Teancum Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 2 hours 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. Ok well wow! So in your view I can have three women, that I and they consider my spouses. I can have sex with them all. And it is not adultery in your view. Even though based on state law where reside it would be. And oh by the way, the LDS Church would view this as adultery as well and kick me out likely. I find your view astounding.
Teancum Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: 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. I have no idea what your point is here.
JLHPROF Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 26 minutes ago, Tacenda said: 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) Animal sacrifice for sin ended in Christ. Animal sacrifice in remembrance of Christ existed from the very beginning and was commanded by God. Polygamy also was not part of the law that ended in Christ. It existed prior to that law and continued after. Joseph did not restore the law of Moses that ended in Christ. Polygamy and animal sacrifice are from a different law.
rockpond Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: 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. So that scripture is basically worthless because it can only be selectively applied?
JLHPROF Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Ok well wow! So in your view I can have three women, that I and they consider my spouses. I can have sex with them all. And it is not adultery in your view. Correct. Quote Even though based on state law where reside it would be. And oh by the way, the LDS Church would view this as adultery as well and kick me out likely. I find your view astounding. Yet Bluebell is precisely right. Adultery is sexual relations outside of marriage. As you yourself pointed out marriage is defined by society. The state is a society, the Church is a society. A set of believers in the same religious tenets forms a society. Therefore if they can all have differing definitions for marriage then adultery would be applied differently in each society.
Popular Post Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Popular Post Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 59 minutes ago, rockpond said: So that scripture is basically worthless because it can only be selectively applied? No, but you have to look at the whole tree and not just a branch. It the whole tree rotten or is a particular branch infected, weak, broken and therefore producing bad fruit. Christ used a lot of pruning analogies that didn't involve gutting the entire plant. I am sure you would dislike someone using the fact some former members leave their families at the same time they leave the Church even when the spouse would prefer they stay (bad fruit) as evidence that loss of belief is a rotten tree/vine. Or the recent example where someone claimed the LGBT lifestyle itself is unstable (rotten vine) because of higher suicide rates (bad fruit) in the community. I suspect that most broader categories contain good and bad and people need to decide whether the bad parts outweighs the good or the reverse or if one can prune the bad while leaving enough of the rest of the plant to hopefully thrive. The tree yielding fruit works better imo for one's own choices. If we made a bad choice, we wouldn't assume our entire life was rotten or even if we made a number of them. I think it best to see where things go wrong by starting at the bad fruit and working backwards than just assume a precursor automatically is the cause of the bad fruit. Edited January 19, 2019 by Calm 5
CV75 Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: No, but you have to look at the whole tree and not just a branch. It the whole tree rotten or is a particular branch infected, weak, broken and therefore producing bad fruit. Christ used a lot of pruning analogies that didn't involve gutting the entire plant. I am sure you would dislike someone using the fact some former members leave their families at the same time they leave the Church even when the spouse would prefer they stay (bad fruit) as evidence that loss of belief is a rotten tree/vine. Or the recent example where someone claimed the LGBT lifestyle itself is unstable (rotten vine) because of higher suicide rates (bad fruit) in the community. I suspect that most broader categories contain good and bad and people need to decide whether the bad parts outweighs the good or the reverse or if one can prune the bad while leaving enough of the rest of the plant to hopefully thrive. The tree yielding fruit works better imo for one's own choices. If we made a bad choice, we wouldn't assume our entire life was rotten or even if we made a number of them. I think it best to see where things go wrong by starting at the bad fruit and working backwards than just assume a precursor automatically is the cause of the bad fruit. Christ is the good tree in Matthew 7:18; the tree of life. His good fruits include His Church and disciples those who receive His grace. He is also the true vine in John 15. The branches (disciples) may go bad despite having once received His grace and separate themselves. The lost sheep may go astray. But the good fruit is not affected, nor is the goodness of the tree (John 15:1-8). There are ways to correct or remove the erring disciples and gather the lost sheep, which is yet another kind of good fruit.
