Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, why me said:

It could be said that she would rather Joseph be the Kirkland Joseph over the Nauvoo Joseph.

A lot of members seem to prefer the Kirtland Church over the Nauvoo Church.

No polygamy, no King Follett teachings, no plurality of Gods (beyond the godhead), no supposedly  Masonic elements to our ordinances, no garments, no political kingdom, and the list goes on.

A small minority of members for sure, but a recognisable segment nonetheless.  They would have loved us to stay at the Aaronic level of the Kirtland era.

Edited January 1, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

I get what you’re both saying, but it doesn’t really address the precise statement that kiwi made.  I agree that polygamy was allowed by God under certain circumstances.

However, there’s nothing written (that we know of in the Bible) that states that polygamy needed to be restored in order to have the fullness of the gospel restored.

Do either of you believe that Christ lived polygamy as a necessary part of His gospel?

 I really don’t see how what the Bible says or doesn't say is relevant. That is why I asked you if there is any way to prove Jesus laughed. We can assume from our common experience and knowledge of human nature that he did, but it cannot be proven.

 I don’t understand your insistence that it would be more authoritative if it were in the Bible. I was acting under the assumption that we are all LDS in this discussion. Polygamy is clearly an accepted practice in the Bible. Parts of the Law of Moses address it. God blessed it’s practitioners. The Savior himself is a descendant of polygamists.

There are many things in the Restoration for which there is not clear biblical precedent, but that has never been an issue for me, because we believe “many plain and precious things” have been changed or deleted. That’s why the Restoration was imperative  

If one accepts the Book of Mormon as the word of God, then Jacob 2 is the best possible reference to the practice of polygamy because it is chock full of “thus saith the Lord” and “I the Lord” statements....direct revelation to a prophet....that set out clear parameters for its implementation. Those were the parameters observed by LDS polygamists.

 I have already answered your question about Jesus being a polygamist. Why is that important? How would we know? As I said earlier, I wouldn’t be scandalized if he were. I know there are those who believe it, but I have no reason to decide one way or another. It’s clearly Jesus (the Lord of Hosts) whom Jacob is quoting, so the question whether or not he approves is moot.

God said this about Abraham, another polygamist...a blessing you and I receive...

 

Quote

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

12 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In order to determine whether something is actually God's law, we have to start by accepting that there actually is a God.

So, do you?

Given your history, it is my opinion your question is not being asked in good faith. So, I think I'll choose not to play your game. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by ttribe

[Calm]

" I really don’t see how what the Bible says or doesn't say is relevant. That is why I asked you if there is any way to prove Jesus laughed. We can assume from our common experience and knowledge of human nature that he did, but it cannot be proven."

While there is no way to prove any doctrine or visions in the Bible, I can imagine why it would be reassuring to have the Bible as an additional witness that polygamy was not only tolerated by God as other cultural elements were and perhaps even used by God to accomplish his Will, but also that he supported it as a good and nurturing relationship for both men and women.

At the very least, that would not leave JS as the sole source of transmitting God's approval of polygyny through scripture...even though we would still have the same problem of whether or not ancient prophets talked themselves into interpreting God's desires that way because of their own desires for whatever reason (doesn't have to be libido, could simply be just wanted lots of kids or enjoyed having women as companions outside of physical relationships) just as we do now with modern ones.

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, why me said:

But did she know that he was a prophet? Most likely so. If Joseph lied, deceived and betrayed her she would have spilled the beans about him being a fraudster. 

I think it was much more complicated than that for Emma.  IMO, she loved Joseph and was loyal to him.  She believed in him as far as I can tell (regarding him being a Prophet).  But she was a smart, strong woman and she knew he had flaws and had made mistakes and had weaknesses.  She hated polygamy and I think was hurt and betrayed many times because of it.  Remember though that she also had their children to think of and was a devoted Mother.

So it’s not as simple as you’re trying to make it here (at least in my view).

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You know I believe Christ was a polygamist, and yes I believe just as with baptism it was to fulfill all righteousness.

So if I read you right God is ok with polygamy and polygamists but the practice isn't part of the gospel, even despite Jacob 2?

Yes, I know you believe Christ was a polygamist.  I love how you own what you believe and never dodge questions here, JLHPROF.  Thanks for your honesty.

I think God allows polygamy at times, yes.  

What I don’t believe is that he’d command someone to practice it.  And most especially if it hurt your wife and she was strongly opposed to it.  If the person had to sneak around, lie and betray those they loved to practice it, I don’t believe God would expect or command that person to live it.

Someone can live and experience the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ without ever living polygamy.  

Edited January 2, 2018 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think God allows polygamy at times, yes.  

What I don’t believe is that he’d command someone to practice it.  

That doesn't answer the question- is polygamy a gospel doctrine or principle?  Or just a cultural practice God doesn't object to?

