Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Which Joseph didn't do (unless you twist or skew the meaning of raising seed).

So how do you justify him marrying other men's wives for the purpose specified in Jacob?  How about him marrying 14 year old girls?

Among Joseph's  closest associates who were called with that purpose....between just 10 including as Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Lorenzo Snow, and the Pratts, and 5 others....almost 500 children. Jacob 2. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Is that more children per family or more children per wife?

Edited to add: I haven't been following this thread, so I wonder how we got there from the report on the regional priesthood leadership conference?

Glenn

Men have many more children, women have fewer.  If a family is a man and woman and children, polygamous families are smaller.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And once again, it's not about total population but about those who are born into household where both the father and the mother are faithful Latter-day Saints and where the gospel is apt to be conveyed to progeny. When there are not enough faithful men to go around, the solution is plurality of wives until enough children (righteous seed) can be raised up that plural marriage is no longer needed.

And those women who were married to faithful husbands already?

[Glenn101]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Men have many more children, women have fewer.  If a family is a man and woman and children, polygamous families are smaller.

That would seem to be one advantage for women in polygamous marriages if large families are the ideal. Each individual woman would have to bear fewer children to attain the desired family size. But is is a very difficult system to adhere to emotionally.

Glenn

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That would seem to be one advantage for women in polygamous marriages if large families are the ideal. Each individual woman would have to bear fewer children to attain the desired family size. But is is a very difficult system to adhere to emotionally.

Glenn

Only if they lived together in one home.  Many polygamous families did not.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And those women who were married to faithful husbands already?

I know that God loveth His children, nevertheless, I know not the meaning of all things.

But here's Brian Hales's take on it:

 

Quote

 

Few things are more confusing than Joseph Smith’s sealings to legally married women. Due to limitations in the number and types of documents available, understanding what transpired is difficult and complex.

Joseph Smith taught that a genuine plurality of husbands, called “polyandry,” was adultery. There is no indication he was hypocritical in this regard. His sealings to women with civil husbands appear to have been for eternity-only, meaning that they would only take effect after death. They did not constitute marriages for this life. Some of the women’s legal husbands were not active Latter-day Saints, so sealings to them were not possible. In such cases, marrying Joseph or another devout believer for the next life is understandable. Yet, some of the sealings were to women with believing spouses, which are more puzzling.

On This Page

• Plural Ceremonies Created Marriages of Different Durations
• No Unambiguous Evidence
• Polyandry Would Have Been an Explosive Practice
• Joseph’s Teachings Condemned Polyandry

 

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Men have many more children, women have fewer.  If a family is a man and woman and children, polygamous families are smaller.

But, hypothetically speaking, if five women who might each have been stuck with an infidel husband or no husband at all become the plural wives of the same man, that's six families that each have both a father and mother as faithful Church members as opposed to only one such family otherwise. Six families in which gospel faithfulness is apt to be handed down as a family tradition. Six families each with descendants in a geometric progression, at least most of whom are apt to be faithful Church members.

That, to me, is the true meaning of "raising up seed unto" God.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Among Joseph's  closest associates who were called with that purpose....between just 10 including as Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Lorenzo Snow, and the Pratts, and 5 others....almost 500 children. Jacob 2. 

I was specifically asking about Joseph.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I was specifically asking about Joseph.

I think that's been answered by now.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that's been answered by now.

So you believe Joseph had marital relations with his plural wives to raise up seed?  (I didn't see that you  answered this question.)

I'd really like to hear what you believe rather than you allowing others to answer for you.  

Edited September 25, 2017 by JulieM

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And once again, it's not about total population but about those who are born into household where both the father and the mother are faithful Latter-day Saints and where the gospel is apt to be conveyed to progeny. When there are not enough faithful men to go around, the solution is plurality of wives until enough children (righteous seed) can be raised up that plural marriage is no longer needed.

I'm not going to address your maligning of the Prophet. I already said I don't have time for that. 

Joseph Smith was never around his wives very often. BY had wives and children scattered across Salt Lake Valley.  I'm not sure that is the best model for raising children. 

[sunstoned]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that God loveth His children, nevertheless, I know not the meaning of all things.

