News on Plural Marriage

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have it backward, longview:  As Dr Jordan Peterson repeatedly points out, the woke neo-Marxists love to demand equal outcomes, while all fair-minded people insist on equal opportunity -- otherwise under the rubric of merit, which is the measure demanded by God and natural law, dominated by free agency.

It is Satan who demands equal outcomes and the quashing of free agency.

I believe in equal opportunity to achieve the goal of exaltation.  I don't believe we all enter mortality at an equal level of progress any more than we will enter the next life that way.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe in equal opportunity to achieve the goal of exaltation.  I don't believe we all enter mortality at an equal level of progress any more than we will enter the next life that way.

God is a fair judge, and those who are placed in especially tough circumstances will be judged accordingly.  So too with the privileged.  Where much is given, much is expected.  God doesn't give a free ride to those who reach the age of accountability.  We are all tested, and the test is always measured to our capacity, and we will stand at the Final Judgment before a fair Judge.  All men are created equal before the law of God.  No exceptions.  The janitor is equally as important as the CEO, the doorman at the temple as important as the temple president -- for all are part of the Body of Christ and of equal import.  The world doesn't think that way, but God does.

[Tacenda]

And then there is this quote: https://journalofdiscourses.com/4/40

In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females, there are millions of them, and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with brother Brigham, we will go to brother Joseph and say, "Here we are brother Joseph; we are here ourselves are we not, with none of the property we possessed in our probationary state, not even the rings on our fingers?" He will say to us, "Come along, my boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your wives?" "They are back yonder; they would not follow us." "Never mind," says Joseph, "here are thousands, have all you want." Perhaps some do not believe that, but I am just simple enough to believe it.

Help brother Brigham along, help brother Heber, brother Daniel, the Twelve, and every other good person. I am looking for the day, and it is close at hand, when we will have a most heavenly time, one that will be romantic, one with all kinds of ups and downs, which is what I call romantic, for it will occupy in full all the time, so that we may never become idle, nor sleepy, nor cease being active in the things of God, which will prevent dotage.

🤢

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And then there is this quote: https://journalofdiscourses.com/4/40

In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females, there are millions of them, and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with brother Brigham, we will go to brother Joseph and say, "Here we are brother Joseph; we are here ourselves are we not, with none of the property we possessed in our probationary state, not even the rings on our fingers?" He will say to us, "Come along, my boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your wives?" "They are back yonder; they would not follow us." "Never mind," says Joseph, "here are thousands, have all you want." Perhaps some do not believe that, but I am just simple enough to believe it.

Help brother Brigham along, help brother Heber, brother Daniel, the Twelve, and every other good person. I am looking for the day, and it is close at hand, when we will have a most heavenly time, one that will be romantic, one with all kinds of ups and downs, which is what I call romantic, for it will occupy in full all the time, so that we may never become idle, nor sleepy, nor cease being active in the things of God, which will prevent dotage.

🤢

Sounds as though Brother Heber C. Kimball had something like the Islamic Paradise in mind. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

one that will be romantic,

Not commenting on rest of quote, but romantic here is probably the older usage of adventurous.  He is basically saying they will never be bored.

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Not commenting on rest of quote, but romantic here is probably the older usage of adventurous.  He is basically saying they will never be bored.

I posted because it shows a ratio of the many women to one man. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Tacenda

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

posted because it shows a ratio of the many women to one man thing. And to me it doesn't feel like there is any truth to it, just wishful thinking

I don’t disagree. There was/is a mindset that family were more or less possessions that make the father look good or bad, much stronger back then.  The scriptures are pretty consistent with that view. It should not surprise anyone that their dreams at that time show the same values their society had.  
 

Brigham Young had lost his first very beloved wife pretty young. His mother had died of tuberculosis when he was 14.  Makes me wonder if he kept a bit more distance emotionally after that afraid of loss. He did have at least one close relationship with his daughter and he does appear to enjoy and desire being surrounded by family.  

Edited January 25, 2021 by Calm

[katherine the great]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

but I am just simple enough to believe it.

This is the only thing he ever said that I believe. 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Quote

but I am just simple enough to believe it.

This is the only thing he ever said that I believe. 

That's the only statement made by Heber C. Kimball that you believe?
Sounds like you might be as prone to hyperbole as Heber was in his statements.

[katherine the great]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's the only statement made by Heber C. Kimball that you believe?
Sounds like you might be as prone to hyperbole as Heber was in his statements.

Not a fan of Hebe. 

[nuclearfuels]

On 1/22/2021 at 1:28 PM, Calm said:

But this assumes it is possible to maximize internal attributes.  What if it isn’t?  What if personal growth is always possible?

Personal growthis always possible. When completed on the internal scale, where else would urther growth come from other than external sources?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Personal growthis always possible. When completed on the internal scale, where else would urther growth come from other than external sources?

Again, you are assuming internal growth can be completed. What if it can’t?

[Stargazer]

I've said all I intended to say on this topic back a week ago, and I'm not going to contribute anything further to this topic, nor will I respond further on it. 

