Callings given to imperfect human beings

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Personally I think it is better to acknowledge calling are rarely, if ever, inspired.

I think inspiration is the rule, not the exception.  YMMV.

I've had too many experiences with this to chalk it all up to happenstance.

Quote

But I am just an awful skeptic these days.

I'm sorry to hear that.  I hope things turn around for you.

Quote

Also regarding Cinepro's comment about Judas filling a higher purpose....I have pondered such things quite a bit and have no answer. It seems Judas had no chance. 

I think he did.  He just chose poorly.  The same can be said, to varying degrees, for all of us.

Quote

Ya know, if someone had to do it and Judas got the short straw isn't that essentially predestination? 

I've gone over this with my son a number of times.  He seems to equate foreknowledge with predestination.  I have rejected this premise.  That God knows ahead of time that an individual is going to choose X does not mean that the individual didn't choose X, or that the individual was compelled to choose X, or that the individual was bereft of Choice Y or Choice Z.

Quote

And a God that does that to a sentient being seems like a pretty awful God to me.

We don't believe in predestination.  See here.  It is antithetical to the concept of "agency," which is central to the Plan of Salvation (see here).

I can't claim to fully grasp all the subtleties and nuances of the Restored Gospel.  But the more I study it, the more it makes sense to me.  And the more I like it.  And the more excited I become.  And the more determined I am to not screw things up too much.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe there are a couple of other posters who have used that word, but I have not.  I specifically stated that I disagreed with using it (and early on in the discussion regarding this).  Maybe you missed that though....

I was communicating with Julie, who definitely does think that Joseph coerced Helen.  You chimed into that discussion, in such a way as to seemingly affirm Julie's position.

I'll pay more attention moving forward.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was communicating with Julie, who definitely does think that Joseph coerced Helen.  You chimed into that discussion, in such a way as to seemingly affirm Julie's position.

I responded regarding the promise that was given.  I stated nothing regarding any coercion.  I had already stated I disagreed with using that word.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll pay more attention moving forward.

Ok...thanks.  I do know it's easy to miss posts and read everything, so I do understand.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

well, perhaps you can understand why I understood you as arguing for the proposition that, in essence, "Joseph coerced Helen into marriage."

Just chiming in to say that I've called Mormon polygamy coercive. 

I hope to talk more about institutional repentance and accountability when I can take the time, I'll probably start a new thread.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I responded regarding the promise that was given.  I stated nothing regarding any coercion.  I had already stated I disagreed with using that word.

Ok...thanks.  I do know it's easy to miss posts and read everything, so I do understand.

Sounds good.  I apologize for the misunderstanding.  Thank you for your patience.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Just chiming in to say that I've called Mormon polygamy coercive. 

All of it?  In toto?  Seriously?

How do you account for the many women (such as Helen Mar Kimball) who were staunch advocates and defenders of polygamy?  They lived it, after all.  You and I are just spectators born many decades after the fact.  We've never even seen it in action.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I hope to talk more about institutional repentance and accountability when I can take the time, I'll probably start a new thread.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

All of it?  In toto?  Seriously?

Yup, hence the objection to it in toto. As established in LDS scripture, Mormon polygamy is inherently coercive.

ETA. Sorry, clicked too soon: Many who spoke well of it were more critical in more private contexts. And such glowing accounts can be a normal psychological response in unhealthy and even abusive situations.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yup, hence the objection to it in toto.

Well, okay.  I'm willing to listen.

Quote

As established in LDS scripture, Mormon polygamy is inherently coercive.

Sorry, but this is nothing close to being "established in LDS scripture."  You diminish yourself in making such absurd and unsubstantiated claims.

I'm quite willing to take you seriously, provided that you speak seriously.

Quote

ETA. Sorry, clicked too soon: Many who spoke well of it were more critical in more private contexts. And such glowing accounts can be a normal psychological response in unhealthy and even abusive situations.

