Attempt to reconcile the Priesthood ban

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Most likely some of them turned out "ok". Most likely some of the children of monogamy turned out okay too. I'm not as interested in what Brigham Young said to his children--more interested in comparing the activity rates (and survival rates) of the offspring of both types of marriage.

It would also be interesting to compare the activity rates and survival rates of children in very large monogamous families to smaller families. It would seem that some of the problems and objections that some of the children had about lack of attention from a father etc. would also be replicated in such families. Polygamous marriages would would seem to actually be more favorable for the children and women in large families as the children would at least have more attention from the mothers and the child bearing burden would be shared by several women.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds–Tucker_Act

Also:

 

Thanks for your input. I was aware the legal aspects of the case. I just want to emphasize one part of your quote. I actually quoted the same thing in response to Katherine the Great.

22 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that,

Glenn

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Polygamous-Families-Life-Principle/dp/1589581148/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500863352&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=jesse+embry+polygamous+families
 

Thanks. I am going to obtain a copy of the book and read it.

Glenn

 

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The biggest problem that I have in regards to the priesthood restriction (or polygamy) is the cognitive and spirtual dissonance that is presented by the different interpretations. I am perfectly okay with looking at out leaders past and present as the human beings that they are and do not imagine that they are somehow immune to error because of their high callings, i.e. that they could make mistakes, even doctrinal errors. But then, there is the fact that they are supposedly called of God and are subject to His desires before anything else and are led by God. That is the purpose of having prophets.

So, now we have a prophet that is at the he head of the church that makes a grievous error and a laissez-faire God for some reason allows those errors to be perpetrated for decades in the case of polygamy and over a century in the case of the lineage restriction on the priesthood. This laissez-faire God ("the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever") contrasts with the God of the Old Testament such as in the case of Jonah the prophet who was given a quick course correction when he erred.

No one has proposed a plausible, scriptural answer as to why God allowed those practices to continue in error for so long. At this point in time I do not have an answer. As I noted, the only thing that has occurred in my life time is the 1978 revelation removing the restriction. And I am happy with that and will wait for further light and knowledge.

Glenn

Though I see BY as a catalyst and the other leaders following as cementers of the Ban. I still think this is a sin of a whole people moreso than the sin of one. Many of the leaders opinions were obviously shaped by other members' views and perspectives about race. So I think it fits more what happens to groups when they err as opposed to individual prophets in there's. Though the individual can still be an example of God's patience in general with working with fallen humanity. I remember the first time reading the OT of how irritatingly "fast" they fall and need to be smitten. Until I remembered that much of the book was covering centuries....not a decade or two. And it became clear the the Lord put up with a lot of their crap until they really really needed course correction. And often their mistakes were pretty freaking big. Enabling children who were making mockeries of priest duties, idolatry, murder, infidelity, etc. The full effect of their smaller errors often weren't felt or made manifest for decades, if not centuries. They were there, they just weren't obvious. 

In a way, the ban just doesn't measure up to errors that God in times past "winked" at (as the scriptures described) for a time. It had an effect, but the effect with where they lived and their times were fairly small. It did not measure up to open mockery of God and his commandments. It was a soft blindness to parts of his commands and principles....as in, we were wrong, but we were still largely pointed in the right directions. We still paid the effects. IMO, the seeking of secular approval or at least place/security only worked for a couple decades at BEST. Most of society still had huge biases and prejudices towards mormons. And in wonderful irony the ban would later (as in now) be a a source of worldly disapproval and prejudice against mormons even after it was removed. It's slowed us in our ultimate work: to bring to pass the restoration and unite all parts of the family of God. There was a cost. We just didn't see it at first.

But I don't think it's an error that measures up to the circumstances that led to smiting and loss that happened in many of the books of scripture. The closest it comes to me is in the BoM with relations between the nephites and the Lamanites. In Enos, it describes that the nephites were actively seeking the conversion of their Lamanite brethren with absolutely no luck. In those same verses it describes the people as kinda sucky at keeping the commandments of God, having to have some harsh words thrown their way to keep them in line. Earlier in Jacob, it also described their error in prejudice towards the lamanites when in some ways the lamanites were better in basic commands than they at the time. Though it doesn't say it outright, I think there was a big reason that it took around 400-500 years for them to have their first lamanite conversions...and it wasn't entirely the lamanites. They weren't at a place where such a miracle could unfold. From leaders, to the people at large, to even a person called to keep the records at least once (Omni). The miracle of reuniting with their brethren didn't happen until they had missionaries humble enough to reach them. To see themselves as no better than the lamanites. The nephites, for their moments of softer blindness and faults, didn't lose ALL The blessings of the gospel and truth, but they were hindered in its ultimate fruition and promised blessings. And when subsets really fell off the wagon, they paid for it. The work was slowed, but it wasn't frustrated, and in the end all was made right by God.  