But here's Brian Hales's take on it:

 

 

 

With regards to Joseph Smith's polygamy and polyandry, "understanding what transpired is difficult and complex" only if you  close your eyes to the obvious motivation.  

Edited September 25, 2017 by sunstoned

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Joseph Smith was never around his wives very often. BY had wives and children scattered across Salt Lake Valley.  I'm not sure that is the best model for raising children. 

I recommend "The Letters of Brigham Young to his Sons" to get an idea of his parenting skills and an intriguing insight into his character.

https://deseretbook.com/p/letters-brigham-young-his-sons-dean-c-jessee-78545?variant_id=19828-ebook

Edited September 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So you believe Joseph had marital relations with his plural wives to raise up seed?  (I didn't see that you  answered this question.)

I'd really like to hear what you believe rather than you allowing others to answer for you.  

Where did I say that? Are you not reading my posts? 

I said Joseph Smith was hounded and hated and murdered at an early age, leaving little or no opportunity to have children with plural wives. I said that his role was to receive the revelation instituting plural marriage and to teach it to others before being cut down in the prime of life  

I quickly lose patience with having to repeat myself because someone does not pay attention to my posts and asks questions that have already been answered. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

On 9/23/2017 at 5:46 PM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Of course. Religion always has a "special pleading" place in our hearts.  Keep staying in the gaps I guess.

Special pleading about what?   That the church is true?

You really need a good theory of truth.  Here try the wikipedia version it is easier than the Stanford Encyclopedia

If you only knew how naive you are and what you refuse to even ponder.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflationary_theory_of_truth

 

Quote

 

Redundancy theory[edit]

Main article: Redundancy theory of truth

Gottlob Frege was not the first philosopher or logician to note that predicating truth or existence does not express anything above and beyond the statement to which it is attributed.^{[citation needed]} He noted:

It is worthy of notice that the sentence "I smell the scent of violets" has the same content as the sentence "it is true that I smell the scent of violets". So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. (Frege, G., 1918. "Thoughts", in his Logical Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell, 1977)^[1]

Nevertheless, the first serious attempt at the formulation of a theory of truth which attempted to systematically define the truth predicate out of existence is attributable to F.P. Ramsey. Ramsey argued, against the prevailing currents of the times, that not only was it not necessary to construct a theory of truth on the foundation of a prior theory of meaning (or mental content) but that once a theory of content had been successfully formulated, it would become obvious that there was no further need for a theory of truth, since the truth predicate would be demonstrated to be redundant. Hence, his particular version of deflationism is commonly referred to as the redundancy theory. Ramsey noted that in ordinary contexts in which we attribute truth to a proposition directly, as in "It is true that Caesar was murdered", the predicate "is true" does not seem to be doing any work. "It is true that Caesar was murdered" just means "Caesar was murdered" and "It is false that Caesar was murdered" just means that "Caesar was not murdered".

 

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Where did I say that? Are you not reading my posts? 

What did you mean in your response here if you weren't referring to Joseph taking plural wives to raise up seed (Jacob 2)?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69591-regional-priesthood-leadership-conference/?do=findComment&comment=1209758901

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What did you mean in your response here if you weren't referring to Joseph taking plural wives to raise up seed (Jacob 2)?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69591-regional-priesthood-leadership-conference/?do=findComment&comment=1209758901

 

I was referring to the principle in general, not to Joseph's specific practice of it. Joseph isn't even mentioned in that post or in the post I was replying to. 

And I said subsequently that Joseph undoubtedly would have raised up seed by plural wives had he been allowed to remain alive long enough to do it. Or did you not pay attention then either?

 

 

And I said later, Joseph 

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was referring to the principle in general, not to Joseph's specific practice of it. Joseph isn't even mentioned in that post or in the post I was replying to. 

And I said subsequently that Joseph undoubtedly would have raised up seed by plural wives had he been allowed to remain alive long enough to do it. Or did you not pay attention then either?

So if he married to raise up seed, why wouldn't you believe that follows he would have been with his plural wives during the years they were married (to raise up seed)?  I'm just trying to figure out why you'd believe they didn't have relations to live the principle as specifically commanded?  There was time before his death.