Is it your contention that all polygamy everywhere is "inherently coercive?"  Or is it only coercive when 19th-century Mormons did it?  (Cue the ethnocentric navel-gazing and special pleading in 3....2...1...)

Are we at liberty to dismiss your public statements, and instead read into your mind thoughts and opinions we think should be there?

Can we do all this under the pretext of labeling and dismissing what you say as nothing more than "a normal psychological response in unhealthy and even abusive situations?"

Or is this only something you get to do to 19th-century Mormons?

🤨

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2019 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And such glowing accounts can be a normal psychological response in unhealthy and even abusive situations.

I second that emotion. 

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Many who spoke well of it were more critical in more private contexts.

You know what that sounds an awful lot like?

Oh yeah, pretty much every other relationship that has ever existed...ever. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You wrote and posted your response only ten minutes after I posted my thoughts.  To me, this indicates you didn't read or consider my post, nor did you read the sources I provided.

If he has read and considered them before, it doesn't take much time.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

But the fact remains that when she recorded it, she wrote it as a very specific promise and wrote it as she understood and remembered.

And the significance of this is...? (Trying to understand your point as you are including the possibility she misunderstood if I understand you correctly.)

---

I think the lack of anything more definite than 'may have misunderstood', such as 'given what I know now, I think I remember that incorrectly' should be noted.  It is possible that she saw her audience as familiar enough with the principles that they would understand the context and would automatically include the conditional or she saw her family as faithful enough to have fulfilled the conditional if she believed there was one.  Still it was the mature and educated Helen who chose the word "ensure", looking back with greater understanding than the 14 year old.  

I am of the position that if she did believe she had truly ensured her family's exaltation with no condition of faithfulness needed, I would expect to see more of her writing focused on that (more rejoicing that they had that as a promise through all the hardship and sorrow, etc).  And given the teaching of her father that we know of pointing to the conditional, that feels like a constant presence in the conversation, something that had been repeated so much perhaps this time it was just assumed others would understand.

Exaltation and eternal families with all that implies was not a no brainer teaching in their culture (meaning one that would have been deeply embedded in one's thought process, think how automatic the "Families are together forever" context is now), so I see it as presentism to brush off the family exaltation promise with the conditional added (on the assumption it would have been understood spoken or not) as no big deal because thinking 'that's no different than the rest of us who have made temple covenants' ignores that they hadn't reached the view of sealings that is taught now, as evidenced by the law of adoption among other things.  Families remaining eternally intact across the generations or the promises applying to all in the family may not been seen as an inherent part of the promises yet even for the mature Helen.  I would be interested to know more about how such blessings were portrayed at different points of her lifetime as well as if how she herself wrote about them changed over her lifetime (I have read quite a bit of her writings, but not with that in mind.)

Edited September 4, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  I'm willing to listen.

Sorry, but this is nothing close to being "established in LDS scripture."  You diminish yourself in making such absurd and unsubstantiated claims.

I'm quite willing to take you seriously, provided that you speak seriously.

I'm saying, very seriously,  that the way polygamy is established in LDS scripture is as a coercive institution.

In Doctrine and Covenants 132: 58-66, where the "laws governing plural marriage are set forth:

Quote

 

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take ^aHagar to wife.

 

This is coercion by definition. It's nothing like the invitation for all to come and escape the natural suffering of the world, or to choose Christ and escape the natural consequences of sin. It threatens a woman who does not believe and accept the practice that fundamentally transforms the nature of her existing marriage.

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is it your contention that all polygamy everywhere is "inherently coercive?"  Or is it only coercive when 19th-century Mormons did it?  (Cue the ethnocentric navel-gazing and special pleading in 3....2...1...)

I would not say that polygamy in general and by definition is inherently coercive. Mormon polygamy is inherently coercive because the laws governing it are coercive. By the same token, other forms of polygamy can be coercive. 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are we at liberty to dismiss your public statements, and instead read into your mind thoughts and opinions we think should be there?