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

While there is no way to prove any doctrine or visions in the Bible, I can imagine why it would be reassuring to have the Bible as an additional witness that polygamy was not only tolerated by God as other cultural elements were and perhaps even used by God to accomplish his Will, but also that he supported it as a good and nurturing relationship for both men and women.

At the very least, that would not leave JS as the sole source of transmitting God's approval of polygyny through scripture...

Does it count for anything that Jesus is “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?”

Quote

And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" (Exo. 3:15).

Does it count for anything that Jesus, the 12 Apostles, all of Israel, all people in the Book of Mormon, and all members of the Church are progeny of polygynists either by birth or by adoption? All this sounds like much more than toleration to me. It’s not enough?

Edited January 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That doesn't answer the question- is polygamy a gospel doctrine or principle?  Or just a cultural practice God doesn't object to?

Sorry, I thought I answered but I’ll clarify.

I believe God has allowed it under certain circumstances, but doesn’t command or try to force or threaten destruction to anyone if they don’t live it.

I don’t believe polygamy has anything to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Just as I stated above:

“Someone can live and experience the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ without ever living polygamy.”

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Sorry, I thought I answered but I’ll clarify.

I believe God has allowed it under certain circumstances, but doesn’t command or try to force or threaten destruction to anyone if they don’t live it.

I don’t believe polygamy has anything to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Just as I stated above:

“Someone can live and experience the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ without ever living polygamy.”

So it has nothing at all to do with the gospel.  It's a cultural practice God doesn't object to. Got it.

Because according to scripture any law of God has blessings for living and penalties for refusing to live.  The penalty for refusing to live plural marriage is no more severe than for refusing to follow other laws of God.  God DOES compel obedience and sometimes disobedience brings death.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So it has nothing at all to do with the gospel.  It's a cultural practice God doesn't object to. Got it.

Because according to scripture any law of God has blessings for living and penalties for refusing to live.  The penalty for refusing to live plural marriage is no more severe than for refusing to follow other laws of God.  God DOES compel obedience and sometimes disobedience brings death.

So, do you believe everyone will need to obey and live polygamy if they want to be in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, JLHPROF?  (Genuine guestion as I really want to know what you believe about that.)

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does it count for anything that Jesus is “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?”

Does it count for anything that Jesus, the 12 Apostles, all of Israel, all people in the Book of Mormon, and all members of the Church are progeny of polygynists either by birth or by adoption? All this sounds like much more than toleration to me. It’s not enough?

You will have to ask those who exclude polygamy from God's desires for humanity.

I am open to it myself because I can see where men and women have been loved, in loved, and made deeply held commitments to more than one person in their lives.  I don't see any reason at this time why when mortal limitations are removed, why men and women wouldn't be able to perfectly love more than one spouse at the same time over eternity.  I have not had a personal witness of it, so I have not drawn any conclusion besides it makes sense to me if eternity is primarily about being with those we love.  But love and commitment is not an automatic guarantee of eternal relationships if the Church's position on gay marriage lines up with the Lord's, so I really have no clue.

Btw, chances are all of humanity are the progeny of rapists, abusers, and prostitutes.  I don't see that particular argument as that strong.  All types of good people in the world have had descendants, all types of evil people have as well.

I do believe that there are things that God has tolerated and even approved of that will be no part of our eternal life.  The obvious example is killing in defense of our loved ones.  It won't be necessary.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, do you believe everyone will need to obey and live polygamy if they want to be in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, JLHPROF?  (Genuine guestion as I really want to know what you believe about that.)

That depends on the purpose of the law.  All laws serve a purpose.  If a law serves a purpose for exalted life then it will have to be lived by all who enter.  Scripture is 100% clear on that.

I personally suspect that polygamy will be required at some point if it is a gospel law.  Joseph taught all must be saved on the same principles, and that laws belong to kingdoms.  If not there would be great variety in obedience and faithfulness within any kingdom and glory.

If not a gospel law, then it is merely mortal cultural tradition that God doesn't object to sometimes.

Edited January 2, 2018 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That depends on the purpose of the law.  All laws serve a purpose.  If a law serves a purpose for exalted life then it will have to be lived by all who enter.  Scripture is 100% clear on that.

I personally suspect that polygamy will be required at some point if it is a gospel law.  Joseph taught all must be saved on the same principles, and that laws belong to kingdoms.  If not there would be great variety in obedience and faithfulness within any kingdom and glory.

If not a gospel law, then it is merely mortal cultural tradition that God doesn't object to sometimes.

Thank you for explaining what you believe.  You’ve given me some things to think about.

Is there any other principle, ordinance or power that Joseph stated was necessary to restore (to complete the gospel of Jesus Christ) that all don’t need to experience or live (not sure which word to use but I hope you understand what I mean) to be in the highest degree with God (or become a God/Goddess themselves)? 

