Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Well, now you're getting into a philosophical issue on the state of present day culture; one I wasn't even trying to reference, at all.

You said that you thought Emma "felt victimized." (Mind-reading is a terrible thing - but only when Kiwi57 does it, right?)

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

[sigh] Two things - 1) the definition of "so many" is clearly in the eye of the beholder and I've long been an advocate for leaning towards leaving the ninety and nine to pursue the one;

Which explains why you said "so many" - how, exactly?

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

and 2) you are trying to mind read again.  I am NOT trying to emotionally blackmail anyone.

JHLPROF previously wrote:

"Perhaps we should save our moral outrage for the issues of our day instead of picking apart the spiritual testimonies of the early saints."

To which you replied:

"Except that so many members' testimonies are hinging on this issue of polygamy.  Do they not matter?"

I'm not "mind reading" TT, I'm just reading. That is what I read, because that is what you wrote. When you effectively tell your interlocutor that he's being a callous cavalier cad if he doesn't share your concern for the presumed "many" enough to jettison his discussion priorities for yours, then that's what emotional blackmail is.

Sorry.

[kiwi57]

On 1/1/2018 at 3:53 PM, ttribe said:

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. 

BTW TT, I'm so impressed by this response that I've decided to add it to my signature. Please let me know if you disapprove, and I'll remove it.

You do not do something against board rules and demand approval after the fact. Poster removed. 

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You said that you thought Emma "felt victimized." (Mind-reading is a terrible thing - but only when Kiwi57 does it, right?)

My full comment was - "I believe the record is sufficiently clear to state that, at various times, Emma felt victimized by polygamy." That's my reading of the evidence over the years.  She was, IMO, distraught.  She was, IMO, angry.  Later she denied its very existence.  Those were indicators to me that she may have felt she was the victim of a bad set of events.  None of that has anything to do with your disdain for some so-called modern culture of victimization.

Quote

Which explains why you said "so many" - how, exactly?

My assessment from many years of encountering actual people who are burdened by worry over this issue. My assessment from reading boards, just like this one, over many years.  My assessment from reading the accounts of both the faithful and the apostate over many years.  So, my assessment, is that there are "so many" who struggle mightily with this issue and denying their existence only further marginalizes and alienates them.

Edited January 2, 2018 by ttribe

[ttribe]

24 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

BTW TT, I'm so impressed by this response that I've decided to add it to my signature. Please let me know if you disapprove, and I'll remove it.

Let me remind you of some history - 7 years ago, I publicly stated that I would no longer discuss my personal spiritual beliefs or feelings as a direct response to being targeted by Doctor Scratch as part of his "Encyclopedia of Mopologetics".  He made a concerted effort to do IRL harm to my career.  So, when asked I don't respond to the type of question you posed.  Moreover, I've seen your methods and I find no redeeming value in disclosing personal issues to you.  So, yes, I do object.  Please remove it.

Edited January 2, 2018 by ttribe

[ttribe]

23 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

JHLPROF previously wrote:

"Perhaps we should save our moral outrage for the issues of our day instead of picking apart the spiritual testimonies of the early saints."

To which you replied:

"Except that so many members' testimonies are hinging on this issue of polygamy.  Do they not matter?"

I'm not "mind reading" TT, I'm just reading. That is what I read, because that is what you wrote. When you effectively tell your interlocutor that he's being a callous cavalier cad if he doesn't share your concern for the presumed "many" enough to jettison his discussion priorities for yours, then that's what emotional blackmail is.

Sorry.

Mine was a sincere question as to the state of defense on this issue.  Truly, what is more important - An absolute defense, or a charitable effort to help the hurting navigate these waters?  Discussions sometimes require the thought provoking approach.  I made no effort to shame JHLPROF.  I'm confused why you think he needs a defense from you, any way.

Frankly, I really don't give a damn how you define "emotional blackmail" given your track record of ham-fisted commitment to an ends-justify-the-means approach to defense of the Church, its history and its doctrines.  I've said it before and I'll say it again - I believe the methods you use to be far more damaging than beneficial, in the long-run.

