Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I was asking Bernard and like to hear what he believes on it. 

These mysteries are not fully made known to me, therefore I shall forebear. I wouldn’t think it scandalous if he were, but I don’t see how it could fit within the parameters of Jacob 2. It was not his mission to raise a righteous posterity.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Why do you think God has almost a 1:1 relationship between males and females born if he really wants polygamy?

Have you read Jacob 2?

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

These mysteries are not fully made known to me, therefore I shall forebear. I wouldn’t think it scandalous if he were, but I don’t see how it could fit within the parameters of Jacob 2. It was not his mission to raise a righteous posterity.

So how does that fit with polygamy being an essential principle of His gospel?

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So how does that fit with polygamy being an essential principle of His gospel?

It is clearly spelled out in Jacob 2.

Quote

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is clearly spelled out in Jacob 2.

 

Not realty.  Not at all actually.

Why did it need to be “restored” if Christ didn’t live and teach it as a necessary, essential part of his church?

[Bernard Gui]

Quote

Not realty.  Not at all actually.

Why did it need to be “restored” if Christ didn’t live and teach it as a necessary, essential part of his church

Whose voice is Jacob quoting when he says, “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts....?”

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that you will not accept anything I can possibly say about this.  

BTW, did Jesus ever laugh?

Edited December 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Whose voice is Jacob quoting when he says, “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts....?”

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that you will not accept anything I can possibly say about this.  

BTW, did Jesus ever laugh?

We know he wept, so I hope he rejoiced and laughed at times as well.  

But not really a good comparison.  Polygamy was apparently such an essential and necessary part of His gospel that Joseph was commanded and threatened by an angel if he didn’t live it and “restore” it.

Why did it need to be restored so forcefully if Christ himself didn’t live it or teach it as being essential to His gospel?

Edited December 30, 2017 by JulieM

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Wrong as usual.

But keep on trying, TT.

Why don't you try reading what I actually write, just for a change? Then you might be less likely to make such egregious errors of understanding.

[Bernard Gui]

 

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We know he wept, so I hope he rejoiced and laughed at times as well.  

But there is no scriptural record that he laughed, so obviously he never did.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But not really a good comparison.  Polygamy was apparently such an essential and necessary part of His gospel that Joseph was commanded and threatened by an angel if he didn’t live it and “restore” it.

Why did it need to be restored so forcefully if Christ himself didn’t live it or teach it as being essential to His gospel?

The answers to all your questions are in Jacob 2. The key word is “if.” Who is Jacob quoting? Are you taking the position that Joseph Smith inserted this obscure passage into the BoM so that decades later it could be used to justify seducing women in the guise of marriage?

Edited December 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

But there is no scriptural record that he laughed, so obviously he never did.

Correct.  But no one has claimed an angel appeared to him with a drawn sword threatening them if they didn’t laugh or do things that involved lies, deceit and betraying your own wife and others. That’s why your comparison is not a good one. 

Edited December 30, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The answers to all your questions are in Jacob 2. 

No, unless you’re using it as a dodge which is what I see you doing (as well as other answers you’re giving).  But I get you believe polygamy came from God and have found reasons that have helped you believe that.  You have every right to believe as you do too, of course.  And so do I.  

We should just agree to disagree here 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by JulieM

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

my life is incredible though I openly live to get below the walls we all put around ourselves and our beliefs and to get to something that is more real.  Luckily I am surrounded by others who desire the same and hence the level of vulnerability makes for a pretty awesome connectedness.  

I am the king of cupcake village and me and the sugarplum fairy get together to play Mario Kart on the weekends and prank sprites and leprechauns so my life is even better.

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am the king of cupcake village and me and the sugarplum fairy get together to play Mario Kart on the weekends and prank sprites and leprechauns so my life is even better.

Wreck it Ralph ain’t got nothin’ on you.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

Those women could have had even more children if they’d not been married to a man with many other wives  (or just as many).  I don’t see that explanation as valid (to raise seed). 

If they had been married only.  Plus it is likely if they married a less active man or a nonmember, the children would also be nonmembers.

How many faithful LDS men remained unmarried not out of choice and thus would have been available for these plural wives to marry monogamously? (Serious question, anyone have stats on unmarried men that at least do not include nonmembers in Utah there because of coal mining or the army?)

