The March Continues: Up Next- Plural Marriage

[strappinglad]

Sealed  ... married   Sam Ting?  Brigham was sealed to Joseph. But I derail...

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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

We are ranging far from the point of the OP. Those questions have been asked and answered and debated many, many, many times here. This isn't the place to do it again.

Do you think polygamy or plural marriages are next on the agenda to change the basic concept of marriage?

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are ranging far from the point of the OP. Those questions have been asked and answered and debated many, many, many times here. This isn't the place to do it again.

Do you think polygamy or plural marriages are next on the agenda to change the basic concept of marriage?

Polyandry was a part of how polygamy was lived.  Or are you just ok with men having more than one wife and not ok with women marrying more than one man at a time?  It’s very much a part of this conversation if you’re discussing that you believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

 

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Polyandry was a part of how polygamy was lived.  Or are you just ok with men having more than one wife and not ok with women marrying more than one man at a time?  It’s very much a part of this conversation if you’re discussing that you believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

It bears repeating that I hold to the doctrine and restrictions set forth in Jacob 1-3 and the Family Proclamation. To practice it myself, I would have to have a firm assurance from the Spirit that it was right, and even then it would be difficult. I think that was the experience of the early Saints. I believe it was done not to satisfy the lusts of men, but to do what Jacob prescribed as the only reason it could be practiced....to raise seed to the Lord. That would involve tremendous faith and sacrifice by all those involved. If it is based on lust, then the condemnation Jacob described would be fully merited. 

 No, not ok with the reverse. I don’t know where that is countenanced in scripture. I can’t imagine what purpose it would serve.

I do find it odd that our soccer star (among many others, he just happened to make the news ) can live with two women as if they were married, but not if they are married. Don’t you think that is odd?

Edited May 26, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

3 hours 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.

It is not against the board rules to shorten posts that I know of.  I do it all the time to make it obvious what I am responding to plus it makes it tons easier to read.  Iirc, they were asking us to do it back when the board was started so it would speed up loading threads, especially for those overseas.  I only leave the whole post when I am being lazy or it is short and won't be confusing.

I don't remember anyone ever getting dinged for quoting part of a post.  Changing actual words (the "let me fix that for you" variety)  or removing crucial ones (obvious intent to change meaning like removing a "not") for a prank...those I have seen moderated.  But never just shortening a post.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Sealed  ... married   Sam Ting?  Brigham was sealed to Joseph. But I derail...

Parent/Child, not spousal.

With only one exception that we know of those are the only two revealed types of sealings.

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not against the board rules to shorten posts that I know of.  I do it all the time to make it obvious what I am responding to plus it makes it tons easier to read.  Iirc, they were asking us to do it back when the board was started so it would speed up loading threads, especially for those overseas.  I only leave the whole post when I am being lazy or it is short and won't be confusing.

I don't remember anyone ever getting dinged for posting part of a quote.  Changing actual words (the "let me fix that for you" variety)  or removing crucial ones (obvious intent to change meaning like removing a "not") for a prank...those I have seen moderated.  But never just shortening a post.

Thanks for the clarification. I still find it disingenuous for a poster to pull one sentence completely out of context and then make a comment about that single sentence that has nothing to do with what was written.  Any suggestions on how I deal with that kind of poster especially when I ask him politely and he continues to do it?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for the clarification. I still find it disingenuous for a poster to pull one sentence completely out of context and then make a comment about that single sentence that has nothing to do with what was written.  Any suggestions on how I deal with that kind of poster especially when I ask him politely and he continues to do it?

I think it is a matter of interpretation, not intention in most cases.  Given posting history of both posters, pretty sure it is misunderstanding, not intentional here.

There are some posters who almost always get it wrong even after multiple times clarifying.  Those I put on ignore though sometimes read them or respond if I see a comment quoted or if it is obvious they are responding to one of my posts.  Neither of you fall in that category for me, though gridlock has happened on occasion for me with both of you, iirc.

Civilly ending the conversation if you get to the point where you don't believe the other will understand the intent of your comment seems like the best approach.  That is what I generally do if I feel like I am just having to clarify my posts more than twice because they are misunderstood.

[sunstoned]

On 5/25/2018 at 10:54 AM, Bernard Gui said:

In fact, following the Prophet (and Jacob 2:30) would preclude any such notion.

Jacob 2:30 didn't seem to slow JS or BY down at all.

[sunstoned]

On 5/25/2018 at 3:42 PM, Marginal Gains said:

Well that seems a bit disingenuous.

Its been one man + multiple women and one woman + multiple men. I’d  hardly call that archetypal monogamy - which is what you are trying to imply is the case in your post I’ve just quoted.

Why not be bold about what Mormonism believes - that plural marriage was desirable in the past and will be practiced in the eternities. There’s just a brief hiatus at the moment because, well...I’m not actually sure why there’s a brief hiatus.

The congress of the United States caused the brief hiatus.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Jacob 2:30 didn't seem to slow JS or BY down at all.

Not sure what that means, but I find this interesting.

Brigham Young	56 children
John Taylor	34
Lorenzo Snow	42
Heber Kimball	66
Orson Pratt	45
Joseph F. Smith	45
William Clayton	42
Orson Hyde	32
Parley Pratt	30
Ezra T. Benson	35
George Q. Cannon	32
Wilford Woodruff	34
George A. Smith	20
Daniel H. Wells	40
Charles C. Rich	51
Amasa M. Lyman	38
Franklin D. Richards	29
Edwin D. Woolley	26
Erastus Snow	37
Newell Whitney	12
TOTAL	746

 

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

The congress of the United States caused the brief hiatus.

Actually I think it was the general desires of the members that caused the hiatus.  Congress was just one stimulus that impacted their desires.

Edited May 27, 2018 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not sure what that means, but I find this interesting.

Brigham Young	56
John Taylor	34
Lorenzo Snow	42
Heber Kimball	66
Orson Pratt	45
Joseph F. Smith	45
William Clayton	42
Orson Hyde	32
Parley Pratt	30
Ezra T. Benson	35
George Q. Cannon	32
Wilford Woodruff	34
George A. Smith	20
Daniel H. Wells	40
Charles C. Rich	51
Amasa M. Lyman	38
Franklin D. Richards	29
Edwin D. Woolley	26
Erastus Snow	37
Newell Whitney	12
TOTAL	746

 

 

What is this number?  Looks like children?

Edited May 27, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

The congress of the United States caused the brief hiatus.

The question of the OP is, unless one subscribes to the Book of Mormon, have all other objections (including those used by the Congress) been rendered moot? Even the number 2 - why is it sacrosanct given today's broad interpretation of marriage....a relationship between consenting adults. Why is living with or having children by multiple partners OK, even laudatory in some circles, but marrying them is not? So it seems to be with our soccer star. How does that work? What standard is applied here?

Many men and women who were involved in plural marriage pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of their persecutors on this very issue. The polygamists married and were responsible for their families and they were jailed, while the pious profligates had their mistresses and secret love-children who wrote the laws and arrested the polygamists were praised. How does that work?

Edited May 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What is this number?  Looks like children?

Yep. Raising seed unto the Lord.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is a matter of interpretation, not intention in most cases.  Given posting history of both posters, pretty sure it is misunderstanding, not intentional here.

There are some posters who almost always get it wrong even after multiple times clarifying.  Those I put on ignore though sometimes read them or respond if I see a comment quoted or if it is obvious they are responding to one of my posts.  Neither of you fall in that category for me, though gridlock has happened on occasion for me with both of you, iirc.

Civilly ending the conversation if you get to the point where you don't believe the other will understand the intent of your comment seems like the best approach.  That is what I generally do if I feel like I am just having to clarify my posts more than twice because they are misunderstood.

Thanks. That is helpful. I don’t pot people on ignore because I like reading all sides of an issue. But I will take your advice on how to deal with someone who ignores what I am saying and takes what I have said out of context 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Thanks. That is helpful. I don’t pot people on ignore because I like reading all sides of an issue. But I will take your advice on how to deal with someone who ignores what I am saying and takes what I have said out of context 

I don't like ignoring people either.  I feel an obligation to answer if someone responds to my posts with a question and I worry .i will miss these.

Otoh, after trying to do it that way, once I adding caring for my mom to the mix where every conversation is almost an interrogation so .I can try and figure out what she really wants and try to convey to her what I need her to understand...well, it just isn't as meaningful to me as it was.  The board is more stress release these days than a place to learn new things.  So I ignore stuff that triggers irritation most days.  One of these days life will go back to normal or they will cure dementia or something that leaves me with emotional energy to deal with what feels like contention even if it isn't.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't like ignoring people either.  I feel an obligation to answer if someone responds to my posts with a question and I worry .i will miss these.

Otoh, after trying to do it that way, once I adding caring for my mom to the mix where every conversation is almost an interrogation so .I can try and figure out what she really wants and try to convey to her what I need her to understand...well, it just isn't as meaningful to me as it was.  The board is more stress release these days than a place to learn new things.  So I ignore stuff that triggers irritation most days.  One of these days life will go back to normal or they will cure dementia or something that leaves me with emotional energy to deal with what feels like contention even if it isn't.

