ALarson Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Which you are free to do. However God apparently thinks otherwise. No, there's nothing apparent about it. But you are free to think it is commanded by God.
Jeanne Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I don't think that my ancestors, without a testimony that they had been commanded by God to do so, would have practiced it. You're free to believe that they were mistaken in their testimony, but are you absolutely certain you want to argue against my existence? They did the right thing if they believed it was commanded by God..but I tend to believe this was Joseph's idea. But I don't condemn them..they did what they thought was the right thing to do and that was to follow the prophet. You are so here!! Thankfully...you are here!! 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 40 minutes ago, Jeanne said: They did the right thing if they believed it was commanded by God..but I tend to believe this was Joseph's idea. But I don't condemn them..they did what they thought was the right thing to do and that was to follow the prophet. You are so here!! Thankfully...you are here!! My ancestors were duped by Joseph, but, Hey! You're glad I'm here??? C'mon! You can't divorce cause and effect so easily, no matter how much you want to do so.
ALarson Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: My ancestors were duped by Joseph, but, Hey! You're glad I'm here??? C'mon! You can't divorce cause and effect so easily, no matter how much you want to do so. I like how you're thinking because I'm a product of polygamy too (on both sides of my family, so a double whammy ). But sorry, that argument doesn't really hold water when one has to admit that good people are born as a result of all types of evils (rape, incest and so on). (And no, I would not put polygamy in the same category of rape or incest....just using them as an example.)
Kenngo1969 Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: ... (And no, I would not put polygamy in the same category of rape or incest....just using them as an example.) Then, with all due respect, why bring the three up in tandem?
ALarson Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Then, with all due respect, why bring the three up in tandem? Just to point out that your argument really isn't too convincing here if you're thinking that's proof or evidence that polygamy is commanded by God. Lots of good people come from not so good unions or situations....that's all I was pointing out. I'm including myself here too (my ancestors practiced polygamy), so it's nothing personal. Edited July 27, 2017 by ALarson
Kenngo1969 Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: Just to point out that your argument really isn't too convincing here if you're thinking that's proof that polygamy is commanded by God. Lots of good people come from not so good unions or situations....that's all I was pointing out.. Generally, I don't deal in proof, especially not for things of which it may be said that one's opinion depends entirely on one's perspective. Evidence is a different matter, but, even there, we're all our own triers of fact with regard to matters of faith: We all decide what evidence we will admit, what evidence we will exclude, and how much weight we give to any exhibit we choose to admit. With due respect, I don't particularly care why you were making the comparison, I think the comparison of polygyny to rape and/or to incest is reprehensible. By analogy, I disagree with gay marriage, but I would never compare it to pedophilia.
ALarson Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said: Generally, I don't deal in proof, especially not for things of which it may be said that one's opinion depends entirely on one's perspective. Evidence is a different matter, but, even there, we're all our own triers of fact with regard to matters of faith: We all decide what evidence we will admit, what evidence we will exclude, and how much weight we give to any exhibit we choose to admit. With due respect, I don't particularly care why you were making the comparison, I think the comparison of polygyny to rape and/or to incest is reprehensible. So do I and that's why I made it clear that was not what I was doing. Once again, I stated they are "not in the same category". I'm not sure how much more clearly I could have stated it.
Calm Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: So do I and that's why I made it clear that was not what I was doing. Once again, I stated they are "not in the same category". I'm not sure how much more clearly I could have stated it. It doesn't have to be comparison, association is enough if we follow the standard usually used here in discussions dealing with homosexual behavior. Just mentioning reprehensible behavior draws complaints. Reasoning is best explained by 'we are talking about _____ and your mind goes to that horrible act?' Edited July 27, 2017 by Calm 1
Jeanne Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: My ancestors were duped by Joseph, but, Hey! You're glad I'm here??? C'mon! You can't divorce cause and effect so easily, no matter how much you want to do so. Well I just did.. Joseph was their prophet and they believed him...no matter how you came about .children are a blessing. It is perhaps the only good thing that came from polygamy. Your ancestry made good fruit from this thorny issue. Now..so...God brought you here because he knew you would be a thorn in Jeanne's side.. Seriously, it took some good people to support and sustain this principle..no doubt that you have more courage and strength (me, too) because of our heritage. Edited July 27, 2017 by Jeanne
ALarson Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 Just now, Calm said: It doesn't have to be comparison, association is enough if we follow the standard usually used here in discussions dealing with homosexual behavior. Just mentioning reprehensible behavior draws complaints. He stated that one "cannot divorce cause and effect so easily". I gave an example of how this is not always true. Then I stated clearly that I don't put incest and rape in the same category as polygamy just because I used them for the example. He can take my word for it or not.