Edited January 2, 2018 by ttribe

[kiwi57]

aa

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

My full comment was - "I believe the record is sufficiently clear to state that, at various times, Emma felt victimized by polygamy." That's my reading of the evidence over the years.  She was, IMO, distraught.  She was, IMO, angry.  Later she denied its very existence.  Those were indicators to me that she may have felt she was the victim of a bad set of events.  None of that has anything to do with your disdain for some so-called modern culture of victimization.

Good thing I wasn't talking about my disdain, then.

However, the term "victimized" carries with it rather a lot of cultural baggage these days, and it's reasonable to suggest that none of that is likely to have applied to Emma.

Furthermore, I think Emma's attitude towards Plural Marriage could more accurately be described as ambivalent and/or vacillating.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

My assessment from many years of encountering actual people who are burdened by worry over this issue. My assessment from reading boards, just like this one, over many years.  My assessment from reading the accounts of both the faithful and the apostate over many years.  So, my assessment, is that there are "so many" who struggle mightily with this issue and denying their existence only further marginalizes and alienates them.

Like I said, I'm sure that there are some.

But in all the wards in all the stakes in both of the countries where I have lived and served in the Church, the number of people I have met who cited polygamy (as one item in a long list of complaints) as a reason for leaving the Church was just one, and the number of those whose struggles with polygamy were an obstacle for more than a few weeks was zero.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Mine was a sincere question as to the state of defense on this issue.  Truly, what is more important - An absolute defense, or a charitable effort to help the hurting navigate these waters?  Discussions sometimes require the thought provoking approach.  I made no effort to shame JHLPROF.  I'm confused why you think he needs a defense from you, any way.

Frankly, I really don't give a damn how you define "emotional blackmail" given your track record of ham-fisted commitment to an ends-justify-the-means approach to defense of the Church, its history and its doctrines.  I've said before and I'll say it again - I believe the methods you use to be far more damaging than beneficial, in the long-run.

 

Ah yes, my famous "track record," that provides you with such a convenient alibi, every time you decide you want to conjure by it.

I'm happy to let the other readers decide whether my reading of what you wrote was reasonable or not.

[kiwi57]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let me remind you of some history - 7 years ago, I publicly stated that I would no longer discuss my personal spiritual beliefs or feelings as a direct response to being targeted by Doctor Scratch as part of his "Encyclopedia of Mopologetics".  He made a concerted effort to do IRL harm to my career.  So, when asked I don't respond to the type of question you posed.  Moreover, I've seen your methods and I find no redeeming value in disclosing personal issues to you.  So, yes, I do object.  Please remove it.

Okay, I can understand that.

[drums12]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I don't agree. Whatever her failings may have been, she lived in the wrong time and place to be part of our modern "Victim" culture.

I'm sure that there have been some. I don't think it's the "so many" with whom you seem to be trying to emotionally blackmail us.

I think it's a lot more than you seem to think.  I personally have nearly lost my faith in Joseph Smith's calling over this.  I'm still hanging on, but by a thread.  I know of many others in similar circumstances.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If you think lineage is meaningless to God you should revisit the scriptures.  All of them.  From ancient to modern.  God has always had chosen lineages.

True. 

But lest one read elitism into this, be it known that chosen lineages have responsibilities as well as privileges. One responsibility is to carry the word of God to others so they can then become part of the chosen lineage by adoption. 

It amounts to an orderly roll-out of the Kingdom of God by choosing some to teach the rest. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't see it that way, but for times when I do have that perspective I try to remember:

If there is one thing that I know, it's that I am a really bad judge on being able to correctly understand or interpret things I have no personal information of and/or especially don't necessarily agree with.  If I really and truly believe that "God's ways are not my ways" then I have to accept that there will be times that God is not going to do something the way I think it should be done or would have done it.  

If I wasn't willing to worship a God who did things I disagreed with or didn't understand, i'd only be willing to worship a God if he was just like me and that thought makes me shudder because I am really flawed.

If you're looking for a disagreeable God, we could start ascribing all kinds of awful things to his will. Malaria blankets? Why not. Radiation leaks? Sure, pile it on. "God's ways are not my ways."

 

Personally I prefer to start with the assumption that God is good.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

It seems like your whole argument is "I believe that polygamy is abusive and therefore God could not be the instigator because then He would be doing something I disagree with."  I'm sure you can see why that is less than persuasive for others.  If God actually commanded someone to live polygamy, then it makes all the difference in whether or not they are giving in to the sin of selfishness.

The reason that people haven't been able to "safely conclude" that polygamy isn't of God (despite so many trying) is because there is no evidence that polygamy in and of itself is abusive.  It can be abusive of course but it's not always abusive.  Even I can see that and i'm pretty ambiguous about polygamy in general.

If we're not able to discern good from evil, than any attempt at discerning the work of God from the work of Satan (or whatever benevolent or evil entities) is utterly futile. Worshiping God would be similarly futile - we might unknowingly be worshiping the wrong entity.

But assuming we can discern good from evil, we can judge polygamy by its fruits. The fruits are mostly rotten. Therefore it's not of God.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

But assuming we can discern good from evil, we can judge polygamy by its fruits. The fruits are mostly rotten. Therefore it's not of God.

It's those last steps I can't agree with.  I don't consider the fruits of polygamy rotten just because some polygamists corrupted the practice.  Any more than I consider Christianity rotten because of the crusades, inquisition, or Westboro Baptist.  I just don't see polygamy as a tree bearing rotten fruit at all.

I see the hand and possibly the pattern of God in it when lived righteously.

[Thinking]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't consider the fruits of polygamy rotten just because some polygamists corrupted the practice.

Please explain how some polygamists corrupted the practice.

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's those last steps I can't agree with.  I don't consider the fruits of polygamy rotten just because some polygamists corrupted the practice.  Any more than I consider Christianity rotten because of the crusades, inquisition, or Westboro Baptist.  I just don't see polygamy as a tree bearing rotten fruit at all.

I see the hand and possibly the pattern of God in it when lived righteously.

Part of me wishes my head was buried in the sand too

Just playing.  I simply don't get where you're coming from on this at all, but disagreement ought to be expected.  

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

If you're looking for a disagreeable God, we could start ascribing all kinds of awful things to his will. Malaria blankets? Why not. Radiation leaks? Sure, pile it on. "God's ways are not my ways."

 

Personally I prefer to start with the assumption that God is good.

I agree, God is good.  I just don't believe that my idea of good always matches what is actually good. I don't think that highly of myself.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

If we're not able to discern good from evil, than any attempt at discerning the work of God from the work of Satan (or whatever benevolent or evil entities) is utterly futile. Worshiping God would be similarly futile - we might unknowingly be worshiping the wrong entity.

But assuming we can discern good from evil, we can judge polygamy by its fruits. The fruits are mostly rotten. Therefore it's not of God.

I do believe that we can discern good from evil when we have the spirit with us.  But we are not infallible, especially when we feel strongly about something.

But no, the fruits of polygamy have not been mostly rotten.  Like monogamy, the fruit is mixed and depends more on the person who is practicing it than on the institution itself.

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do believe that we can discern good from evil when we have the spirit with us.  But we are not infallible, especially when we feel strongly about something.

But no, the fruits of polygamy have not been mostly rotten.  Like monogamy, the fruit is mixed and depends more on the person who is practicing it than on the institution itself.

How do you weigh the good fruit and the bad fruit of polygamy?  I'd guess the fruit is mostly if not all rotten for polygamy.  I don't know what fruit of polygamy is good.  Do you?  If so, can you tell me?  

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How do you weigh the good fruit and the bad fruit of polygamy?  I'd guess the fruit is mostly if not all rotten for polygamy.  I don't know what fruit of polygamy is good.  Do you?  If so, can you tell me?  

You mean besides the children?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You mean besides the children?

Of course besides the children.  Children come from monogamy just as from polygamy, although they come at a slower rate in polygamy, or so they say.  Children can come from rape, or incest, or while cheating on a spouse.  I don't know that we can call children the good fruit of rape, can we?  

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course besides the children.  Children come from monogamy just as from polygamy, although they come at a slower rate in polygamy, or so they say.  Children can come from rape, or incest, or while cheating on a spouse.  I don't know that we can call children the good fruit of rape, can we?  

I was just looking for clarification on what exactly you were asking.  God says that the specific reason He commands polygamy is because of the seed it produces.  I just wanted to know if you were ignoring that specific scriptural 'good fruit' in your request. 

And yes, children come in all sorts of ways but when we are talking about polygamy, those specific children come through specific lineages that would not exist without plural marriage.

For example, Heber G. Grant was a product of polygamy and a prophet and president of the LDS church.  His spirit would still have come to earth without polygamy but Jedediah Grant would not have been his father.  His lineage would have been different.

If you read the journals of polygamist women though, it becomes clear that many believed it brought forth much good fruit.  That's why it's interesting to hear people (with no personal experience with polygamy) say that it produced only rotten fruit.  

For example, Laurel Ulrich wrote a well received book (here is a write up about it in the New York Times) that showed that some women sought out polygamy-

“A House Full of Females” is sensitive to the difficulty and confusion that accompanied early plural marriage, with its implied loss of status for women. But the book also tells a more complicated tale about women’s on-the-ground experiences. While some women objected to plural marriage, Ulrich notes, others sought it out as a means of securing economic stability or of escaping from abusive marriages. Still others came to embrace plural marriage as a form of communitarianism, in which women shared domestic burdens and labor. Ulrich describes friendships and rivalries between wives. She even makes a case for plural marriage as a vehicle for a form of feminist consciousness-raising. Although outsiders referred to Brigham Young’s home as his “harem,” Ulrich writes, “it could also have been described as an experiment in cooperative housekeeping and an incubator of female activism.”

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I do believe that we can discern good from evil when we have the spirit with us.  But we are not infallible, especially when we feel strongly about something.

But no, the fruits of polygamy have not been mostly rotten.  Like monogamy, the fruit is mixed and depends more on the person who is practicing it than on the institution itself.

The fruits of polygamy as I see them:

• Deception, often involving one's legal spouse, the public, the church, and law enforcement
• Defacto single parent families, where the patriarch is maintaining multiple separate households
• Love of husband and wife waxing cold
• A tendency toward marrying minor girls  as  available women become more and more scarce

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree, God is good.  I just don't believe that my idea of good always matches what is actually good. I don't think that highly of myself.

Then how would you ever be able to judge whether or not God is good?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

How do you weigh the good fruit and the bad fruit of polygamy?  I'd guess the fruit is mostly if not all rotten for polygamy.  I don't know what fruit of polygamy is good.  Do you?  If so, can you tell me?  

The traits it develops when lived righteously are traits that make us more Christlike.
Selflessness, love, charity, sacrifice, work ethic, patience, and the ability to overcome negative traits like jealousy, greed, selfishness, anger etc.
The list goes on and on.

In fact, one of the arguments made by polygamists in the early days and by some fundamentalists today is that polygamy forces men and women to be more like Christ.
If they don't, then the "bad fruit" begins to appear and everyone is miserable.  It is literally a fire to burn out the dross.

But people today seem to think the fire unnecessary,  and if it doesn't make you happy then it can't possibly be from God.  And they would be wrong.

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Then how would you ever be able to judge whether or not God is good?

Because the very definition of good is whatever God says it is.  As long as you can be certain it is God's will.  And that of course is where the disagreement comes from.

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The traits it develops when lived righteously are traits that make us more Christlike.
Selflessness, love, charity, sacrifice, work ethic, patience, and the ability to overcome negative traits like jealousy, greed, selfishness, etc.
The list goes on and on.

In fact, one of the arguments made by polygamists in the early days and by some fundamentalists today is that polygamy forces men and women to be more like Christ.
If they don't, then the "bad fruit" begins to appear.

 

This reaffirms a statement I made in the past - If this principle is from God, it can't be properly lived in this life.