APA on Consensual Nonmonogamy spin-off thread: Mormon Polygamy

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

I actually agree that there’s no command involved in what you quote (or put in bold).

Just because some wives were offered or given, one still has a choice to take them as wives and live polygamy.  And in the last verse, it’s states “if” so there’s still a choice and no command.  There was no commandment or threat of destruction until Joseph reported that.

Correct. However, meaningless in a society in which polygyny is entirely normal.  

 Martin Luther wrote:

Quote

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." Luther, Martin. De Wette II, 459, ibid., 329–330.

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Deut and Ex references clearly had to do with close regulation, as I had stated.  You don't regulate something of which you don't approve -- at least if you are God.  David was clearly mandated to take the plural wives, in a society in which it was entirely normal.  One doesn't say "you must marry multiple wives" in a society in which it is entirely normal.  You have allowed your modern personal preferences to overrule logic.  As it happens, I do not favor plural wives, but as an anthropologist I see no reason to deny that in most of human history, polygyny has been normal, nor that God was fine with that -- and thus spent little time ordering that practice.

I see no command from God for David to accept and live polygamy with the wives offered him.  He could have denied them and not desired to have more wives for any number of reasons.  

I respect that this is how you've chosen to interpret these scriptures.  However, I see no command from God in them.

No need to continue going back and forth either as I'm sure neither of us will convince the other to change their minds  

(I'm off of here now....have a great evening!!)

Edited July 21, 2019 by ALarson

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct. However, meaningless in a society in which polygyny is entirely normal.

Well normal doesn’t mean it was something God commanded.  Thanks for the info and thoughts.  I mean that!

I just don’t believe polygamy is from God.  I know some made it work and I know many lived it believing they were being obedient.  I respect them for doing that too.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think that’s possible.  Or, God was just unable to get men to listen to His desire for it to stop. 

The unable to get men to listen does not sound very plausible to me. God appears to be capable of condemning sin with too much regularity for this to just be a situation of him being incapable to communicate. That is one of the reasons I think he just does not care for the most part about this. It appears that when he cares, he speaks out. For example, the NT directions on bishops. 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

The unable to get men to listen does not sound very plausible to me. God appears to be capable of condemning sin with too much regularity for this to just be a situation of him being incapable to communicate. That is one of the reasons I think he just does not care for the most part about this. It appears that when he cares, he speaks out. For example, the NT directions on bishops. 

 

God can easily condemn a sin.  But since He respects agency, getting men to listen to His condemnation when it goes against their own sincerely held, though often incorrect, beliefs is something different.

The gospel topics essay on Race and the Priesthood describes how our own prophet and apostles believed that they were correct in promoting racist teachings.

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

It is one thing for God to condemn a sin.  It is another for Him to get us to accept and teach correct doctrine.

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

God can easily condemn a sin.  But since He respects agency, getting men to listen to His condemnation when it goes against their own sincerely held, though often incorrect, beliefs is something different.

The gospel topics essay on Race and the Priesthood describes how our own prophet and apostles believed that they were correct in promoting racist teachings.

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

It is one thing for God to condemn a sin.  It is another for Him to get us to accept and teach correct doctrine.

Doctrine and practicing polygamy are two different things. Doctrine and policy are also two different things. God has been very clear, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  However, many of his prophets and leaders have had multiple wives. David's fall was not because he has multiple wives, but because he committed adultery. God was clear on the reason for his downfall and his sin. God appears to accept, at times, that his children will participate in polygamy and it is acceptable to him. 

I try to be very careful about what is doctrine and what is policy - they are very different. The Church has had and has multiple policies that are not doctrine. The limiting of who can and who cannot hold the priesthood is one of them. 

If God gave 100% of of true, correct doctrine to one entity, what would that mean? It would mean that he would cease to function as the source of truth for all of his children. As it stands now, we have one entity that holds the keys to salvation, but doctrine and truth are found throughout the world in all religions. Humans will be judged on the truths they have been given and lived. The one group that possess the Keys of the Priesthood are tasked to work harder in behalf of humanity that all will have the ordinances of salvation. 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Storm Rider

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Doctrine and practicing polygamy are two different things. Doctrine and policy are also two different things. God has been very clear, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  However, many of his prophets and leaders have had multiple wives. David's fall was not because he has multiple wives, but because he committed adultery. God was clear on the reason for his downfall and his sin. God appears to accept, at times, that his children will participate in adultery and it is acceptable to him. 

I try to be very careful about what is doctrine and what is policy - they are very different. The Church has had and has multiple policies that are not doctrine. The limiting of who can and who cannot hold the priesthood is one of them. 

If God gave 100% of of true, correct doctrine to one entity, what would that mean? It would mean that he would cease to function as the source of truth for all of his children. As it stands now, we have one entity that holds the keys to salvation, but doctrine and truth are found throughout the world in all religions. Humans will be judged on the truths they have been given and lived. The one group that possess the Keys of the Priesthood are tasked to work harder in behalf of humanity that all will have the ordinances of salvation. 

My example illustrated how God’s prophets may not always be hearing Him whether that may be racist teachings or a possible condemnation of polygamy (bringing up policy is not relevant since my example and quote regarded doctrine). 

 

Side note:  you might want to correct the last sentence of your first paragraph, I don’t think that’s what you meant. 

[smac97]

On 7/19/2019 at 6:08 PM, rockpond said:

How do you differentiate between what BY said "in that capacity" and out of it?  What's the marker I should look for?

Here are some resources for you:

• What should I do if I question something a prophet has taught?
• Mormon Prophets and Fallibility
• The fallibility of Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
• Challenging Issues, Keeping the Faith: Challenging issues and keeping the faith: Part 10
• Not All Statements of Church Leaders Are Considered Doctrine

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here are some resources for you:

• What should I do if I question something a prophet has taught?
• Mormon Prophets and Fallibility
• The fallibility of Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
• Challenging Issues, Keeping the Faith: Challenging issues and keeping the faith: Part 10
• Not All Statements of Church Leaders Are Considered Doctrine

Thanks,

-Smac

The last link, from Scott Woodward, seems to contradict your reliance on the interpretation of D&C 1:38 as indicating that what is spoken by a prophet is equivalent to the voice of the Lord.  Perhaps you’d like to clarify. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The last link, from Scott Woodward, seems to contradict your reliance on the interpretation of D&C 1:38 as indicating that what is spoken by a prophet is equivalent to the voice of the Lord.  Perhaps you’d like to clarify. 

I don't see a contradiction.  And Woodward's link is a compilation of quotes about this topic, none of which references D&C 1:38.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see a contradiction.  And Woodward's link is a compilation of quotes about this topic, none of which references D&C 1:38.

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay, so we agree then that 1:38 cannot be invoked to claim that anything spoken/written by a prophet is the voice of the Lord?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Okay, so we agree then that 1:38 cannot be invoked to claim that anything spoken/written by a prophet is the voice of the Lord?

Certainly.  I never suggested that "anything spoken/written by a prophet is the voice of the Lord."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Certainly.  I never suggested that "anything spoken/written by a prophet is the voice of the Lord."

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay... I was responding to this post.

 

@ALarson had said:  "You have his own words teaching the principle (or someone recording his words) and commanding it?"

And you responded:  "C'mon.  D&C 1:38 is binding on us ("my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same")."

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... I was responding to this post.

 

@ALarson had said:  "You have his own words teaching the principle (or someone recording his words) and commanding it?"

And you responded:  "C'mon.  D&C 1:38 is binding on us ("my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same")."

 

"My word" being the operative phrase.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well normal doesn’t mean it was something God commanded.  ..............

Correct.  But that means that no one is likely to be ordered to do it.  Joseph Smith and the Brethren were in very different circumstances, a day and age in which such a thing simply was not done.  Any polygyny, polyandry, or same sex sealings would have to be ordered to get most folks to do it.  Same applied to Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his own son, Isaac.  Killing one's own children to assuage Deity was already a tradition among the heathen.  So, why did Abraham obey?  Did he really believe that God had commanded it?  Did he think that God would give him a way out at the last moment?

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

I just don’t believe polygamy is from God.  I know some made it work and I know many lived it believing they were being obedient.  I respect them for doing that too.

Say I was ordered to marry two women in today's LDS Church.  I would refuse, regardless of the authority of the order (my bishop, stake Pres, the Prophet, an angel with a sword, or God Himself).  I just wouldn't do it, no matter the threat.  Heck, I wouldn't even marry one woman if so ordered, and I would just take the consequences of that disobedience.  I am a widower, and I had quite enough guff first time around.  

Same if I was ordered to marry another man.  I figure that I have the right of refusal.  Bring on Hell-fire.

I have no problem with others engaging in non-traditional marriages, and I don't want to criticize them.   Especially since I like the U.S. Constitution.

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"My word" being the operative phrase.

In what way is that the operative phrase?

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

My example illustrated how God’s prophets may not always be hearing Him whether that may be racist teachings or a possible condemnation of polygamy (bringing up policy is not relevant since my example and quote regarded doctrine). 

 

Side note:  you might want to correct the last sentence of your first paragraph, I don’t think that’s what you meant. 

LOL - that was a doozy. I was thinking just the opposite. 

Rock, I don't think God thinks in racist terms. For example, his covenant people the ancient House of Israel. Out of all of his children on the earth, he had one chosen people. Was he racist? I don't think so. I don't think God ever thinks in racist terms. I think the term racist and racism are used for so many things today that it twists the minds of humans. Humans are so overly sensitive that now, if there is a person of color that you have a disagreement with then you are racist. 

We like to think of those we disagree with in terms of racism today. If you don't like Brigham Young, then he is surely a racist. If you like Brigham Young then you must be a racist and misogynist. 

I don't think we have examples of God's prophets not hearing him; to the contrary, we have examples of them hearing and not obeying. 

In all the world, throughout all of history, there has been no justice in this world. Do you really think that God's responsibility is to make this world, the present, just? I don't. What I have faith in is that God will make all things just in the world to come - for eternity. In the scheme of things, those who were last, will be first. We skim over that too quickly and easily. It means that there is a last...always. Those "last" will be made first. Who glories in that? Surely not the "first". 

As soon as I hear racism spoken in today's world, I become very wary. I return to power - I don't have it and I want it is the mindset of the vast majority of politicians and activists regardless of the cause. I cannot change society, but I am responsible for the way I treat my neighbor. The rest is emotional chaff to excite and demean others. 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL - that was a doozy. I was thinking just the opposite. 

I figured.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, I don't think God thinks in racist terms.

Neither do I, nor did I imply such with my comments.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

We like to think of those we disagree with in terms of racism today. If you don't like Brigham Young, then he is surely a racist. If you like Brigham Young then you must be a racist and misogynist. 

I accept that Brigham Young likely thought his racist teachings and policies were of divine origin.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think we have examples of God's prophets not hearing him; to the contrary, we have examples of them hearing and not obeying. 

The racist temple and priesthood ban is, in my opinion, a good example of God's prophets not being able to hear him correctly.  But you certainly don't have to see it that way.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

In all the world, throughout all of history, there has been no justice in this world. Do you really think that God's responsibility is to make this world, the present, just?

Certainly not.  Not sure how that is relevant to my remarks either.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

What I have faith in is that God will make all things just in the world to come - for eternity.

Me too.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

As soon as I hear racism spoken in today's world, I become very wary. I return to power - I don't have it and I want it is the mindset of the vast majority of politicians and activists regardless of the cause. I cannot change society, but I am responsible for the way I treat my neighbor. The rest is emotional chaff to excite and demean others. 

When I refer to the temple and priesthood ban as racist, I'm just using the dictionary definition... not intending to apply any other emotional or political baggage to that term.

[CV75]

I’m not sure that confessions of disbelief based on lack of primary sources of incipient revelation on one subject (the ban) constitute practical evidence against a separate statement of belief where such primary sources are similarly lacking (plural marriage).

RE: the OP, I haven’t seen any primary sources offered to show that plural marriage was not sanctioned by God, or that He established a “hierarchy” of temple marriage sealing structures for men and women any more than He sanctions adoption as greater or lesser than being born in the covenant (per the Abrahamic covenant, for which we have no primary source either).

While these sources aren’t necessary for discussion, I think this is why the Bible can be a blessing as far as it is translated correctly, and why latter-day scripture and a 189-year history of prophetic succession are such a blessing given the lack of a documented chain of custody on some points of contention. Taking these as a whole, we have the covenants we sustain within our own lifetime and probation just as those from long ago had theirs. Sometimes we even live through the changes and are blessed for our faith and obedience.

Edited July 22, 2019 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

On 7/20/2019 at 10:50 PM, JulieM said:

Well normal doesn’t mean it was something God commanded.  Thanks for the info and thoughts.  I mean that!

I just don’t believe polygamy is from God.  I know some made it work and I know many lived it believing they were being obedient.  I respect them for doing that too.

Do you believe God had any opinion on the subject of polygamy?

I  get you consider it man-made but does that also mean God disapproves?  Because other than Jacob 2 (for other sins committed by polygamous tribes) he has never condemned the practice at all.

[JulieM]

On 7/22/2019 at 6:16 PM, JLHPROF said:

Do you believe God had any opinion on the subject of polygamy?

I think God would care or be concerned if there was force or abuse involved.  

I also have a difficult time believing that God would have condoned the lies and deceit and pain caused by the betrayals many endured.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think God would care or be concerned if there was force or abuse involved.  

I also have a difficult time believing that God would have condoned the lies and deceit and pain caused by the betrayals many endured.

Fair enough, but that's not really what I was asking.

[Stargazer]

On 7/19/2019 at 6:21 PM, smac97 said:

Same with animal sacrifice and a few other things.  

So... what's your beef with animal sacrifice?

You eat animals, don't you?  What's the difference?  The sacrifices of the Law of Moses were actually eaten by someone, to the best of my knowledge. That there was a ritual killing at an altar in the temple differs from a non-ritual killing at your butcher shop in what way?  

Don't want to derail, just curious about your objection.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Stargazer

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So... what's your beef with animal sacrifice?

Nice play on words.  😀

I'm not sure I have a "beef" with such things.  My comment was that this concept, and a few others, are not intuitively "good" for me.  I have come to terms with and accepted them through study and contemplation.

Contrast that process with, say, "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Feed My Sheep" and such, which concepts are intuitively good, such that I did not need to exert effort to come to terms with and accept them.

Quote

You eat animals, don't you?  What's the difference?  The sacrifices of the Law of Moses were actually eaten by someone, to the best of my knowledge. That there was a ritual killing at an altar in the temple differs from a non-ritual killing at your butcher shop in what way?  

Don't want to derail, just curious about your objection.

I hope the above clarifies.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

On 7/19/2019 at 11:05 PM, smac97 said:

I guess I'll go with Acts 3:21 (see here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Totally off-topic and I apologize, but I just noticed that this article you reference was authored by Cory Maxwell, son of Elder Neal Maxwell, who served his mission in mine and at the same time.  It's been 45 years since I seen him last -- nice to know he's still kicking!