clarkgoble Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: The practice ended when it had served its purposes. I'm not sure that's a fair judgment - although of course we don't know for sure what its purposes were. I think it ended when a cost/benefit analysis said the costs were worth the benefits (whatever those were). In saying that I'm attributing that calculus to God I should note. But to suggest it's purposes were served is to suggest that Federal persecution of the Church didn't end the practice. That's certainly not what Wilford Woodruff said. Had the government not persecuted the church I suspect it would have persisted much longer. I think many of the Saints were willing to continue despite the terrible costs - although I'm sure most were grateful they didn't have to. Edited July 27, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
pogi Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 20 hours ago, hope_for_things said: That's one interpretation, I don't believe a person has to assume God condoned the multiple wives of David. The 12 tribes of Israel come from 4 different wives. Was that not condoned...the people of God?
pogi Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 On 7/26/2017 at 4:54 PM, ALarson said: Yeah, that's why I added "other than the claim by Joseph Smith" ...and the claim by Jacob in the BoM and the claim of Moses in the Bible (in the mouth of 2 to 3 witnesses): "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. (Deuteronomy 25:5–6)"
ALarson Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, pogi said: ...and the claim by Jacob in the BoM and the claim of Moses in the Bible (in the mouth of 2 to 3 witnesses): As far as I know, Jacob did not state that God had commanded anyone to live polygamy. He stated that polygamy is justifiable, but only when God commands it: Quote Concerning their “whoredoms” (Jacob 2:23, 28, 33), Jacob specifically mentioned unauthorized polygamy as an iniquitous practice. “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. . . . Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old” (Jacob 2:24, 26). Jacob therefore categorized such unauthorized instances of polygyny and concubinage (a man marrying multiple women), as sinful, for, he said, God “delight in the chastity of women” (Jacob 2:28), and would not tolerate lascivious men abusing women (Jacob 2:32–33). That being the general rule, Jacob went on to qualify that law, saying that plural marriage is justifiable but only when God commands it. Did Moses state in the Bible that he was commanded by God to live polygamy? If so, do you have a reference/ Edited July 27, 2017 by ALarson
Bernard Gui Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I'm not sure that's a fair judgment - although of course we don't know for sure what its purposes were. I think it ended when a cost/benefit analysis said the costs were worth the benefits (whatever those were). In saying that I'm attributing that calculus to God I should note. But to suggest it's purposes were served is to suggest that Federal persecution of the Church didn't end the practice. That's certainly not what Wilford Woodruff said. Had the government not persecuted the church I suspect it would have persisted much longer. I think many of the Saints were willing to continue despite the terrible costs - although I'm sure most were grateful they didn't have to. Thank you. I'm persuaded that plural marriage was not a mistake, not an anomaly, not a haven for libertines, nor any of the alternatives. It was commanded as described by Jacob for the purpose of quickly raising a generation to jumpstart the Restoration. It required almost impossible sacrifices and led to persecution as you say, but when the time came....perhaps the government taking the steps to destroy the Church precipitated the end....it ended having completed its purpose. When I read the accounts of BY's sons, their missions and assignments all over the world and the beautiful letters he wrote them, I see the spreading of his influence in ways that would not have been possible otherwise. I see the sacrifices made by those men and women and feel deep respect for what they accomplished in so short a time with such limited resources and under such difficult circumstances. Like you, I salute their willingness to continue in the face of destruction and agree that they probably gave a huge sigh of relief when the burden was lifted. I don't know that I could do what they did. Their reward will be great. I see no reason to apologize for the practice, as some want the Church to do. 1
Calm Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 21 minutes ago, pogi said: The 12 tribes of Israel come from 4 different wives. Was that not condoned...the people of God? I don't think that just the existence of a people is sufficient. Christ came from 2 cases of incest (Lot and his daughters resulting in the Moabites, assuming that is literal and not a story told by the Israelites to degrade enemies) and Judah and Tamar, his widowed daughter-in-law who dressed up like a prostitute in order to have a child. I don't think God condoned those acts.
Bernard Gui Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 On 7/25/2017 at 10:56 PM, Calm said: The problem is that as men age, they continue to add wives. However there are generally equal numbers of men and women. Since most of the women the same age as the men have already married them (or someone older) when they were 25 to 30 (maybe some women were still single at 35 and became 2nd or third wives then), there's really nothing left of their own age group by the time the men reach 40, save perhaps some widows. Once the few widows get remarried, where is the age group the 40 and older (who are still marrying into their 70s and 80s) can look at for additional wives? If the men who are 5, 10, 15, and 20 years younger than they are have been doing the same thing...marrying women their own age, then the only women left will be those who are 25 years younger then the 40 year old men...In other words, are 15 years old or younger. I could see the problems you describe in a small, static, insular group trying to perpetuate the practice over multiple generations, but Mormon polygamy lasted, what, 2.5 generations? The immigrant population was constantly building the pool of available people, not everyone participated, and other variables came into play that alleviated those issues.
Bernard Gui Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 On 7/25/2017 at 11:34 PM, sjdawg said: I don't know if disaster always follows but I don't see it as a successful system. In my opinion, there is absolutely no way that Brigham Young could be a successful and loving father to 56 children. There simply isn't enough hours in the day. Does that constitute a disaster? I don't know but I certainly can't see it as healthy. He did ok. For much of history dads didn't have time to be the kind of father we expect today.
Calm Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I could see the problems you describe in a small, static, insular group trying to perpetuate the practice over multiple generations, but Mormon polygamy lasted, what, 2.5 generations? The immigrant population was constantly building the pool of available people, not everyone participated, and other variables came into play that alleviated those issues. "Because entering into plural marriage was regarded as an especial sign of devotion, more members applied for plural marriages during this period than at any other point. [7] Average age of brides dropped to its lowest level during this period (between 16-17 years old for women in either monogamous or polygamous marriages). [8] This is a good example of some of the probable excesses during the Reformation; divorces following the Reformation were substantially higher than at other points. It is likely that under the social pressure to prove their loyalty and fidelity to their covenants, some members married too quickly or unwisely. "I was obedient but not wise," wrote a member later, "I married a girl but she did it more of fright than of love; for that reason it could not last long—only about 9 months [and] then she was divorced in 1858." [9]" https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_history_of_the_"Mormon_Reformation"%3F 3
Bernard Gui Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 14 minutes ago, ALarson said: Did Moses state in the Bible that he was commanded by God to live polygamy? If so, do you have a reference/ We do not have the advantage of extensive records of Abraham, Moses, Lehites, etc. p, to make such judgments. The only scriptural instance that I can identify when God commanded it per Jacob's instructions was at the beginning of the Restoration for the purpose Jacob stated. And it lasted only a few years.
Bernard Gui Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, Calm said: "Because entering into plural marriage was regarded as an especial sign of devotion, more members applied for plural marriages during this period than at any other point. [7] Average age of brides dropped to its lowest level during this period (between 16-17 years old for women in either monogamous or polygamous marriages). [8] This is a good example of some of the probable excesses during the Reformation; divorces following the Reformation were substantially higher than at other points. It is likely that under the social pressure to prove their loyalty and fidelity to their covenants, some members married too quickly or unwisely. "I was obedient but not wise," wrote a member later, "I married a girl but she did it more of fright than of love; for that reason it could not last long—only about 9 months [and] then she was divorced in 1858." [9]" https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_history_of_the_"Mormon_Reformation"%3F Yet somehow, mirabile dictu, it all worked out in the end.
Bernard Gui Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: children are a blessing. It is perhaps the only good thing that came from polygamy. Which, according to Jacob, is the only legitimate reason for plural marriage.
ALarson Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: We do not have the advantage of extensive records of Abraham, Moses, Lehites, etc. p, to make such judgments. Correct. There is no record of God specifically commanding polygamy in the Bible. 11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: The only scriptural instance that I can identify when God commanded it per Jacob's instructions was at the beginning of the Restoration for the purpose Jacob stated. And what was the purpose that Jacob stated which would make polygamy justifiable? (Edited to add that I see your response above.) Edited July 27, 2017 by ALarson
Recommended Posts