We do that today. Still. Hold soft blindness to some of the commands of God...while still largely pointing in the right direction. We as a people enforce about half the word of wisdom by commandment. We lightball the other half. A lot. As a health freak there's something deeply ironic to me that we start or end spiritual events like GC or temple trips with ice cream socials and sugar rushes. That in the Provo temple cafeteria at least, it was often a meat fest with a large dessert section, when I served there. At one time I had to return a piece of bread because the bread had meat in it. Bread. Why? I have no idea. We shouldn't be cut off from all blessings of the gospel (I'm also not saying that this equals up to racism by any stretch of the imagination or that I'm perfect at following the WoW). But we are slowly paying the cost when we more blatantly disregard to reinterpret the section to mean we don't have to change much of our lives. That cost includes poorer health, both mentally and physically, and the first generation predicted to not live longer than the previous one. Our individual missions on earth can literally be cut short or deeply hindered because of this.

On a more serious note. Look at the reactions towards refugees and immigration. We have prophets, apostles, and even an entire sections of GC a year or so back emphasizing the need to loving kindness, supporting more family friendly policies, and seeking ways to help those in need specifically with refugee populations. And many of us did/are doing just that. But I was sad to see a reticence of several in changing their views towards these populations, remaining  in prejudiced views. These are our black people today. These are those vulnerable, struggling for even the basic rights in life, and with often few options before them. These are the ones who are often met with suspicions. I am glad that we are better than with our first test, but we still hold pockets of soft blindness toward them.   

The list could go on. But it holds the same effect. Though it may not lead to a heavy smiting or ultimate loss of covenants, It hinders our true mission on this earth. It slows zion. God allowed it for the same reason he allows our continuing blindness today: He loves his broken children. I think of my grandmother. The woman still holds racist beliefs and attitudes. She isn't likely to change before she dies. But I love her, as imperfectly as I love. I look at her life and would not lambast her for her faults. I figure one day, the truth of her errors she will correct even if it's in the next life. She's a good woman who's had a hard life. I don't have it in me to ask for her to be struck down for her soft blindness. Even though that soft blindness directly effects me, her half-black granddaughter, and is uncomfortable to say the least. If I who am imperfect, can love this woman, bond with her where we meet, and pray for her, then how much more merciful and gentle would God be?

 When I read the scriptures the God who allowed a ban is also the God I see in the stories of the people. One who "winked" at times of their smaller errors, gently taught them and led them to what is expected, and only struck down when absolutely necessary...sometimes waiting centuries to do so. 

 

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Um. The Manifesto? "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise." Although that certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that revelation was involved as well. 

The LDS believe that God showed the prophet both alternatives, and gave the prophet the choice.

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It would also be interesting to compare the activity rates and survival rates of children in very large monogamous families to smaller families. It would seem that some of the problems and objections that some of the children had about lack of attention from a father etc. would also be replicated in such families. Polygamous marriages would would seem to actually be more favorable for the children and women in large families as the children would at least have more attention from the mothers and the child bearing burden would be shared by several women.

Glenn

It would be interesting but not really pertinent to the original research question. If the purpose of polygamy was to raise up (righteous) seed then the "righteousness" of the polygamist offspring would be compared to the "righteousness" of the monogamous offspring. The premise already fails in its original claim to "raise up seed" because a multiple wife situation doesn't produce more offspring in general, only to men who have multiple wives. The question of large vs small families is a different question altogether.

[thesometimesaint]

BD:

I'm convinced that it was a trial. Not of our good brothers and sister of color. But of the white ones.

[katherine the great]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The LDS believe that God showed the prophet both alternatives, and gave the prophet the choice.

Yes.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would suggest the book "The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons." https://deseretbook.com/p/letters-brigham-young-his-sons-dean-c-jessee-78545?variant_id=19828-ebook

And consider this:

HC Kimball 66

Brigham Young 56

Lorenzo Snow 42

Wilford Woodruff 34

Orson Pratt 45

Parley Pratt 30

John Taylor 34

Joseph F Smith 45

Willard Richards 27

Orson Hyde 32

Daniel Wells 36

Ezra T Benson 32

George A Smith 20

13 prominent early leaders, 499 children. Some of them had to turn out ok.

Great list of of great men. I doubt however that they became the men they were due to the types of marriages they were in or the and the fruits thereof. As far as Parley Pratt was concerned (if the Parley Pratt, and not someone named after him) the marriage in which he was involved in the movie, "The Book of Mormon, How Rare a Treasure", when he found the BoM, ended in Salt Lake City, due to issues related to polygamy. Also, of course out of that 499 children, most certainly some, "most" may have turned out well. I know of two certainly did, very well indeed. I would say, again speaking of polygamy as decried by Jacob in the, "Book of Jacob", most assuredly there were many broken hearts, of wives and offspring. The puzzle however is that Jacob seemed to condemn the practice in every age. Having said that, again...one only need to look to scripture to find that truth. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

 When I read the scriptures the God who allowed a ban is also the God I see in the stories of the people. One who "winked" at times of their smaller errors, gently taught them and led them to what is expected, and only struck down when absolutely necessary...sometimes waiting centuries to do so. 

 

With luv,

BD

I read your entire statement and see your point. And maybe you are on the right track. I do really enjoy reading your posts and believe that you have a mature insight into the gospel. I don not know how good my insight is. I am really a black and white type of person and really struggle with the grey ares. I really wish that I knew you in person rather than just as a cyber friend.

I really respect and and admire those who have risen above their natural instincts and obtained a testimony of the gospel despite the priesthood ban and the prejudices that play out around them.

Thanks,

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

It would be interesting but not really pertinent to the original research question. If the purpose of polygamy was to raise up (righteous) seed then the "righteousness" of the polygamist offspring would be compared to the "righteousness" of the monogamous offspring. The premise already fails in its original claim to "raise up seed" because a multiple wife situation doesn't produce more offspring in general, only to men who have multiple wives. The question of large vs small families is a different question altogether.

Agreed to a point. But I don't think that when doing such research that a control for family size would be appropriate. Comparing the activity rates of children of large polygamous families to children of large monogamous families versus among other things might show some differences from just comparing children of polygamous families to children of monogamous families. Then looking at family sizes in both groups large versus small would help make any such research more meaningful, in my opinion.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

19 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Polygamy didn't stop because of divine revelation, it stopped because the government stepped in.

 

18 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

CFR...

 

 

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Thanks for your input. I was aware the legal aspects of the case. I just want to emphasize one part of your quote. I actually quoted the same thing in response to Katherine the Great.
But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that,

 

So you do see that both government intervention AND revelation led to the Manifesto?
God called a halt to polygamy as a result of government intervention.  I think it's important to note that God's response to man's actions and situation is a different situation than a revocation of a principle.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I doubt however that they became the men they were due to the types of marriages they were in or the and the fruits thereof.

I don't.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

So you do see that both government intervention AND revelation led to the Manifesto?
God called a halt to polygamy as a result of government intervention.  I think it's important to note that God's response to man's actions and situation is a different situation than a revocation of a principle.

It would be stupid to aver that the government action had nothing to do with ending the practice of polygamy. It definitely was the spur, The original statement was that polygamy was not ended by revelation but by government intervention. President Woodruff and the other members of the first presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve had been prepared to carry on the fight had not the Lord commanded otherwise.

Glenn

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The puzzle however is that Jacob seemed to condemn the practice in every age. Having said that, again...one only need to look to scripture to find that truth. 

I don't see that in the text. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't see that in the text. 

Most on his sermon was the condemnation of polygamy among his people, referencing the same sins of those throughout Hebrew history/ scripture. 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Most on his sermon was the condemnation of polygamy among his people, referencing the same sins of those throughout Hebrew history/ scripture.

His sermon was a condemnation of polygamy lived wickedly, not of the practice alone.

That is why he referenced David and Solomon, not Abraham and Jacob.

Edited July 24, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

His sermon was a condemnation of polygamy lived wickedly, not of the practice alone.

That is why he referenced David and Solomon, not Abraham and Jacob.

Fair enough, but one only needs to look to both Abraham and Jacob to see their own failures. Abraham turned out Hagar and Ishmael to die like dogs in the wilderness. Jacob's favor above one wife over all others to the series neglected sons and daughters. 

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 8:56 AM, BlueDreams said:

Just an FYI . Pressumptuous does not mean what i said. It's definition is this: "(of a person or their behavior) failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate" with synonyms including words like arrogant, overconfident, audacious, cocky, etc. 

 

With luv,

BD

IT certainly can mean that.  But there's more flexibility to the word than that.  Mirriam-Websters defines it as overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy) :  taking liberties

An example:

Quote

To Yale University, he was David Sneed. And some people called him that. Close friends called him Marc. Not wanting to appear presumptuous, I tried not to commit to either, waiting instead for a signal. —Peter Beinart, New Republic, 22 Jan. 1996

As you can see, there's no allusion to arrogant or cocky per se.

I was using the word as MW defines it (taking liberties) and as the example demonstrates.  I think you misread. 

Thanks for the comments.

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 11:12 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Well that's unfair. Consider this.

I grew up in the late 40s, the 50s, and early 60s in a small, progressive, highly-educated city, perhaps the highest educated city in the world. Three cultures came together there....European, Hispanic, and Native American. There was only a tiny Black presence and a small group of Mormons. Friendships crossed all boundaries. My first "girlfriend" was Native American. 1963 our student body president was the only Black student in the school. My senior class president was Hispanic. However, my sister's inter-ethnic marriage in 1950 was not viewed with great favor by either side.

Yet in 1963 and 1964 I performed in a popular and long-standing community cultural event....The Minstrel Show sponsored by the Knights of Columbus. Prominent people in the city including educators, political leaders, and highly educated scientists participated in this event on a yearly basis. Most people reading this would not know what this is. It was a variety show in which people, including some dressed in blackface, performed skits, comedy routines, musical numbers, and dances featuring such stock characters as Mr. Interlocutor, Brother Tambo, Brother Bones. The banter between those characters was in Negro dialect and was derogatory and demeaning. Popular entertainment at that time still included such stereotyped Negro characters as Quarrel, Amos and Andy, Rochester, Buckwheat, and Stymie. 

Within just a few years all this changed. The easy route is to sit back and condemn all those people because "they should have known better."

It feels easier to just agree with leaders.  That's all I'm saying. Meant no offense.  I am prone to be a little cynical of those who seem to presume to speak for others, or authoritatively, which I realize is kind of tough road to take, but I still do it. 

[BlueDreams]

55 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

IT certainly can mean that.  But there's more flexibility to the word than that.  Mirriam-Websters defines it as overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy) :  taking liberties

An example:

As you can see, there's no allusion to arrogant or cocky per se.

I was using the word as MW defines it (taking liberties) and as the example demonstrates.  I think you misread. 

Thanks for the comments.

i still don't think that's what I meant, which is what I was trying to say to you. But I can see where you're coming from.

 

With luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Most on his sermon was the condemnation of polygamy among his people, referencing the same sins of those throughout Hebrew history/ scripture. 

Yet he plainly states a God will command it for a specific purpose. Other than that, it is forbidden. IMO, LDS plural marriage in the 1800s fit that requirement.

[Bernard Gui]

Thanks. Did you understand the point I am making? You don't have to agree. 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I read your entire statement and see your point. And maybe you are on the right track. I do really enjoy reading your posts and believe that you have a mature insight into the gospel. I don not know how good my insight is. I am really a black and white type of person and really struggle with the grey ares. I really wish that I knew you in person rather than just as a cyber friend.

I really respect and and admire those who have risen above their natural instincts and obtained a testimony of the gospel despite the priesthood ban and the prejudices that play out around them.

Thanks,

Glenn

That makes sense. Sometimes I feel that most of what I've gotten in life is gray areas....so it's harder for me to be black and white. I appreciate you're comments as well.  

 

With luv,

BD

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet he plainly states a God will command it for a specific purpose. Other than that, it is forbidden. IMO, LDS plural marriage in the 1800s fit that requirement.

I am not debating "if" God required it, I am sure he did. I am speaking to the institution, and the weakness of all men in relation to it. The scriptures are filled with the absolute failure among men in relation family, wives and children. Just yesterday a polygamist in Canda was sent to prison, he had 25-27 wives and 145 children. How could anyone think that one man can be a good father to 145 children. It is simply not possible, in any age.