Sealings in the Kirtland Temple

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The word is "concubinage," which was once quite common, and was actually legal.  In ancient Rome, for example, only monogamy was legal.  Yet any Roman male could have as many concubines as he desired (slaves), and this was normal throughout the ancient world.  Among the Patriarchs of the Bible, there were both legal wives and concubines (handmaids).  Jacob had two legal wives (Leah & Rachel) and two concubines, and the 12 sons and 1 daughter thus had differing status.  The Emperor of China had one official wife, and as many concubines as he wished.  The sons spent a good deal of time plotting against one another for succession to the throne.

Oh, I agree that history is replete with examples of extramarital relations. Women were often treated like chattel. However, I wouldn't view that as a justification for me in my marriage so it also doesn't mean much for me in justifying the relations of others. Are you suggesting that because this kind of thing was a common practice in Rome, that Joseph is good to go? On one hand we have people suggesting that his relationship was valid because God approved (though I don't recall ever reading a revelation about that) and then the other justification that it was common historically. Those arguments aren't convincing.

For a church that is hyper-focused on the propriety of s3xual relations, and the claims that we understand the eternal doctrines about this (particularly relating to gay people) we sure tend to make a lot of justifications when it is needed to maintain the traditional narrative.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oh, I agree that history is replete with examples of extramarital relations. Women were often treated like chattel. However, I wouldn't view that as a justification for me in my marriage so it also doesn't mean much for me in justifying the relations of others. Are you suggesting that because this kind of thing was a common practice in Rome, that Joseph is good to go? On one hand we have people suggesting that his relationship was valid because God approved (though I don't recall ever reading a revelation about that) and then the other justification that it was common historically. Those arguments aren't convincing.

For a church that is hyper-focused on the propriety of s3xual relations, and the claims that we understand the eternal doctrines about this (particularly relating to gay people) we sure tend to make a lot of justifications when it is needed to maintain the traditional narrative.

You began use of the term, which I was simply clarifying.  Moreover, being historically descriptive is not being prescriptive.  Describing the actual nature of history is not to justify or condone, but rather to allay the silly notion that they are to be judged by modern standards -- which is what we call presentism.  We accomplish nothing by attempting to hold past peoples to our particular cultural standards.  It is very important that we try to understand the way in which ancient peoples were prisoners of their cultural norms. Honest perspective helps us be less judgmental.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For a church that is hyper-focused on the propriety of s3xual relations, and the claims that we understand the eternal doctrines about this (particularly relating to gay people) we sure tend to make a lot of justifications when it is needed to maintain the traditional narrative.

I know.
Makes me long for the days when Brigham et al made things crystal clear with no justification needed, take it or leave it. 

But now nobody wants to offend anyone and make everyone feel good about themselves and we all end up offending each other anyway.

You know what Brigham would say:
1. Polygamy is the type of marriage in the eternities among the Gods.
2. Monogamists have to at least accept the doctrine in their faith.
3. Only authorized sealings count before God.
4. Unrepentant homosexuals will be damned.
5. Accept this or leave the Church, your choice.

And that's the more gentle and generous version of what he'd likely have actually said.
There'd be an uproar the likes of which we've never seen if the current GA's were so blunt.  But wouldn't it be refreshing to not play the PR game for a bit.

Edited April 5, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

On 4/4/2017 at 9:45 AM, Duncan said:

I didn't interpret it that way! I never even been to Ohio!

One day you should go on a church tour of Nauvoo and Palmyra, that would be neat!

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

One day you should go on a church tour of Nauvoo and Palmyra, that would be neat!

Met my wife on a trip to Navuoo.  Love that city!

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You began use of the term, which I was simply clarifying.  Moreover, being historically descriptive is not being prescriptive.  Describing the actual nature of history is not to justify or condone, but rather to allay the silly notion that they are to be judged by modern standards -- which is what we call presentism.  We accomplish nothing by attempting to hold past peoples to our particular cultural standards.  It is very important that we try to understand the way in which ancient peoples were prisoners of their cultural norms. Honest perspective helps us be less judgmental.

I agree about presentism. However, Joseph's behavior was condemned in his day and culture, just as it is in modern society. So it would be a fallacy to suggest that modern criticism holds no value simply because it is modern. Contemporary criticisms were very similar, if not more harsh.

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree about presentism. However, Joseph's behavior was condemned in his day and culture, just as it is in modern society. So it would be a fallacy to suggest that modern criticism holds no value simply because it is modern. Contemporary criticisms were very similar, if not more harsh.

Modern day polygamy is alive and well in Christian societies.

[Duncan]

Just now, Tacenda said:

One day you should go on a church tour of Nauvoo and Palmyra, that would be neat!

I've been to Nauvoo! only like 20 years ago now when they didn't have the Temple rebuilt............

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I've been to Nauvoo! only like 20 years ago now when they didn't have the Temple rebuilt............

Shoot, and Kirtland wasn't that far away. Oops, nix that, it's 9 hours or so away. Maybe that's why my husband and I skipped it.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Shoot, and Kirtland wasn't that far away. Oops, nix that, it's 9 hours or so away. Maybe that's why my husband and I skipped it.

And Toledo, Ohio is like 2-3 hours away from Kirtland so who knows maybe you'd run into Maxwell Q. Klinger!

[Thinking]

My wife and I toured the Kirtland Temple 14 years ago. During the tour, an LDS member asked the guide where the baptismal font was. The CoC/RLDS guide was very cordial in explaining that baptisms for the dead were not performed in the Kirtland Temple, but I could tell that she was tired of answering that question.

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, Thinking said:

My wife and I toured the Kirtland Temple 14 years ago. During the tour, an LDS member asked the guide where the baptismal font was. The CoC/RLDS guide was very cordial in explaining that baptisms for the dead were not performed in the Kirtland Temple, but I could tell that she was tired of answering that question.

I'd be tired of that question too, and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Church history wouldn't ask it.
Even if the LDS Church owned the temple, I bet the missionaries assigned would keep a tally sheet of how many member tourists asked that.  I would. 

[readstoomuch]

Polygamy really is the big subject we just can't get over in this board.   Even when we own it, in the end Joseph Smith was evil for practicing it.  Even if it was messy at first introducing the practice, but developed more order.  It is amazing all the different threads the denigrate to Joseph Smiths polygamy.  If not that SSM issues.  

How about a nice discussion about the differences the two temples were built for. It seems Kirtland was built to have keys revealed or rerevealed for example.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree about presentism. However, Joseph's behavior was condemned in his day and culture, just as it is in modern society. So it would be a fallacy to suggest that modern criticism holds no value simply because it is modern. Contemporary criticisms were very similar, if not more harsh.

Quite true, but that does not mean that America was fully united on anything, because it certainly was not.  We had a lot of very marginal behavior in the early 19th century -- a number of very bold utopian societies had been formed.  Nothing was really settled.  Not the proper age for marriage, and not whether occult practices were really Satanic.  It is easy now to look back and to selectively find Joseph out of harmony with his times, but anti-Mormon scholars themselves have shown definitively that Joseph was very much in tune with strong traditions of his day -- indeed they derive nearly everything Joseph said and did from those very cultural traditions.  To ignore all that is no different than for a pro-Mormon apologist to cherry-pick items in defense of his faith.

A good mainstream scholar could, with much justification, depict Joseph Smith as a Renaissance Magus.  Indeed, it has already been done in great detail.  We need to examine Joseph Smith in light of the actual cultural attributes or Sitz im Leben of his day -- pretty much the way Professor Jan Shipps has done.  That may not make everybody happy, but it is a much more honest endeavor than continually expressing shock: