The March Continues: Up Next- Plural Marriage

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That something was done by non-Mormons. The only thing Mormons can do is terminate church membership. The hypocrisy is in accepting and even elevating having mistresses but demonizing plural marriages. Mormons adhere strictly to the doctrines explicitly stated in Jacob 1-3. There is no hypocrisy on their part.

When people start ignoring my entire post and only copy one line,  I know they are not really interested in a dialogue.  Good luck on your quest to change the world to conform to your beliefs.

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

When people start ignoring my entire post and only copy one line,  I know they are not really interested in a dialogue.  Good luck on your quest to change the world to conform to your beliefs.

Oh, come on. Don’t play the victim card. That’s really sad.  I was replying to a specific comment you made to Strappinglad that made reference to my OP.

If the world abided by the principles taught in Jacob 1-3 there would be much, much less infidelity, disillusionment, poverty, abandonment, rape, abortion, divorce, sicide, murder, selfishness, single parenthood, abuse, exploitation, heartache, pornography, #Metoo, sadness.

How really simple it is! Who can deny that? Who wouldn’t want that? Why would you propose that I would or could force everyone to do that?  I have never expressed that kind of compulsory quest in any way or form. I can’t imagine how it could be done other than through persuasion and patience.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh, come on. Don’t play the victim card. That’s really sad.  I was replying to a specific comment you made to Strappinglad that made reference to my OP.

If the world abided by the principles taught in Jacob 1-3 there would be much, much less infidelity, disillusionment, poverty, abandonment, rape, abortion, divorce, sicide, murder, selfishness, single parenthood, abuse, exploitation, heartache, pornography, #Metoo, sadness.

How really simple it is! Who can deny that? Who wouldn’t want that? Why would you propose that I would or could force everyone to do that?  I have never expressed that kind of compulsory quest in any way or form. I can’t imagine how it could be done other than through persuasion and patience.

Expecting. someone to be courteous and respond to the whole intent of a post when they respond is not playing the victim card.

As far as your panacea for fixing the worlds problems, you can't even get Mormons who believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God to follow it.  Mormons have plenty of the problems you listed there to worry about.  Mormons hardly have a monopoly on telling people what they should do that would improve their lives.  So what is your point?  It certainly doesn't address anything I posted about, which you  ignored.

 

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh, come on. Don’t play the victim card. That’s really sad.  I was replying to a specific comment you made to Strappinglad that made reference to my OP.

If the world abided by the principles taught in Jacob 1-3 there would be much, much less infidelity, disillusionment, poverty, abandonment, rape, abortion, divorce, sicide, murder, selfishness, single parenthood, abuse, exploitation, heartache, pornography, #Metoo, sadness.

How really simple it is! Who can deny that? Who wouldn’t want that? Why would you propose that I would or could force everyone to do that?  I have never expressed that kind of compulsory quest in any way or form. I can’t imagine how it could be done other than through persuasion and patience.

...said the guy who helped fund an upmarket shopping mall in Salt Lake City and who sustains a Church President that has two wives.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Expecting. someone to be courteous and respond to the whole intent of a post when they respond is not playing the victim card.

As far as your panacea for fixing the worlds problems, you can't even get Mormons who believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God to follow it.  Mormons have plenty of the problems you listed there to worry about.  Mormons hardly have a monopoly on telling people what they should do that would improve their lives.  So what is your point?  It certainly doesn't address anything I posted about, which you  ignored.

Responding to a specific point that is pertinent or of interest to the responder is common in dialogue and debate. It’s done all the time here and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with courtesy or respect. Even if it did, getting upset and grabbing  your marbles and petulantly running away is the definition of playing the victim card. And a great way to shut off the conversation. 

18 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

...said the guy who helped fund an upmarket shopping mall in Salt Lake City and who sustains a Church President that has two wives.

Well, you got me there! What more can I say?  😵

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Jacob, chapters 1 through 3, the words of the Savior and the Prophets, the Family declaration, and the law of chastity are the best information we have. What more is needed?

An actual sin contained in the act of polygamy.  You did not meet my request to identify an element of sin in the act.

You showed that it is currently not authorized by God (Jacob, current Church teachings), but that is no different than every other marriage in the world.

CFR the sinful element in the practice of polygamy.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Responding to a specific point that is pertinent or of interest to the responder is common in dialogue and debate. It’s done all the time here and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with courtesy or respect. Even if it did, getting upset and grabbing  your marbles and petulantly running away is the definition of playing the victim card. And a great way to shut off the conversation. 

Well, you got me there! What more can I say?  😵

Reread what I actually posted.  Your response has nothing to do with what I was addressing.  And now blaming me for not engaging in something that I never asserted is beyond unreasonable.   This is the exact problem when people lift one sentence, take it completely out of context and then respond to something the poster never even talked about.  If you want to just comment on a single sentence of a poster, then put that line in bold.  But keep the rest of the comment so that others can judge for themselves whether what you said is relevant.  It is actually against the board rules to alter a posters post.  There is a reason for such a rule.  

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

An actual sin contained in the act of polygamy.  You did not meet my request to identify an element of sin in the act.

You showed that it is currently not authorized by God (Jacob, current Church teachings), but that is no different than every other marriage in the world.

CFR the sinful element in the practice of polygamy.

I guess I don’t understand your question or what it is you need to hear, but I will try again. My understanding of Jacob is that God has commanded that marriage must be only between one man and one woman except under only one circumstance: when He commands it in order to raise a righteous generation. Any other practice of it or anything like it is an abomination - sin - to him. I’m not sure how else this can be interpreted. This is my CFR. Please explain why you think I am mistaken.

Quote

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.

Quote

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My understanding of Jacob is that God has commanded that marriage must be only between one man and one woman except under only one circumstance: when He commands it in order to raise a righteous generation. Any other practice of it or anything like it is an abomination - sin - to him. I’m not sure how else this can be interpreted. This is my CFR. Please explain why you think I am mistaken.

So polygamy is sinful only when it disobeys God.  Not the act of polygamy itself, but living it against God's will.

The disobedience, not the nature of the act, is the sin.  I agree.

And I would submit that this differs substantially from fornication, extra marital affairs, abuse, pornography, and other violations of chastity etc, etc, because those acts are inherently sinful where polygamy is not.

Which would make unauthorized polygamy a sin of refusal to keep a commandment, like not paying tithing, not keeping the WoW, not keeping the Sabbath, although obviously a higher disobedience.

Edited May 26, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you want to just comment on a single sentence of a poster, then put that line in bold.

Note that one of the very convenient features of this board is the drop-down you get when when you highlight a specific section in a post - a drop-down that says, “Quote Selection.” It can be used for various purposes.

Quote

It is actually against the board rules to alter a posters post.

Yep.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So polygamy is sinful only when it disobeys God.  Not the act of polygamy itself, but living it against God's will.

The disobedience, not the nature of the act, is the sin.  I agree.

And I would submit that this differs substantially from fornication, extra marital affairs, abuse, pornography, and other violations of chastity etc, etc, because those acts are inherently sinful where polygamy is not.

Which would make unauthorized polygamy a sin of refusal to keep a commandment, like not paying tithing, not keeping the WoW, not keeping the Sabbath, although obviously a higher disobedience.

I see what you are getting at, but n practice I don’t think the distinction needs to be made. I don’t see how that distinction is warranted in the CFRs I provided. But we can disagree on that. 

There is precedent. Nephi violated one of the Ten Commandments, or so it would seem, because of a commandment to do so from God.

[Edit]

Quote

So polygamy is sinful only when it disobeys God.  Not the act of polygamy itself, but living it against God's will.

I’m trying to understand this statement. Isn’t the definition of sin disobedience? 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

When people start ignoring my entire post and only copy one line,  I know they are not really interested in a dialogue.  Good luck on your quest to change the world to conform to your beliefs.

Narrow is the road.

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is a reason for such a rule.  

There’s also this rule...

Quote

Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content)

 

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Narrow is the road.

And strait is the gate. And few there be that find it.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I see what you are getting at, but n practice I don’t think the distinction needs to be made. I don’t see how that distinction is warranted in the CFRs I provided. But we can disagree on that. 

There is precedent. Nephi violated one of the Ten Commandments, or so it would seem, because of a commandment to do so from God.

I think the distinction matters.  In fact I think it's very important.  If we allow our traditions and dislikes to become ingrained then it becomes all that much harder to obey God.

If we allow ourselves to believe that polygamy is immoral or inherently sinful then were God to command it as in Jacob or D&C 132 we would resist obedience.  We have to believe that whatever God requires is right and when he commands we obey.

The  Church ended polygamy in 1890 (ok, maybe 1904 or so).  Prior to that there were several revelations condemning member resistance to obeying that law.  If God had reinstated polygamy in 1930 he probably would have had less resistance than if he were to do so in 2018.  Because 1930 members didn't view polygamy as immoral , just forbidden.  But they saw no sin in their parents and grandparents for living it.

Today the obedience would be a much greater assault on our supposed moral compasses. More like Brigham etc when it was restored.

It is very important to recognize that polygamy is not immoral, sinful, or unchaste (like fornication, adultery,  pornography etc).  It's just not allowed right now.  And also to understand the reason it was stopped.  If it ever no longer violates the law of the land the reason it was stopped becomes moot should God so decide.

Edited May 26, 2018 by JLHPROF

[strappinglad]

Most acts are sins because of disobedience. The act was done at the wrong time or place or circumstance or without authorization. Then there are those acts which, if I do it to you , I get praise and even rewarded for , whereas if you do it to me, you are the most evil person alive.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Most acts are sins because of disobedience. The act was done at the wrong time or place or circumstance or without authorization. Then there are those acts which, if I do it to you , I get praise and even rewarded for , whereas if you do it to me, you are the most evil person alive.

Correct.  And then there are those acts that are inherently evil by definition.  Time and place are irrelevant to the correctness of abuse for instance.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the distinction matters.  In fact I think it's very important.  If we allow our traditions and dislikes to become ingrained then it becomes all that much harder to obey God.

If we allow ourselves to believe that polygamy is immoral or inherently sinful then were God to command it as in Jacob or D&C 132 we would resist obedience.  We have to believe that whatever God requires is right and when he commands we obey.

The  Church ended polygamy in 1890 (ok, maybe 1904 or so).  Prior to that there were several revelations condemning member resistance to obeying that law.  If God had reinstated polygamy in 1930 he probably would have had less resistance than if he were to do so in 2018.  Because 1930 members didn't view polygamy as immoral , just forbidden.  But they saw no sin in their parents and grandparents for living it.

Today the obedience would be a much greater assault on our supposed moral compasses. More like Brigham etc when it was restored.

It is very important to recognize that polygamy is not immoral, sinful, or unchaste (like fornication, adultery,  pornography etc).  It's just not allowed right now.  And also to understand the reason it was stopped.  If it ever no longer violates the law of the land the reason it was stopped becomes moot should God so decide.

Well, those who were commanded indeed resisted. When polygamy is commanded, as in Jacob, then it is not a sin because God has suspended His restriction. Would you say that it is only the concubines that Jacob is objecting to? He includes desiring many wives. If polygamy is practiced because the desire is to have relations with multiple women (or men) rather than for the purpose God specified, then it is sinful.

Quote

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son......

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.

 

In all practicality, I think we are saying the same thing. Would you agree that polygamy is the exception, not the rule?

I note the promise given to the Lamanites that because they observe the Law of Chastity, God will preserve and bless them. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Note that one of the very convenient features of this board is the drop-down you get when when you highlight a specific section in a post - a drop-down that says, “Quote Selection.” It can be used for various purposes.

Yep.

Rolls his eyes.  Since you just cut the rest of my post yet again, I am done.  You obviously have no intention of interacting.  You only want to edit my words to suit your own agenda.  I find that very dishonest on your part especially when you know it is against the board rules.

Edited May 26, 2018 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Rolls his eyes.  Since you just cut the rest of my post yet again, I am done.  You obviously have no intention of interacting.  You only want to edit my words to suit your own agenda.  I find that very dishonest on your part especially when you know it is against the board rules.

No, it is not against the board rules. There is an obvious and well-used feature that allows selective quoting. If you have a problem, stop being the nanny and the victim and report it like the rules you are so fond of say to do. Oops. I just broke that rule.

Or else suck it up and continue the dialogue. I'm game to interact with relevant discussion, not pointless derailing to argue and complain about posting behaviors. Crivens.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And strait is the gate. And few there be that find it.

Unless you're gay!!☺️

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Unless you're gay!!☺️

Not so. (let's not turn this into another one of these endless LGBQ discussions by derailing).

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not so. (let's not turn this into another one of these endless LGBQ discussions by derailing).

Gotcha..and I agree and apologize.

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Gotcha..and I agree and apologize.

No apologies necessary. I'm interested in your thoughts on this topic.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, those who were commanded indeed resisted. When polygamy is commanded, as in Jacob, then it is not a sin because God has suspended His restriction. 

Where was it commanded to practice polyandry or marry other men’s legal wives? Some of these men were good members of the church.

Edited May 26, 2018 by JulieM