Can we do all this under the pretext of labeling and dismissing what you say as nothing more than "a normal psychological response in unhealthy and even abusive situations?"

Or is this only something you get to do to 19th-century Mormons?

I wouldn't expect anyone to use my personal experience as a proof about the general nature of an entire system, although multiple accounts from multiple people do have import. I would share my personal experiences and impressions for various reasons. It is the argument and verifiable facts that I think have the most sway when evaluating the nature of a broad shared experience like Mormon polygamy.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Labeling Helen as a "hero" seems to implicate her father and Joseph as the "villains."

Heroes don't only exist in the presence of villains (at least human ones).  Saving lives in a flood can be heroic with no villain save too much rain.  Organ donors are heroes, no villains needed.  There is no need to infer because one person is a hero another must be a villain.

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

And the significance of this is...? (Trying to understand your point as you are including the possibility she misunderstood if I understand you correctly.)

I was responding to how smac continued to post that Helen Mar Kimball admitted she may not have understood (the promise) by quoting this:

Quote

“I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all” that Joseph Smith then taught."

 

Helen was actually responding to what she believed Joseph Smith's son (Joseph Smith III) understood regarding his plural marriages.  Here is the entire quote:

Quote

"The Prophet’s son can never make many proselytes [converts] among the Nauvoo ‘Mormons,’ for they have too much knowledge, and are so familiar with his parents’ history that they cannot be duped. I was not so young nor so small as Joseph Smith the younger, but I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all that I heard his father teach, and if my parents at that early day had disagreed and my father been taken away by death, I am not able to decide what the consequences would have been to me; but my mother, though quick and plain to speak her mind, learned to respect the authority of the Priesthood, and she understood it too well to stand in opposition to it. She never deceived nor taught her children an untruth.”

https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=28053

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Heroes don't only exist in the presence of villains (at least human ones).  

The connotation I saw was that Helen was a "hero" because she endured.  She was victimized.  She was coerced (per Julie).

ALarson disagrees that she was coerced (though apparently agrees with Julie's interpretation of Helen's later recollection).

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Saving lives in a flood can be heroic with no villain save too much rain.  Organ donors are heroes, no villains needed.  There is no need to infer because one person is a hero another must be a villain.

ALarson went out of his way to characterize Helen as a hero, and to specifically reject any corollary praise for Heber or Joseph.

• "Helen is the true hero in all of this, not the men involved (her Father and Joseph), IMO."
• "And I'll state once again that I firmly believe that Helen is the true hero here (not Heber or Joseph)."
• "I do believe that Helen is the one who emerges as the hero in this story (and not Joseph or Heber).....but I do not believe they were evil men."

The first two seem to be disparaging Heber and Joseph (by juxtaposting them against the "hero," Helen).

All of them were involved in the arranged marriage.  The one Julie called "coercive."

Overall, the subtext seemed to be an attempt to vilify Heber and Joseph.  However, ALarson eventually clarified that he was not calling them "evil" (while still repeatedly and emphatically and specifically contrasting their non-hero status to that of Helen), so there's that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

I interpreted ALarson as labeling Joseph and Heber as not extraordinary as opposed to Helen in making sacrifices for their families in this context.  I still think you are inferring too much into AL's phrasing.

ALarson had already stated he didn't see the promise as coercive.  Reading Julie's or others' perspective as subtext to AL's rather than using his own comment to provide it seems inappropriate.

And the later clarification should be used to provide the subtext for his comments as well as there is no reason to assume he meant something different in the first two comments as he did the third.

Got to go.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The connotation I saw was that Helen was a "hero" because she endured.  She was victimized.  She was coerced (per Julie).

ALarson disagrees that she was coerced (though apparently agrees with Julie's interpretation of Helen's later recollection).

ALarson went out of his way to characterize Helen as a hero, and to specifically reject any corollary praise for Heber or Joseph.

• "Helen is the true hero in all of this, not the men involved (her Father and Joseph), IMO."
• "And I'll state once again that I firmly believe that Helen is the true hero here (not Heber or Joseph)."
• "I do believe that Helen is the one who emerges as the hero in this story (and not Joseph or Heber).....but I do not believe they were evil men."

The first two seem to be disparaging Heber and Joseph (by juxtaposting them against the "hero," Helen).

All of them were involved in the arranged marriage.  The one Julie called "coercive."

Overall, the subtext seemed to be an attempt to vilify Heber and Joseph.  However, ALarson eventually clarified that he was not calling them "evil" (while still repeatedly and emphatically and specifically contrasting their non-hero status to that of Helen), so there's that.

I do see Helen as the hero in this specific incident (that we are discussing).....and to be honest, I feel that way about her throughout her entire life.  She must have been an incredibly faithful and good woman.

But, just because I did not see either Heber or Joseph as being heroic at this specific time, does not mean I believe they were villains.  That's quite the leap to make.  I have repeatedly told you I don't believe that to be the case here.

I am impressed with a 14 year old girl who by her own words, believed that if she agreed to marry Joseph, she would be able to "ensure" salvation and exaltation for her entire family (and posterity).....so she agreed to marry him.  That's why I see her as the hero here.  Others may have differing opinions, but I'm just expressing mine.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Hey JLHPROF!  

I was just now reading an older thread regarding this very topic.  You stated that this indeed was the same as the blessings related to the 2nd anointing (I'm paraphrasing, so correct me if that's inaccurate).  And that the posterity (children, etc.)  of those who receive their 2nd anointing are very much promised salvation and exaltation too.

Is that still what you believe?

Yes.  Joseph taught it clearly.

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I understand and agree IF this was indeed a commandment from God (to live polygamy).  I personally do not believe it was, but I know other disagree.

Once again....even if it was a commandment, that's not what I have an issue with.  It's the lies, betrayal and deceit by Joseph (and others) that I cannot condone.  I honestly have no issue with people living polygamy if it's done between all consenting adults.

Yes, I understand the deceit objection.  It's the coercion objection that I find to not make sense.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Just chiming in to say that I've called Mormon polygamy coercive. 

 

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yup, hence the objection to it in toto. As established in LDS scripture, Mormon polygamy is inherently coercive.

 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm saying, very seriously,  that the way polygamy is established in LDS scripture is as a coercive institution.

This is coercion by definition. It's nothing like the invitation for all to come and escape the natural suffering of the world, or to choose Christ and escape the natural consequences of sin. It threatens a woman who does not believe and accept the practice that fundamentally transforms the nature of her existing marriage.

I would not say that polygamy in general and by definition is inherently coercive. Mormon polygamy is inherently coercive because the laws governing it are coercive. By the same token, other forms of polygamy can be coercive. 

Yes, you have clearly established that you view polygamy as coercive.

What you have yet to do is demonstrate why that means it's sinful/wrong/not from God.  God uses coercion and always has.  The entire concept of sin vs salvation is coercive.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm saying, very seriously,  that the way polygamy is established in LDS scripture is as a coercive institution.

Meh.  This sort of unsubstantiated, because-I-say-so, conclusory stuff about issues that are very much in dispute is not persuasive.  At all.

Quote

In Doctrine and Covenants 132: 58-66, where the "laws governing plural marriage are set forth:

Quote

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.

This is coercion by definition.

Oh, baloney.  The scriptures are chockablock full of exhortations and warnings that, by your reckoning, are "coercive."

• “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that does not believeth is damned.”  (Mark 16:16)
• "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."  (Matthew 23:14)
• "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation."  (Mark 3:29)
• "And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned."  (D&C 112:29)
• "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."  (John 5:29)
• "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."  (Romans 13:1-2)
• "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."  (1 Cor. 11:29)
• "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."  (2 Thes. 2:12)
• "And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it."  (2 Nephi 9:24)
• "But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah.  For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge."  (Mosiah 2:32-33)
• "For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."  (Mosiah 3:18)
• "Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery, fulfilling the words which say: They that have done good shall have everlasting life; and they that have done evil shall have everlasting damnation. And thus it is. Amen."  (Helaman 12:26)
• "And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe; And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not.  For they love darkness rather than light, and their deeds are evil, and they receive their wages of whom they list to obey."  (D&C 29:43-45)
• "And he that doeth according to these things shall be saved, and he that doeth them not shall be damned if he so continue."  (D&C 42:60)
• "Thus saith the Lord; for I am God, and have sent mine Only Begotten Son into the world for the redemption of the world, and have decreed that he that receiveth him shall be saved, and he that receiveth him not shall be damned."  (D&C 49:5)
• "But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned."  (D&C 58:29)
• "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."  (D&C 132:4)
• "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."  (D&C 132:27)

All of these are just variations on a theme: obedience to God.  Whether we are speaking of having faith/belief, or repentance, or baptism, or doing "evil," or resisting ordinances, or taking the Sacrament, or taking "pleasure" in "unrighteousness," or "list{ing}" to "obey" the devil, or abiding in the covenant, or blaspheming against the Holy Ghost, or shedding innocent blood, or assenting to the death of Christ . . . all of these pertain to obeying God or disobeying God.

None of this is "coercive."  It's a matter of faith.  You get to accept these things as true, or not.  Nobody is holding a gun to your head, or holding your children hostage. 

Ironically, the only way these things could potentially be "coercive" is for you to accept them as true of your own free will.  But then, having accepted them of your own free will, you cannot be said to have been "coerced."  So not even a paradox will save your position here.

The same goes for polygamy.  You can accept it on faith, or not.  

Let's take a look at the Wiki entry for "coercion":

Quote

Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats or force.  It involves a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, for example: a bully demanding lunch money from a student or the student gets beaten. These actions may include extortion, blackmail, torture, threats to induce favors, or even sexual assault.

I think the gravamen of the concept is the suppression of the individual's exercise of agency (free will).  In terms of obedience to God, in terms of accepting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no coercion.  We chose to accept the Plan of Salvation.  We chose to come here and receive a body.  We chose to be tested.  "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."  (2 Nephi 2:27)

This applies to all precepts of the Restored Gospel, whether it's having faith, or getting baptized, or taking the Sacrament, or . . . entering into polygamy (when commanded).  It's all a choice.  Every bit of it.

Quote

It's nothing like the invitation for all to come and escape the natural suffering of the world, or to choose Christ and escape the natural consequences of sin.
It threatens a woman who does not believe and accept the practice that fundamentally transforms the nature of her existing marriage.

It's everything like those things.  The "invitation" you reference here has an alternative, right?  “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that does not believeth is damned.”  (Mark 16:16)

This is just special pleading on your part (as in "argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view").

It's also a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy:

• Meadowchik: Mormon polygamy was per se coercive.
• Smac: No, it wasn't.
• Meadowchik: Yes, it was.  See here?  D&C 132 says that disobedience will result in punishment.
• Smac: The scriptures are replete with warnings about the consequences of disobedience.
• Meadowchik: Yes, but those are nothing like the 'invitation' to 'choose Christ.'
• Smac: How so?  Mark 16:16 says those who do not accept this 'invitation' will be 'damned.'
• Meadowchik: Yes, but D&C 132 threatens a woman who does not believe in polygamy.
• Smac: It 'threatens' her in the same sense that Mark 16:16 'threatens' her.  Or you.  Or me.
• Meadowchik: It's still different.  

 I just can't go along with this sort of reasoning.  D&C 132's exhortations are predicated on faith, just like all of the above commandments about baptism, the Sacrament, enduring to the end, and so on.

It's a choice.  All of it.

Moreover, the allegation of coercion is particularly flawed in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, which rejects the heaven/hell dichotomy, and instead posits that virtually everyone will inherit a kingdom of glory.  And even the least of these kingdoms, the one with a glory of analogized to "the stars" (as opposed to the much greater glory of the moon (Terrestrial) and the hugely different glory of the Sun (Celestial)).  The glory of this lowest kingdom, we are told, "surpasses all understanding."  (D&C 76:89).

Quote

I would not say that polygamy in general and by definition is inherently coercive.

Quelle surprise.  Ethnocentric navel-gazing tends to lead to this sort of arbitrariness.

Quote

Mormon polygamy is inherently coercive because the laws governing it are coercive.

Not true.

Quote

By the same token, other forms of polygamy can be coercive. 

By the same token, other commandments from God can, by your reckoning, be "coercive."

But since you are only interested in vilifying the Latter-day Saints, I doubt we'll see much in the way of consistency from you on this point.

Was Jesus being "coercive" when he spoke of damnation?

Quote

I wouldn't expect anyone to use my personal experience as a proof about the general nature of an entire system, although multiple accounts from multiple people do have import. I would share my personal experiences and impressions for various reasons. It is the argument and verifiable facts that I think have the most sway when evaluating the nature of a broad shared experience like Mormon polygamy.

So in the end, your position is not based on reasoned argument.  Or even the scriptures.  Just your feelings.

Okay.  If and when you have a more substantive explanation for what is, in essence, "Polygamy is inherently coercive, but only when those Mormons do it," I'm all ears.  As it stands, however, I do not accept your position.  I find it generally unreasoned and arbitrary. 

Thanks for sharing.

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I do see Helen as the hero in this specific incident (that we are discussing).....and to be honest, I feel that way about her throughout her entire life.  She must have been an incredibly faithful and good woman.

Same here.  The part I don't get is your (apparent) disparagement of her father and Joseph Smith "in this specific incident."  

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

But, just because I did not see either Heber or Joseph as being heroic at this specific time, does not mean I believe they were villains.  That's quite the leap to make.  I have repeatedly told you I don't believe that to be the case here.

You also went out of your way to juxtapose them against the "hero" (Helen).  That seemed . . . weird.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I am impressed with a 14 year old girl who by her own words, believed that if she agreed to marry Joseph, she would be able to "ensure" salvation and exaltation for her entire family (and posterity).....so she agreed to marry him.  That's why I see her as the hero here.  Others may have differing opinions, but I'm just expressing mine.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  The part I don't get is your (apparent) disparagement of her father and Joseph Smith "in this specific incident."  

Stating I don't see them as being the heroes in this specific incident = disparagement?

Quote

 

dis·par·age

1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way.

 

I have not done that.....I think it's time to let this one go, smac.  

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Stating I don't see them as being the heroes in this specific incident = disparagement?

By you repeatedly going out of your way to specifically emphasize that Helen was a "hero" but Heber and Joseph were not? 

Yes.  That seemed to be the connotation.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have not done that.....I think it's time to let this one go, smac.  

Happy to.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

Wow, this has turned into quite the revealing thread...

I'm sticking to the understanding that:

Judas, Peter denying Christ, apostles which can't walk on water, cannot even stay awake one hour - the clear lesson is - don't put your trust in the arm of flesh, even prophets and apostles.

What is the point of horrible fallen imperfect leaders? imperfect diverse religious communities?  simple - to allow everyone room for personal thoughts and individual belief.  

Polygammy, abuse, murder etc by supposed leaders?  Some people refuse to be self-reliant, refuse to think for themselves, do not have a testimony in the right things, ... no borrowed light.... Extreme measures are sometimes needed to pull followers away from worshipping apostles and prophets....   I believe those who passed the test are those who refused to submit to fallen imperfect men - who decided to fully take ownership of their own free agency.  

What did it take to change Japan's religious beliefs?  ... What does it take to change those who worship church leaders above morals or reality?... drastic measures... and even then, some refuse to be spiritually self reliant.

Alma 42 - even God would cease to be God if the law of justice was not satisfied.  

Morality sets it's own laws, I will follow what is moral rather than follow any supposed prophet any day.  

Edited September 4, 2019 by changed