However, I want to bring your attention to an essay written about Emma Smith by Wendy C. Top that appeared in an anthology called Heroines of the Restoration, which was published by Bookcraft back in 1997. Unfortunately, the book is out of print, even electronically, so I can't refer you to an authorized version (although of course used copies will be available here and there). I've put the essay on my personal website in case anyone wants to read it. The essay deals with Sister Emma in connection with the topic under discussion.  Here is the link: ’A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart’ – Emma Hale Smith.  

Best regards to you all.

 

[Tacenda]

Not much going on in this thread thought I'd share this meme. No offense against men, just thought it funny!

Edited February 15, 2021 by Tacenda

[Stargazer]

On 2/15/2021 at 6:45 PM, Tacenda said:

Not much going on in this thread thought I'd share this meme. No offense against men, just thought it funny!

 

😆 ...breaking my vow briefly to show appreciation for the humor...

Edited February 18, 2021 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

This is a heartwarming article, gives me the feels!

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/360/flds-womens-journeys-to-independence?fbclid=IwAR0Q3m7DIBapVRXDP6QTZ4mMgml7uNYPB5cBXtMU6vQRQw8putTO09VD1iE

[Islander]

On 12/28/2020 at 5:00 AM, Stargazer said:

I am glad you brought this up, because it's something to study up on. I thought I understood the subject of the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, but it turns out that I don't. I love finding ignorance or mistaken belief or knowledge in myself, for the opportunity of learning that it becomes!

But without getting into details that I am unsure of, broadly speaking, the law that Jesus fulfilled was the Law of Moses. Aside from regulating certain aspects of it, plural marriage / polygamy was not part of the Law, having pre-existed it. And not having been created by the Law, the Law's fulfillment by Christ could not do away with it.

Plural marriage appears to be an eternal principle, although one that is regulated as to when it is permitted or mandated. 

It is true that it predates the Law of Moses, but actually God was silent on the matter. Polygamic was Sarah's idea and then Jacob's. And much suffering came because of it. David did it and the sword never departed from his house.  Salomon did it for political reasons and ended up worshiping idols. As far as the biblical record is concerned, God never commanded men to enter into plural marriage.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Islander said:

It is true that it predates the Law of Moses, but actually God was silent on the matter. Polygamic was Sarah's idea and then Jacob's. And much suffering came because of it. David did it and the sword never departed from his house.  Salomon did it for political reasons and ended up worshiping idols. As far as the biblical record is concerned, God never commanded men to enter into plural marriage.

I totally agree, 100%

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Islander said:

It is true that it predates the Law of Moses, but actually God was silent on the matter. Polygamic was Sarah's idea and then Jacob's. And much suffering came because of it. David did it and the sword never departed from his house.  Salomon did it for political reasons and ended up worshiping idols. As far as the biblical record is concerned, God never commanded men to enter into plural marriage.

What is your view on the history of polygamy for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and section 132?

[Stargazer]

 

On 5/5/2021 at 6:11 AM, Islander said:

It is true that it predates the Law of Moses, but actually God was silent on the matter. Polygamic was Sarah's idea and then Jacob's. And much suffering came because of it. David did it and the sword never departed from his house.  Salomon did it for political reasons and ended up worshiping idols. As far as the biblical record is concerned, God never commanded men to enter into plural marriage.

And yet, despite a thousand-plus years under the Law of Moses, which is the most strict and detailed code of religious law ever provided to mankind, and despite many prophets operating under direct inspiration and revelation from God, at no point did God step in to ask his prophets to prohibit it. A simple thing to do, if God didn't want it being done, wouldn't you say?

You cannot claim that something is against God's will just because He never commanded it -- but you can certainly claim that it is not against God's will because He provided at least one regulation for its conduct (Lev 18:18), and failed to prohibit it when He had a perfect opportunity to do so (the entire book of Leviticus, for example). And quietly allowed men close to Him, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to freely live it, and being seen to have lived it, without condemnation.

You say that "David did it and the sword never departed from his house."  David also ate dates and drank wine, why couldn't those have been the cause of his house's troubles? You're attaching David's legal polygamy to his troubles except that the Lord said it was David's adultery and committing murder that caused the sword troubles (2 Sam. 12:9,10).

And just in case you are a Latter-day Saint with a testimony of the Gospel and of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet of God, you also have Doctrine and Covenants section 132 to argue against. Unless you're a Cafeteria Mormon, and only accept those doctrines which you want to accept, I'd say you're pretty much outgunned.

Edited to add: And I see that I have violated my decision to not post in this thread again. It was because Islander quoted me and I went there to see what he said, not noticing until too late which thread it was in. Drat.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Stargazer

[Islander]

On 5/5/2021 at 4:41 PM, Stargazer said:

 

And yet, despite a thousand-plus years under the Law of Moses, which is the most strict and detailed code of religious law ever provided to mankind, and despite many prophets operating under direct inspiration and revelation from God, at no point did God step in to ask his prophets to prohibit it. A simple thing to do, if God didn't want it being done, wouldn't you say?