Edited December 30, 2017 by Calm

[DBMormon]

On 12/28/2017 at 11:33 PM, mfbukowski said:

What the heck are you talking about?

being a smart alec.  You find me to be so black and white.  Can I make a suggestion and you take a listen to a conversation like this - http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/12/287-conversation-southern-utah-post-mormon-group-12-10-17/

or perhaps how i frame the following - http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/09/post-spiritual-walk-mormonism-better-analogy/

While I am sure you will continue believing me deeply black and white these may help you see me differently

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I didn't say that. But sometimes, for ideological reasons, people can fight against their own well-being.

You brought up women voting against women’s right to vote to nullify my pointing out that Mormon women voting routinely to support polygamy. I made that point because to me that is good evidence that polygamy as practiced in Mormonism was not oppressive to women. It absolutely was challenging but not oppressive. Your attempt to make my point null and void fails because LDS women also voted, very strongly for women’s suffrage. That too shows Mormon women as a group of people who strengthen women, not oppress them. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is clearly spelled out in Jacob 2.

 

John the Baptist states if God wants, he could raise up from the stones children for Abraham.  Just because something was viewed as possible if God wants it, doesn't mean that it has to happen, be "essential"...after all God may not desire it.

So Jacob only establishes polygamy as a possibility if God desires it, not as an essential principle.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Why do you think God has almost a 1:1 relationship between males and females born if he really wants polygamy?

"Almost 1:1" is not 1:1.  However, there are slightly more males born then females as the natural sex ratio is 1.06 males to 1 female (which adds up when talking billions) , so it looks like polyandry needs to be made available to ensure everyone has the opportunity to be sealed in the next life.

[Bernard Gui]

46 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, unless you’re using it as a dodge which is what I see you doing (as well as other answers you’re giving).  But I get you believe polygamy came from God and have found reasons that have helped you believe that.  You have every right to believe as you do too, of course.  And so do I.  

We should just agree to disagree here 

 

We should have done that long, long ago. Who was Jacob quoting?

Edited December 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Correct.  But no one has claimed an angel appeared to him with a drawn sword threatening them if they didn’t laugh or do things that involved lies, deceit and betraying your own wife and others. That’s why your comparison is not a good one. 

The comparison stands. Just because something is not written does not mean it does not exist or didn't happen.

The only pertinent question is, did an angel really appear?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If they had been married only.  Plus it is likely if they married a less active man or a nonmember, the children would also be nonmembers.

Or, they could have converted their husbands and brought him the gospel (or activated him) and raised their kids active in the church.  That could go either way.

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by JulieM

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

being a smart alec.  You find me to be so black and white.  Can I make a suggestion and you take a listen to a conversation like this - http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/12/287-conversation-southern-utah-post-mormon-group-12-10-17/

or perhaps how i frame the following - http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/09/post-spiritual-walk-mormonism-better-analogy/

While I am sure you will continue believing me deeply black and white these may help you see me differently

Takes too long.

I think faster than you talk and straight up I don't care that much what you think. 

I comment on what you write.   Don't do podcasts.

Edited December 30, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

"Or they could have converted their husbands and brought him the gospel (or activated him) and raised their kids active in the church.  That could go either way."

Quite possible.  It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how many husbands were baptized after their wives and the percentage of their children who were baptized, endowed, and sealed for marriage in the temple.

Unfortunately records being what they were, I know some in my own family who have proxy dates on their records instead of their own living blessings/covenant dates so I am not sure if records could give us the info.  Would make a great project though, get a census records of all in Nauvoo and Utah if that is available early enough and then follow their lines to see what happened with their descendants.

Without statistics that likely weren't gathered at the time, it is impossible to know which would have yielded more faithful children.

It did produce a solid core which has provided many, many good and great leaders for the Church, but again we have no way of knowing if monogamy and choosing from a larger pool of church members would have provided less, the same, or more good and great leaders.

Bottomline for me, it is about faith.  We can prove nothing by anecdotal info save that families were very faithful in some cases and not so faithful in other, families were loving, close, and happy even if having hard times in some cases and the opposite in others.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Yep

That fits you to a TT.