Tacenda Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: No, but you have to look at the whole tree and not just a branch. It the whole tree rotten or is a particular branch infected, weak, broken and therefore producing bad fruit. Christ used a lot of pruning analogies that didn't involve gutting the entire plant. I am sure you would dislike someone using the fact some former members leave their families at the same time they leave the Church even when the spouse would prefer they stay (bad fruit) as evidence that loss of belief is a rotten tree/vine. Or the recent example where someone claimed the LGBT lifestyle itself is unstable (rotten vine) because of higher suicide rates (bad fruit) in the community. I suspect that most broader categories contain good and bad and people need to decide whether the bad parts outweighs the good or the reverse or if one can prune the bad while leaving enough of the rest of the plant to hopefully thrive. The tree yielding fruit works better imo for one's own choices. If we made a bad choice, we wouldn't assume our entire life was rotten or even if we made a number of them. I think it best to see where things go wrong by starting at the bad fruit and working backwards than just assume a precursor automatically is the cause of the bad fruit. Would we have Warren Jeffs, if JS hadn't established polygamy the way he did. And Brian David Mitchell? And, the list goes on.
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Would we have Warren Jeffs, if JS hadn't established polygamy the way he did. And Brian David Mitchell? And, the list goes on. Would we have Bloody Mary I, Westboro Baptists, or Warren Jeffs if Christ and the apostles hadn't established Christianity? Your argument simply doesn't work.
Tacenda Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Would we have Bloody Mary I, Westboro Baptists, or Warren Jeffs if Christ and the apostles hadn't established Christianity? Your argument simply doesn't work. Christianity, can also be very harmful. Especially when they speak for God also. Many things in the Bible, probably didn't come from Him. Can you at least admit to that?
Calm Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 42 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Christianity, can also be very harmful. Especially when they speak for God also. Many things in the Bible, probably didn't come from Him. Can you at least admit to that? Can you admit to Christianity producing wonderful things and people as well?
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 6 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Correct. Yet Bluebell is precisely right. Adultery is sexual relations outside of marriage. As you yourself pointed out marriage is defined by society. The state is a society, the Church is a society. A set of believers in the same religious tenets forms a society. Therefore if they can all have differing definitions for marriage then adultery would be applied differently in each society. Seriously who cares what word you prefer? Breaking ones covenant of marriage with another by secretly marrying and have sex with another is nothing but the type of betrayal that adultery is. To deny that is to defy reason it seems to me.
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Seriously who cares what word you prefer? Breaking ones covenant of marriage with another by secretly marrying and have sex with another is nothing but the type of betrayal that adultery is. To deny that is to defy reason it seems to me. It's not the polygamy that is objectionable then. It's that Emma wasn't told about each and every marriage. Got it. So then in the Utah years when everyone knew going in (mostly) it's perfectly ok, right. It's only the behind the back part that's a problem.
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Christianity, can also be very harmful. Especially when they speak for God also. Many things in the Bible, probably didn't come from Him. Can you at least admit to that? Sure. "Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the a$$ when he rebuked the prophet in his madness." Brigham Young
carbon dioxide Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 7 hours ago, Teancum said: Ok well wow! So in your view I can have three women, that I and they consider my spouses. I can have sex with them all. And it is not adultery in your view. If a man has three wives and he has sex with them, how is it adultery? They are his wives 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 9 hours 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. One can find plenty of bad examples of monogamy marriages. Half of them end in divorce. I am sure polygamy is hard but it does not mean it has to be damaging.