You cannot claim that something is against God's will just because He never commanded it -- but you can certainly claim that it is not against God's will because He provided at least one regulation for its conduct (Lev 18:18), and failed to prohibit it when He had a perfect opportunity to do so (the entire book of Leviticus, for example). And quietly allowed men close to Him, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to freely live it, and being seen to have lived it, without condemnation.

You say that "David did it and the sword never departed from his house."  David also ate dates and drank wine, why couldn't those have been the cause of his house's troubles? You're attaching David's legal polygamy to his troubles except that the Lord said it was David's adultery and committing murder that caused the sword troubles (2 Sam. 12:9,10).

And just in case you are a Latter-day Saint with a testimony of the Gospel and of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet of God, you also have Doctrine and Covenants section 132 to argue against. Unless you're a Cafeteria Mormon, and only accept those doctrines which you want to accept, I'd say you're pretty much outgunned.

Edited to add: And I see that I have violated my decision to not post in this thread again. It was because Islander quoted me and I went there to see what he said, not noticing until too late which thread it was in. Drat.

To reiterate; all I said was that God was silent for thousands of years on the matter, mind you. And, although such marriages were culturally sanctioned, it is evident from the scriptures that much heartache and actual bloodshed came from it. And that is an undeniable fact. David already had 2 wives and he commits adultery with yet another woman that becomes his wife. Let's not ignore that fact. I did not to polygamy as the "only" reason of David's troubles but it is no doubt a significant causal agent. As to why the Lord was silent on the matter there is no point even on speculating.

As far as D&C 132, we all have to contend with the fact that it was NOT God whom overturned the plural marriage ordinance. It was fear of reprisal and the threat of violence against the saints by the government what prompted them to renounced it. Again, this is either little faith from the saints or a back-peddling God that has no awareness of what's coming down the pike and make provisions for His people. Until today, even when that (threat) is no longer an issue and other forms of non-traditional marriage are now protected legally, the saints are still to even talk about it openly. So, the question remains, at least in my mind, whether we are to hearken to the word (or laws) of men or onto God? We keep forgetting that to be a true follower of Christ we MUST be willing to suffer and be persecuted, if necessary for our faith. "And this is given to you from God, that not only should you believe in The Messiah, but that you also will suffer for his sake." Phil 1:29. 

In my book, the failures are always on the side of men. We are all (even prophets) broken, sinful, fallible mortals in desperate need of forgiveness and a Savior. 

[The Nehor]

Polygamy is much harder to live then monogamy.

I just completed a dynastic simulation as a polygamist and it was a mess. Do you know how hard it is to conquer enough lands and titles to give all the kids? It was a relief every time a woman took the throne because even with four husbands she can only be pregnant with one child at a time. Eventually I did away with the incest taboo so I could marry all my kids to each other to cut down on the inheritance problem.

Family relationships got.....complicated:

Yeah, that is my son I had after I married my daughter. So he was also his mom’s half brother. He ended up ruling France. Let’s just say there were a few drooling genetic mistakes in the family. Always trouble when the family tree becomes a family bush.

I also had a wife who didn’t cope well with the dynamic:

She had a few issues.

 

If you aren’t trying to survive dynastic politics I imagine jealousy, division of effort, and the like might also make polygamy difficult.

[juliann]

On 5/8/2021 at 12:50 PM, Islander said:

To reiterate; all I said was that God was silent for thousands of years on the matter, mind you. And, although such marriages were culturally sanctioned, it is evident from the scriptures that much heartache and actual bloodshed came from it. And that is an undeniable fact. David already had 2 wives and he commits adultery with yet another woman that becomes his wife. Let's not ignore that fact. I did not to polygamy as the "only" reason of David's troubles but it is no doubt a significant causal agent. As to why the Lord was silent on the matter there is no point even on speculating.

As far as D&C 132, we all have to contend with the fact that it was NOT God whom overturned the plural marriage ordinance. It was fear of reprisal and the threat of violence against the saints by the government what prompted them to renounced it. Again, this is either little faith from the saints or a back-peddling God that has no awareness of what's coming down the pike and make provisions for His people. Until today, even when that (threat) is no longer an issue and other forms of non-traditional marriage are now protected legally, the saints are still to even talk about it openly. So, the question remains, at least in my mind, whether we are to hearken to the word (or laws) of men or onto God? We keep forgetting that to be a true follower of Christ we MUST be willing to suffer and be persecuted, if necessary for our faith. "And this is given to you from God, that not only should you believe in The Messiah, but that you also will suffer for his sake." Phil 1:29. 

In my book, the failures are always on the side of men. We are all (even prophets) broken, sinful, fallible mortals in desperate need of forgiveness and a Savior. 

Yeah, because polygyny is such a vibrant, useful, and theologically sound idea. If it can be declared God didn't overturn it, it can certainly be declared he didn't institute it. The logic for both is of equal value. 

[Islander]

On 5/9/2021 at 3:22 PM, juliann said:

Yeah, because polygyny is such a vibrant, useful, and theologically sound idea. If it can be declared God didn't overturn it, it can certainly be declared he didn't institute it. The logic for both is of equal value. 

When it comes to the scriptures there is no human logic involved. Either God speaks (on a subject) or He doesn't.