Thanks Calm.  I really get a lot out of your posts.  I hope things improve with your Mom and at least you can get more help to free up your life.  That is so tough to go through. Don't forget to take care of yourself.   My prayers are with you. 

[Exiled]

On 5/25/2018 at 6:47 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Should we use Maury as our moral compass?

I think you ought to look at what calm said and then what I said in response. I don't think one could say I think Maury Povich should be our moral compass from the exchange. I had said earlier that I don't think siblings or parents and their children should have kids together because of possible birth defects that can result from it. I also said it is simply "yucky" (I said this to please the crowd here that loves certain conclusions to be assumed without much debate) I would expect that these statements shouldn't be too controversial here. I don't think anyone here is arguing for sibling marriage are they? Then Calm asked if I would support sibling marriage if there wasn't a possibility of having kids. The answer is no. 

So, why are you even asking about Maury Povich? 

[CMZ]

While the Church does not currently allow plural marriages I'm not sure why some members are against polygamy under any circumstance.

Edited May 27, 2018 by CMZ

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, CMZ said:

While the Church does not currently allow plural marriages but I'm not sure why some members are against polygamy under any circumstance.

"I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen." - Joseph Smith 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I think you ought to look at what calm said and then what I said in response. I don't think one could say I think Maury Povich should be our moral compass from the exchange. I had said earlier that I don't think siblings or parents and their children should have kids together because of possible birth defects that can result from it. I also said it is simply "yucky" (I said this to please the crowd here that loves certain conclusions to be assumed without much debate) I would expect that these statements shouldn't be too controversial here. I don't think anyone here is arguing for sibling marriage are they? Then Calm asked if I would support sibling marriage if there wasn't a possibility of having kids. The answer is no. 

So, why are you even asking about Maury Povich? 

No one here is arguing for sibling marriage, but it is being raised elsewhere along with other previously forbidden partnerships. Rather, I am questioning, given our current and progressing state of affairs, whether the rationale that has traditionally been used to oppose it - medical concerns about progeny - still hold. You think it does. But if marriage is a partnership between consenting adults and progeny can be easily prevented or aborted, what other objections can be made? Yucky is not a rationale. The Maury (and others) pop culture morality phenomenon is interesting.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

No one here is arguing for sibling marriage, but it is being raised elsewhere along with other previously forbidden partnerships. Rather, I am questioning, given our current and progressing state of affairs, whether the rationale that has traditionally been used to oppose it - medical concerns about progeny - still hold. You think it does. But if marriage is a partnership between consenting adults and progeny can be easily prevented or aborted, what other objections can be made? Yucky is not a rationale. The Maury (and others) pop culture morality phenomenon is interesting.

Maury and the other talk shows love to parade around the odd behaviors found in society because it gets viewers as car accidents do on the freeway.  These behaviors are practiced by the very, very few and so are interesting to watch for many.  Extremes are also used in public debate as a method to push one position or another.  It is a form of slippery slope argument, e.g., allow gay marriage today and soon some backwoods farmer will marry his pet goat or his sister.  It's really a non-sequitur.  Do you actually think that because some soccer star wants the same type of Maury Povich publicity with his antics, we are "marching" to human/animal marriage or sibling/sibling marriage?

[Calm]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Thanks Calm.  I really get a lot out of your posts.  I hope things improve with your Mom and at least you can get more help to free up your life.  That is so tough to go through. Don't forget to take care of yourself.   My prayers are with you. 

Mom is pretty independent except for her finances.  It is only my obsession for understanding and being understood that is making this so difficult for me.  

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Maury and the other talk shows love to parade around the odd behaviors found in society because it gets viewers as car accidents do on the freeway.  These behaviors are practiced by the very, very few and so are interesting to watch for many.  Extremes are also used in public debate as a method to push one position or another.  It is a form of slippery slope argument, e.g., allow gay marriage today and soon some backwoods farmer will marry his pet goat or his sister.  It's really a non-sequitur.  Do you actually think that because some soccer star wants the same type of Maury Povich publicity with his antics, we are "marching" to human/animal marriage or sibling/sibling marriage?

I’m not sure you understand what I have been saying or asking. It’s certainly not what you have described here.

Simply put, if the new definition of marriage is a relationship between consenting adults, what limits, if any, can be enforced and on what are they based?

Edited May 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui