Modern Polygamy Timeline & Purpose - not sure I follow...

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I commented that I believe Joseph's implementation of polygamy was morally wrong.  Then you disagreed by saying that you believe God commanded polygamy (assuming you mean Joseph's implementation of polygamy specifically) and that since your assumption is that God is incapable of giving an immoral command, the conclusion being that Joseph's actions were moral.  

It becomes circular when you look at the entire reasoning.  Joseph didn't do anything immoral because God commanded him and God can't command anything immoral.  How do we know polygamy is moral, because God told Joseph it is.  How do we know God says its moral, because Joseph claimed he did.  

Except I never made this claim. I made a different claim. The argument as you state it may be circular.  My argument was not.

A perfectly good God commanded polygamy therefore it cannot be immoral, unethical, or bad.  Nothing circular.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except I never made this claim. I made a different claim. The argument as you state it may be circular.  My argument was not.

A perfectly good God commanded polygamy therefore it cannot be immoral, unethical, or bad.  Nothing circular.

It’s the starting assumptions combined with your conclusion that make it circular.  God commanded it because Joseph says God did, coupled with an assumption that God never commands anything immoral.  At least that’s how I see it. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

It’s the starting assumptions combined with your conclusion that make it circular.  God commanded it because Joseph says God did, coupled with an assumption that God never commands anything immoral.  At least that’s how I see it. 

There it is again.  The part I never claimed.  The part that makes a circular argument.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

There it is again.  The part I never claimed.  The part that makes a circular argument.

Other than Joseph having said so, what is your evidence that God issued such a command?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Other than Joseph having said so, what is your evidence that God issued such a command?

Because I asked and he answered.  The same principle most of my religious beliefs operate on. 

Who on earth bases religious beliefs on nonreligious evidence?

Edited January 24, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

All these things occur with monogamy, some would say more so in some aspects (mistresses, affairs, neglect due to not having extended family to help).

Monogamy doesn't inevitably foster these things. However these effects seem to be the natural result of polygamy.

 

infidelity: polygamy is infidelity by nature. In early Mormon history because of the secrecy it was also done without consent of the legal wife.

lawlessness: all polygamy in the US has always been illegal, and often leads to more lawlessness to hide the crime

the love of wives and husbands waxing cold: this was actually expressed as the proper way of things by one LDS adherent, in order for the arrangement to be manageable.

parental and spousal neglect: an inevitability once wives and children number in the dozens. Being a good spouse and parent requires an investment in time.

child marriage: another inevitability, as marriageable adult women become scarce

Incest: Is it inevitable? Perhaps - it was a feature of early LDS polygamy as well as FLDS polygamy. Probably a problem with lack of eligible women again.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Because I asked and he answered.  The same principle most of my religious beliefs operate on. 

Who on earth bases religious beliefs on nonreligious evidence?

And yet there are many people who claim to have asked and received a contrary answer.  Now what?

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And yet there are many people who claim to have asked and received a contrary answer.  Now what?

The same as with any religion.

If you don't know it's true, don't follow it.  If you think Joseph was a lying, adulterous pedophile why be a Mormon?

[Hamba Tuhan]

37 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And yet there are many people who claim to have asked and received a contrary answer.  Now what?

Each goes her/his own way, allowing all others the same privilege?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

polygamy is infidelity by nature

Only according to personal definition.

If one abides by the contract one has committed to, is not one faithful?

Quote

lawlessness: all polygamy in the US has always been illegal, and often leads to more lawlessness to hide the crime

The US is not the world.

Quote

he love of wives and husbands waxing cold: this was actually expressed as the proper way of things by one LDS adherent, in order for the arrangement to be manageable.

That one (or even many) person feels that way does not make it inherent,  My greats expressed it as the closest thing to celestial love that could be experienced on earth.  She believed it allowed her to love in ways unachievable in monogamy.

Quote

arental and spousal neglect: an inevitability once wives and children number in the dozens. Being a good spouse and parent requires an investment in time

Time lost from one parent (the father) can be possibly made up for by having multiple adult women to share responsibility as well as older brothers around.  And there are many monogamous parents out there that have to be out of the home in order to provide forcthe family without having the option of other adults being immediately available (one of the benefits of extended family living together).  Plus polygamy does not inherently have to number wives and children in the dozens.  Among the Church, the most common situation by far was two wives.  Very few had more than five.

