JLHPROF Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: They also permitted slavery and required a engaged woman to have screamed to be able to claim rape in a populated area. If she hadn't 'cried out', she could be stoned to death. No mention of threat of violence keeping her silent or being knocked unconscious being an exception. And restitution for rape of an unengaged or married woman included the option of marriage to the rapist. And you believe polygamy falls in that category? Even if the Savior himself may have practiced it?
Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: And you believe polygamy falls in that category? Even if the Savior himself may have practiced it? No, I am suggesting that appealing to OT prophets as the determinant of definitions can carry cultural baggage that doesn't work in our society and at least some that probably shouldn't in any society (like only crying out for help to others can define rape if others are close enough to hear). Edited January 19, 2019 by Calm 4
carbon dioxide Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 2 hours ago, Calm said: They also permitted slavery and required a engaged woman to have screamed to be able to claim rape in a populated area. If she hadn't 'cried out', she could be stoned to death. No mention of threat of violence keeping her silent or being knocked unconscious being an exception. And restitution for rape of an unengaged or married woman included the option of marriage to the rapist. So you agree that the Old Testament prophets did not equate polygamy with adultery. 1
Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: So you agree that the Old Testament prophets did not equate polygamy with adultery. Sure. I just don't think they are the end all on social commentary, 1
stemelbow Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I said this. The claim is then made he had only one legal wife (that's also debatable). In our society that’s what constitutes a marriage—legal sanctification. If you guys had a point then adultery may never really be because any two people can say they are in effect married when they commit adultery. How about we try this let’s have someone here go behind their spouse back have some unauthorized ceremony, with another, call it marriage and then consummate that. What do you think the spouse left out would feel if found out? Betrayed? That his/her spouse betrayed covenants made regarding their marriage? That the act of betrayal amounted to adultery? Proabably yes on all counts. To call it anything but adultery is nonsense, either way it represents the epitome of braking convenants, lying and hurting those close to you. Call it what you want, I guess. If that’s in anyway good or acceptable before god, we’ll, maybe I don’t need to finish that sentence.
Jeanne Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: In our society that’s what constitutes a marriage—legal sanctification. If you guys had a point then adultery may never really be because any two people can say they are in effect married when they commit adultery. How about we try this let’s have someone here go behind their spouse back have some unauthorized ceremony, with another, call it marriage and then consummate that. What do you think the spouse left out would feel if found out? Betrayed? That his/her spouse betrayed covenants made regarding their marriage? That the act of betrayal amounted to adultery? Proabably yes on all counts. To call it anything but adultery is nonsense, either way it represents the epitome of braking convenants, lying and hurting those close to you. Call it what you want, I guess. If that’s in anyway good or acceptable before god, we’ll, maybe I don’t need to finish that sentence. Big rep here. Your comments Stem speak volumes.
Teancum Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 16 hours ago, bluebell said: The definition of adultery is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone who isn't his or her spouse. Polygamy is not adultery. You can say it's immoral or unethical if you want but by by definition it's not adultery. It is adultery if it is not legal. And it wasn't when Joseph practiced it. Thus he was only married to one person, Emma.
Teancum Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: The Old Testament prophets probably had a good idea what constituted adultery and none of them considered polygamy to be adultery. A number of them had multiple wives. If it was legal and excepted as such by their society then it was not adultery. This is not the case for Joseph Smith and LDS polygamy. Also, the OT prophets were quite fine with a lot of things we have fortunately left behind today.
Teancum Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 17 hours ago, JLHPROF said: And if it were legal? If the almighty "state" allowed multi-partner marriage then would it be? In other words, we need to set an actual measurable standard to the word. If God said it wasn't and the state said it wasn't, then would a new way of defining adultery appear? The problem is we really can't tell whose God is really speaking for God. Thus we have to as a society and culture determine our legal and social norms.
Teancum Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 16 hours ago, bluebell said: I haven't seen any definitions (but I haven't looked at all of them) that mentions someone having to be legally married. If someone is considered a spouse, then I don't see how being legally married would matter. So help me out here. I just have to say someone is my spouse. So I can have three woman that I consider my spouse and have sexual relationships with all three. Because I consider them spouse regardless of the legality of it it is not adultery. Do I have it correct? 1
Teancum Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: And you believe polygamy falls in that category? Even if the Savior himself may have practiced it? I think what Calm is suggesting is there is lots of "prophetic" sanction of abominable practices on the OT that we for good reasons ignore. And as an aside...not likely any God was behind such things. As for Jesus practicing it well, umm, yea, never mind. Edited January 19, 2019 by Teancum
bluebell Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: So help me out here. I just have to say someone is my spouse. So I can have three woman that I consider my spouse and have sexual relationships with all three. Because I consider them spouse regardless of the legality of it it is not adultery. Do I have it correct? If they consider themselves your spouses as well, then yes, that’s not adultery. Legally, there is a separate more specific definition of course. But the laws don’t usually have much to do with the legal definition of adultery anymore. Edited January 19, 2019 by bluebell 1
Teancum Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: In our society that’s what constitutes a marriage—legal sanctification. If you guys had a point then adultery may never really be because any two people can say they are in effect married when they commit adultery. How about we try this let’s have someone here go behind their spouse back have some unauthorized ceremony, with another, call it marriage and then consummate that. What do you think the spouse left out would feel if found out? Betrayed? That his/her spouse betrayed covenants made regarding their marriage? That the act of betrayal amounted to adultery? Proabably yes on all counts. To call it anything but adultery is nonsense, either way it represents the epitome of braking convenants, lying and hurting those close to you. Call it what you want, I guess. If that’s in anyway good or acceptable before god, we’ll, maybe I don’t need to finish that sentence. I guess you are bad fellow here Stem because I can't hit the heart button. So kudos on this post.