(Maybe technically the priesthood but I think women do experience and participate or use that power)

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Btw, chances are all of humanity are the progeny of rapists, abusers, and prostitutes.  I don't see that particular argument as that strong.  All types of good people in the world have had descendants, all types of evil people have as well. I do believe that there are things that God has tolerated and even approved of that will be no part of our eternal life....

But that glosses over the facts that God gave Moses His name as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” the promised lineage of the Messiah, the doctrine of a chosen people, the Abrahamic promises and covenants of the temple, the genealogy of Lehi, the godly promises to Joseph of Egypt and Nephi, the Aaronic Priesthood, patriarchal blessings, and pretty much all the rest of the gospel and the Restoration. All these originated with polygamists. Surely the great patriarchs who now sit on thrones of glory with God the Father were something more than common rapists, abusers, and prostitutes. Or does He just wink at their barbarity for a higher purpose? Maybe I’m truly one of the Old School desperately clinging to the past who needs to die off so the patriarchy can be overthrown. Or maybe I’m not understanding what you are saying.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That depends on the purpose of the law.  All laws serve a purpose.  If a law serves a purpose for exalted life then it will have to be lived by all who enter.  Scripture is 100% clear on that.

What is the purpose of polygamy?

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

What I don’t believe is that he’d command someone to practice it.  

But he said he would command its practice under certain circumstances, no?

Quote

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 January 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

If not a gospel law, then it is merely mortal cultural tradition that God doesn't object to sometimes.

According to the Book of Mormon, polygamy is not a cultural tradition that God doesn't object to sometimes.

"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; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 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." (Jacob 2:27-30)

 

 

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

Given your history, it is my opinion your question is not being asked in good faith.

Given that my history gives you no valid reason to suppose that, I think you are projecting. Besides which, what trap could there possibly be in a simple question like that?

If you want to conceal your true views on the question of whether there is a God, then it isn't my good faith that's in doubt.

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, I think I'll choose not to play your game. 

Out of the two of us, you are the only one with game-playing in mind.

[ttribe]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Given that my history gives you no valid reason to suppose that, I think you are projecting. Besides which, what trap could there possibly be in a simple question like that?

If you want to conceal your true views on the question of whether there is a God, then it isn't my good faith that's in doubt.

Out of the two of us, you are the only one with game-playing in mind.

That's fine. Enjoy having the last word on the matter.

[ttribe]

On 1/1/2018 at 4:15 AM, kiwi57 said:

Yes, we must rush to the defense of the so-called "victims," mustn't we?

Never mind that they didn't think of themselves as victims...

My comment was about the description of Emma.  I believe the record is sufficiently clear to state that, at various times, Emma felt victimized by polygamy.

On 1/1/2018 at 4:37 AM, kiwi57 said:

Well, I can tell that there are some who seem to want them to.

 

You don't believe there is anyone who struggles with this issue relative to maintaining their testimony of the Church and its teachings?

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, Gray said:

If being born into a "righteous lineage" is some kind of advantage, the effects on the person's behavior can't count toward the final judgement, can they? Not if God is judging righteously. Not everyone can be born into these lines.

I don't believe it's an advantage to the person (outside of how they use their agency to make it so) but more so an advantage in fulfilling the purposes of the Lord.  Bringing the right people together at the right times so they can work to establish the cause of Zion and His church.  That kind of thing.

[bluebell]

On 12/31/2017 at 4:41 PM, Gray said:

In both cases they're choosing their own selfish desires over their children.

Of course it's possible to be an actor and a good parent. Or to be godly and a good parent.

 

It does when there are dozens of wives and children.

I've never heard of trying to obey God's commandments explained as 'choosing their own selfish desires'.  That's an interesting take on it but I don't think it's very accurate.   And I disagree that the number of wives and children alone determine whether or not polygamy is child neglect.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never heard of trying to obey God's commandments explained as 'choosing their own selfish desires'.  That's an interesting take on it but I don't think it's very accurate.   And I disagree that the number of wives and children alone determine whether or not polygamy is child neglect.

Let me put it this way - putting the thrill and satisfaction of feeling like you're doing right by God over the well-being of your children is selfish. It's no different from any kind of self-serving behavior.

There are only 24 hours in each day. If you have 50 plus children spread out over multiple households, you can't possibly be an effective parent to most of them.

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe it's an advantage to the person (outside of how they use their agency to make it so) but more so an advantage in fulfilling the purposes of the Lord.  Bringing the right people together at the right times so they can work to establish the cause of Zion and His church.  That kind of thing.

Polygamy seems an awfully complicated, inefficient, and messy shortcut to simply having the right people make travel arrangements.