Quote

child marriage: another inevitability, as marriageable adult women become scarce

Not if polyandry is allowed, polygamy is relatively rare, laws are made against it,

Quote

ncest: Is it inevitable? Perhaps - it was a feature of early LDS polygamy as well as FLDS polygamy. Probably a problem with lack of eligible women again

CFR it occurred more than in monogamous families.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Calm

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The same as with any religion.

If you don't know it's true, don't follow it.  If you think Joseph was a lying, adulterous pedophile why be a Mormon?

And yet...God is not an author of confusion?  Someone has to be right in all this mess.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And yet...God is not an author of confusion?  Someone has to be right in all this mess.

That is for each person to search out.

The point remains that if someone who believes in the doctrines and revelations established by Joseph Smith in the restoration but thinks polygamy didn't come from God then they have to reconcile these two things.

Personally I don't think those two beliefs can coexist for long.  If someone believes Joseph was a lying adulterous pedophile it's only a matter of time before they leave the Church.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Only according to personal definition.

If one abides by the contract one has committed to, is not one faithful?

I suppose that's a good point, although it wouldn't apply to Joseph Smith, since he didn't abide by his contract with Emma and didn't get her consent before proceeding.

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

The US is not the world.

Nevertheless, my point stands. It's lawless behavior here and in most developed nations.

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

That one (or even many) person feels that way does not make it inherent,  My greats expressed it as the closest thing to celestial love that could be experienced on earth.  She believed it allowed her to love in ways unachievable in monogamy.

A depressing and loveless theology

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Time lost from one parent (the father) can be possibly made up for by having multiple adult women to share responsibility as well as older brothers around.  And there are many monogamous parents out there that have to be out of the home in order to provide forcthe family without having the option of other adults being immediately available (one of the benefits of extended family living together).  Plus polygamy does not inherently have to number wives and children in the dozens.  Among the Church, the most common situation by far was two wives.  Very few had more than five.

Other people stepping in does not make the father/husband less neglectful. 

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Not if polyandry is allowed, polygamy is relatively rare, laws are made against it,

Even when polyandry was allowed in early Mormonism, child marriages were going on.

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR it occurred more than in monogamous families. 

I didn't say it occurred more than.I don't have statistics.  I just noted it was a feature of both LDS and FLDS polygamy.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

suppose that's a good point, although it wouldn't apply to Joseph Smith, since he didn't abide by his contract with Emma and didn't get her consent before proceeding.

I don’t disagree. I thought he was unfaithful, chose dishonesty to avoid conflict, and hopefully repented of the dishonesty. If he had lived longer perhaps they might have worked it out or perhaps Emma would have walked away and another woman become the prophet’s first wife and likely positive to polygamy. Would have been interesting if ajoseph lived and had a good relationship with his most supportive wife to see if women achieved a higher place in the hierarchy or other factors led to the abilities they had at the time continuing 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t disagree. I thought he was unfaithful, chose dishonesty to avoid conflict, and hopefully repented of the dishonesty. If he had lived longer perhaps they might have worked it out or perhaps Emma would have walked away and another woman become the prophet’s first wife and likely positive to polygamy. Would have been interesting if ajoseph lived and had a good relationship with his most supportive wife to see if women achieved a higher place in the hierarchy or other factors led to the abilities they had at the time continuing 

I, for one, appreciate this admission from a defender of the faith.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, ttribe said:

And yet...God is not an author of confusion?  Someone has to be right in all this mess.

Not necessarily. If the core beliefs were something like ...God exists. God is good. God loves us. True happiness is found in relationship with God... then one would get away from the false dichotomy that One church is true and all other churches are false. 

If belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the LDS church as God's one true church helps a person grow in their personal relationship with God, then that would be a good thing.

If belief leads a person away from Joseph Smith and the LDS church yet helps the individual grow in their personal relationship with God, then that would be a good thing too.

IMO- it would be useful to get away from the idea that any of us know God's will so perfectly that we can understand God perfectly and believe that there is only one path to relationship with God.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

I, for one, appreciate this admission from a defender of the faith.

The episode where he insists his wives go through a mock ceremony so that Emma gets to think she has some control over the situation is a very sad, frustrating, and wrong choice by Joseph, Imo.  It belittles him.  It belittles Emma.  It belittles  all the women who sacrificed to be sealed to him.  It was not just himself he was making the choice for to go through the farce, but the young women he had committed to as a husband to protect and respect.  It must have been extraordinarily awkward and shameful for them even if they were aware of the consequences of Emma getting hurt by the truth and therefore very angry and wanted themselves to avoid that happening.