But nevermind if you don't want to commit to an answer.  I'm fine with that really.  I am a bit surprised anyone would still believe that though, to be honest.

Edited September 25, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That would seem to be one advantage for women in polygamous marriages if large families are the ideal. Each individual woman would have to bear fewer children to attain the desired family size. But is is a very difficult system to adhere to emotionally.

Glenn

A woman's children didn't belong to other wives.  Other women having children didn't enlarge her family one bit. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But, hypothetically speaking, if five women who might each have been stuck with an infidel husband or no husband at all become the plural wives of the same man, that's six families that each have both a father and mother as faithful Church members as opposed to only one such family otherwise. Six families in which gospel faithfulness is apt to be handed down as a family tradition. Six families each with descendants in a geometric progression, at least most of whom are apt to be faithful Church members.

That, to me, is the true meaning of "raising up seed unto" God.

A study of early Christian theologians showed that they didn't make connect with people because of the common tie of religion, as would be expected, they connected with religion because of their friends influence. I highly suspect that is what polygamy did...established a web of familial ties that held religion together. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that God loveth His children, nevertheless, I know not the meaning of all things.

But here's Brian Hales's take on it:

Joseph Smith taught that a genuine plurality of husbands, called “polyandry,” was adultery. 

 

 

 

He is wrong and this is the biggest head scratcher of all time for me.

Quote

 

132:41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

 

I don't know how much more plain it has to be. A woman, according to the D&C, can be with another man if she is appointed by the holy anointing. If she is not appointed, THEN and only then has she committed adultery. There are then other rules given for "virgins," i.e., unmarried women. 

The idea that JS would have been defying his own rules is bizarre and unsustainable. It is a shame that the study of polyandry has been reduced to tasteless speculations about sex, a diversion that gets us no closer at all to what was going on. 

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Only if they lived together in one home.  Many polygamous families did not.

Having a family where the father is only able to visit sporadically has its own emotional problems. Given the choice if I had more then one wife or my wife had more then one husband I would want everyone under one roof no matter how hard that would be.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yet, some of the sealings were to women with believing spouses, which are more puzzling.

An example I'm aware of: Orson Hyde was married for time to Marinda Nancy Johnson (his first wife), but she was sealed to Joseph for eternity, with his permission. He was ultimately married to seven more wives, and fathered 32 children.

Don't ask me why Marinda was sealed to Joseph instead of Orson. 

[Stargazer]

I suspect that, in regard to plural marriage, we will understand it fully once we are in the fulfillment of all things.

It seems to me that we are not well-served by constant argle-bargle over the same few questions that just don't have answers at this time.  Yet I am sure we shall continue to hash over what we don't know enough about ad infinitum ad nauseam.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I suspect that, in regard to plural marriage, we will understand it fully once we are in the fulfillment of all things.

It seems to me that we are not well-served by constant argle-bargle over the same few questions that just don't have answers at this time.  Yet I am sure we shall continue to hash over what we don't know enough about ad infinitum ad nauseam.

That I agree with. The only real questions to me: was Joseph a prophet of God and was he commanded by God to begin the practice? I have had a spiritual confirmation that Joseph was and is a prophet called by God. I have not received, nor actually asked for an affirmation of polygamy because I have not been required to practice it, but do accept Joseph's word that he was commanded. When polygamy was introduced, some accepted and some rejected it. If it is practiced in the Celestial Kingdom we will also be given the choice to accept it or reject it.

For those who have fretted that Brigham Young said that a person would have to accept polygamy to get into the CK I would offer this from Willford Woodruff's Journal:

February 12, 1870: I spent the day in the Council House until noon. I attended
the School of the Prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the
subject of polygamy. He contended that no person could have a celestial glory
unless he had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made by L. E. Harrington, O.
Pratt, Erastus Snow, D. Evans, J. F. Smith, Lorenzo Y., President Young
said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife,
with many wives and with no wife at all.

It is an interesting subject nonetheless. And I expect the debate will stumble on until that trump sounds ushering in the millennium.

Glenn