 2 where God no longer requires it. How much of that is blame on the people implementing the social structures and how much on the basic concepts I don't know. Certainly one doesn't have to think of things they could have done to make life easier for everyone in 19th century Utah. But it's unfair to judge them by our knowledge which frankly includes a recognition of what's worked the past 100 years socially.

Edited March 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The Church is not there to parent for you, and no parent should allow the Church to userp their power and authority. Any parent he lets the Church parent, or let the Church shoulder parenthood, have failed as parents. God entrusted children to their parents, and to no other. 

And yet we still entrust children to the Church in intimite ways. Perhaps you accept the church's role as non-parental in nature.  One could say that we let the Church assume power and control over our children that we don't even assume as parents. In any case, it's not our kids' choice.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And yet we still entrust children to the Church in intimite ways. Perhaps you accept the church's role as non-parental in nature.  One could say that we let the Church assume power and control over our children that we don't even assume as parents. In any case, it's not our kids' choice.

If a parent's choices to let the Church parent, then they are rsponsible. But those who do not parent, what institutions do you suggest they leave their children too instead of a Church? The schools (those who are paid to do so), the streets (a place that seeks only to exploit in horrible ways) the courts, where it is often too late? Children are not supposed to make their own decisions while young, that is the role of the parent. They need guidance, ever crave it, they want to know where their boundaries are...it makes feel safe, and loved. Also nothing I said before responding to you post suggested that the Church should raise our children, I made it clear that the parent is to do this, and if not will suffer in this life and the next. I never gave up control to any of my children to anyone. I taught them correct principles and let them govern themselves when they we able to do so. Maybe a re-read of the post to which you commented too...seems something was lost in translation. 

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And yet we still entrust children to the Church in intimite ways. Perhaps you accept the church's role as non-parental in nature.  One could say that we let the Church assume power and control over our children that we don't even assume as parents. In any case, it's not our kids' choice.

What about the whole idea of "it takes a village"?

Having a greater community that sees itself as invested in the children of its members is a good thing, imo.  Allowing for involvement of others is not, imo, inherently turning over parenting to them any more than sending your child to school is automatically you allowing government to take over the parental role.  There are other authoritative roles besides "parent" in the world, such as teacher, mentor, role model, supervisor, boss, protector, etc.  Most of these are roles a parent should play in their parenting, but that doesn't mean these roles are parenting.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Calm