However, I know many people who go to great lengths and sometimes very inappropriate ones to avoid conflict in their home, both out of fear of the conflict itself and because they don't want to hurt their loved one.  So it doesn't make Joseph less of a prophet for me, it makes him very human.  I have never idealized him or anyone else (beyond some specific behaviours I have admired), so it wasn't a shock to my belief system, but rather just underlined even more so my belief I need to go to God, seek the Spirit to confirm any prophetic direction rather than assume it's god-given.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Saw this on FB by Bill R. It's apparently a footnote found on the church essay, "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo".

[changed]

On 1/21/2019 at 11:37 AM, SouthernMo said:

2. In light of the Jacob 2:30 provision for the allowance of polygamy to "raise up seed unto me..." why are there no (known) children that emerged from Joseph Smith's plural wives?  Joseph apparently did not use polygamy to 'raise up seed.'

 

Polygamy, or the "law of Sarah" can be traced to the symbolism within Abraham, Isaac and Sarah's family.  Abraham = HF, Isaac = Jesus, and Sarah = HM.  Abraham did not have to kill Isaac, and Sarah did not have to rely on Hagar, but in the case of HF/HM - Jesus really did die, and Jesus really was born to a handmaid.  

"Only begotton" son - the only child, and he had to be begotten through a handmaid, had to be half mortal....

Eve, in her perfect form, did not "beget" children either.... pregnancy was a curse from the fall, "were it not for my transgression" - seems it is a transgression to bring children into the world - but then I suppose it does go against free will, getting that little spirit into something they have absolutely no experience in, and therefore can in no way make an informed decision about... 

Mary was a virgin, and Mary was not stuck with HF - she had Joseph (yes, it explains polyandry as well). 

Abraham did NOT go behind Sarah's back, and Abraham did NOT have a harem... 

Edited January 26, 2019 by changed

[changed]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Saw this on FB by Bill R. It's apparently a footnote found on the church essay, "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo".

 

??!!!??  Yea - the polygamy in the Bible is VERY different from what was going on in the early church.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

Polygamy, or the "law of Sarah" can be traced to the symbolism within Abraham, Isaac and Sarah's family.  Abraham = HF, Isaac = Jesus, and Sarah = HM.  Abraham did not have to kill Isaac, and Sarah did not have to rely on Hagar, but in the case of HF/HM - Jesus really did die, and Jesus really was born to a handmaid.  

"Only begotton" son - the only child, and he had to be begotten through a handmaid, had to be half mortal....

Eve, in her perfect form, did not "beget" children either.... pregnancy was a curse from the fall, "were it not for my transgression" - seems it is a transgression to bring children into the world - but then I suppose it does go against free will, getting that little spirit into something they have absolutely no experience in, and therefore can in no way make an informed decision about... 

Mary was a virgin, and Mary was not stuck with HF - she had Joseph (yes, it explains polyandry as well). 

Abraham did NOT go behind Sarah's back, and Abraham did NOT have a harem... 

So who is Keturah in this analogy?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Saw this on FB by Bill R. It's apparently a footnote found on the church essay, "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo".

A clear difference between Joseph's polygamy doctrine and the spiritual wifery of Bennett, Foster, etc.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Saw this on FB by Bill R. It's apparently a footnote found on the church essay, "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo".

I am not following you.  This is talking about Bennett's group, iirc.  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not following you.  This is talking about Bennett's group, iirc.  

I posted to see what the members on this board thought about it, lazy as I am, it hadn't occurred to me it had something to do with Bennett. And posts to Bill's feed mentioned Bennett as well, just checked. Thnx!

[changed]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So who is Keturah in this analogy?

Keturah - aka Hagar? Abraham did not have the full test - Isaac was not sacrificed, and Hagar did not raise Abraham's son with another man... not even Abraham was strong enough for that test... but in the case of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, not HF and HM, raised Jesus.  Jesus had other brothers, just as Jesus did....

We all have multiple sets of parents - earthly parents, and heavenly parents.  Imagine two other people raising your children.... I suppose that is what it is for all of us.

Edited January 27, 2019 by changed