rockpond Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: If they consider themselves your spouses as well, then yes, that’s not adultery. Legally, there is a separate more specific definition of course. But the laws don’t usually have much to do with the legal definition of adultery anymore. This is what makes Mormonism so fascinating... Legally married same-sex couple = apostate. A prophet having sexual relations with women with whom he is not legally married but they consider each other to be just one of their multiple spiritual spouses = favored by God.
bluebell Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: This is what makes Mormonism so fascinating... Legally married same-sex couple = apostate. A prophet having sexual relations with women with whom he is not legally married but they consider each other to be just one of their multiple spiritual spouses = favored by God. I agree it is fascinating, but probably not for the same reasons that you do. That some unions are condoned by God and others aren't doesn't seem that fascinating to me. People do disagree about which unions are which of course, but the concept itself (that God does not condone every kind of union, and that whether or not God condones the union doesn't depend on how much the people involved love each other) seems pretty run-of-the-mill as far as religion in concerned. 2
Tacenda Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 26 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree it is fascinating, but probably not for the same reasons that you do. That some unions are condoned by God and others aren't doesn't seem that fascinating to me. People do disagree about which unions are which of course, but the concept itself (that God does not condone every kind of union, and that whether or not God condones the union doesn't depend on how much the people involved love each other) seems pretty run-of-the-mill as far as religion in concerned. The fall out alone in Joseph establishing polygamy is far more damaging then same sex marriage. Fruit of that tree, went rotten in so many ways. The continuation of the break offs and the abuse is truly atrocious.
rockpond Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 12 minutes ago, Tacenda said: The fall out alone in Joseph establishing polygamy is far more damaging then same sex marriage. Fruit of that tree, went rotten in so many ways. The continuation of the break offs and the abuse is truly atrocious. Yes... a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.
JLHPROF Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Teancum said: So help me out here. I just have to say someone is my spouse. So I can have three woman that I consider my spouse and have sexual relationships with all three. Because I consider them spouse regardless of the legality of it it is not adultery. Do I have it correct? 1 hour ago, bluebell said: If they consider themselves your spouses as well, then yes, that’s not adultery. Legally, there is a separate more specific definition of course. But the laws don’t usually have much to do with the legal definition of adultery anymore. Not to mention laws are completely changeable. So the definition of adultery would have to change with them if we use legality as the benchmark. We either use a societal definition or a religious one. Sometimes they'll differ, sometimes they'll coincide. 2
bluebell Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 18 minutes ago, Tacenda said: The fall out alone in Joseph establishing polygamy is far more damaging then same sex marriage. Fruit of that tree, went rotten in so many ways. The continuation of the break offs and the abuse is truly atrocious. People do horrible evil things in the name of Jesus all the time. Do you interpret that to be a rotten fruit of Christianity? 1
JLHPROF Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes... a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. 18 minutes ago, Tacenda said: The fall out alone in Joseph establishing polygamy is far more damaging then same sex marriage. Fruit of that tree, went rotten in so many ways. The continuation of the break offs and the abuse is truly atrocious. You'd have to include the Savior and his gospel if you are going to make that claim. Crusades, inquisitions, Westboro Baptists, etc. In fact you could include those same "rotten fruits" of polygamy if you follow the Christian chain down far enough. Keep on throwing the baby out with the bathwater till there's nothing left. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, rockpond said: This is what makes Mormonism so fascinating... Legally married same-sex couple = apostate. A prophet having sexual relations with women with whom he is not legally married but they consider each other to be just one of their multiple spiritual spouses = favored by God. Both true. I don't see an issue.
Tacenda Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: People do horrible evil things in the name of Jesus all the time. Do you interpret that to be a rotten fruit of Christianity? Why did Joseph restore things that Jesus came down to undo in the Old Testament???
JLHPROF Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Why did Joseph restore things that Jesus came down to undo in the Old Testament??? OK, that's just begging for a CFR. What part of the law of Moses that Christ fulfilled did Joseph restore? He restored things that predated the Mosaic law, that existed from the beginning under the Patriarchs. Not the law that ended in Christ. 1
Tacenda Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 55 minutes ago, bluebell said: People do horrible evil things in the name of Jesus all the time. Do you interpret that to be a rotten fruit of Christianity? That's pretty much what Joseph did, thanks!
Tacenda Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: OK, that's just begging for a CFR. What part of the law of Moses that Christ fulfilled did Joseph restore? He restored things that predated the Mosaic law, that existed from the beginning under the Patriarchs. Not the law that ended in Christ. Seems a bit anti Christ's coming, IMO. And why does he try to restore things that Jesus' sacrifice did away with such as the following, along with polygamy etc? Here's a quote by JS from the Fairmormon site: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_teach_animal_sacrifice_as_part_of_the_"restoration_of_all_things"%3F Joseph Fielding Smith stated that animal sacrifice would happen again to fulfill a symbolic role as part of the restoration of all things in this dispensation: Now in the nature of things, the law of sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things which were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therefore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifices anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation. Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored. The sacrifice of animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of is built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other character. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:94)
Recommended Posts