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 Just now, carbon dioxide said: One can find plenty of bad examples of monogamy marriages. Half of them end in divorce. I am sure polygamy is hard but it does not mean it has to be damaging. Divorces during the polygamy years were lower than they are in the Church today. And that's with Brigham offering a divorce to any woman that wanted one over the pulpit.
rockpond Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 So we've taken this thread on Elder and Sister Renlund's address off onto this polygamy subtopic for a few pages now. I'd like to try jumping back into the analogy... I long ago determined that Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was was not the will of God. Spiritually, it's the only thing that works for me. I understand that others differ for good and valid reasons. For me, JS's polygamy is one of those dents/dings in the ship. But I still consider myself IN the ship. And that's my question related to the Renlunds' analogy: can I reject aspects of the church narrative (like JS's polygamy, Book of Mormon historicity, teachings that promote exclusion rather than love, etc) and still stay in this not-so-pretty-looking boat? Or when they, and other leaders say, metaphorically to stay in the good ship Zion... am I required to accept every teaching and every claim? 3
carbon dioxide Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: So we've taken this thread on Elder and Sister Renlund's address off onto this polygamy subtopic for a few pages now. I'd like to try jumping back into the analogy... I long ago determined that Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was was not the will of God. Spiritually, it's the only thing that works for me. I understand that others differ for good and valid reasons. For me, JS's polygamy is one of those dents/dings in the ship. But I still consider myself IN the ship. And that's my question related to the Renlunds' analogy: can I reject aspects of the church narrative (like JS's polygamy, Book of Mormon historicity, teachings that promote exclusion rather than love, etc) and still stay in this not-so-pretty-looking boat? Or when they, and other leaders say, metaphorically to stay in the good ship Zion... am I required to accept every teaching and every claim? I give JS a lot of latitude on how he practiced polygamy simply because he was a pioneer of sorts on it. He was not raised by it. The most he had on the subject was from the scriptures. With no real role models to follow, he had to initiate this really on his own. Of course he would make mistakes and errors of judgement. He had a lot going on in his life. I don't think many would have done a lot better if they were in his position. Joseph himself said it was a very difficult thing he was being asked to do. Its easy to Monday morning QB what he did this many years after the fact but I think he did the best he could under the circumstances.
carbon dioxide Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: It's not the polygamy that is objectionable then. It's that Emma wasn't told about each and every marriage. Got it. So then in the Utah years when everyone knew going in (mostly) it's perfectly ok, right. It's only the behind the back part that's a problem. I am sure Joseph would have preferred not to do it "behind her back". It would have been less stressful. I am sure Emma had NOTHING to do with this. She would have been fully supportive of Joseph if he simply told her. She wanted Joseph to keep the commandments of God completely. She would not make herself a stumbling block between Joseph and God. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I am sure Joseph would have preferred not to do it "behind her back". It would have been less stressful. I am sure Emma had NOTHING to do with this. She would have been fully supportive of Joseph if he simply told her. She wanted Joseph to keep the commandments of God completely. She would not make herself a stumbling block between Joseph and God. Yep. I know that when God says A and my wife says B, the choice is pretty clear. Adam set the example well.
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted January 20, 2019 Popular Post Posted January 20, 2019 31 minutes ago, rockpond said: And that's my question related to the Renlunds' analogy: can I reject aspects of the church narrative (like JS's polygamy, Book of Mormon historicity, teachings that promote exclusion rather than love, etc) and still stay in this not-so-pretty-looking boat? Or when they, and other leaders say, metaphorically to stay in the good ship Zion... am I required to accept every teaching and every claim? Mate, virtually no one's lined up on the gangway looking for an opportunity to throw fellow passengers overboard. The real question is, can you feel completely satisfied staying in your cabin whilst others around you are attending shows and other shipboard activities and enjoying nice meals that you've decided are not to your liking? Are you comfortable repeatedly turning down invitations to be fully involved, or do you need the other passengers to stop making such invitations before you'll decide this particular ship is 'welcoming' enough. It's one thing to not know that a cruise is all-inclusive. It's something else to know it and choose not to participate. Your comfort level in such a scenario is entirely up to you: can you enjoy a cruise whose itinerary you have decided to label as 'exclusive'? 5
Recommended Posts