The need to believe

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Are you referring to the gospel of Phillip? It doesn’t say he kissed her on the mouth. It says he kissed her on her... There’s a hole in the manuscript right there so it’s anyone’s guess.  Cheek, hand, scarf, mouth. No one knows. 

"Forehead" would get my vote!

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Those two wards are in Utah (Springville and St. George).

I don't know how much you've lived outside of Utah, but in my experience polygamy is not quite as...celebrated...as your post suggests.

[katherine the great]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Fair enough.  Thanks for the correction.

Either way it says he loved and kissed her.

Do you think Mary Magdalene was the apostle Jesus loved? Did Judas kiss Jesus? Loving and kissing apparently didn’t always equal a spouse. 🤷‍♀️

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't know how much you've lived outside of Utah, but in my experience polygamy is not quite as...celebrated...as your post suggests.

I wouldn't say it is celebrated   I just think that HJW wasn't given members enough credit in what they knew.

I'm also mostly from Arizona and most of my polygamy family are from Mexico and southern New Mexico/Arizona.  I actually have very little Utah polygamy.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

I wouldn't say it is celebrated   I just think that HJW wasn't given members enough credit in what they knew.

I'm also mostly from Arizona and most of my polygamy family are from Mexico and southern New Mexico/Arizona.  I actually have very little Utah polygamy.

Growing up in CA and Illinois it was talked about at Church, but that was 60s and 70s.  Once married I didn’t attend many adult classes on Sunday, so don’t know if mentioned very often in Kansas or Calgary.  Wouldn’t be surprised if Calgary, given why members moved to Cardston in the first place and we had Cards and others from early pioneer families on our ward and stake.   We also had a couple history buffs. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Sexual lust, sure, as long as you don’t care if a society that condemns sex outside of marriage condemns you. 
 

But there is also lust for power over others or for prestige (collecting wives and children can be status symbols as much as money)...unfortunately there are bad reasons to have multiple spouses even if there might be good ones as well. 

Notwithstanding my maleness, I don’t see the appeal of collecting wives and children as a power or status symbol, so I’ll have to take your word for it. 
 

As for sexual lust, enough men have engaged in and gotten away with it in secret through the ages that I don’t know that societal disapprobation is necessarily a deterrent. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Bible seems to indicate that:  Ex 21:10, Deut 21:15-17, 25:5-10, Psalm 45:9

 

Well if God commanded concubines as well as polygamy, then why didn't Joseph Smith get a revelation to only restore half of the command?  Wasn't the claim that Joseph Smith was restoring all things?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Notwithstanding my maleness, I don’t see the appeal of collecting wives and children as a power or status symbol, so I’ll have to take your word for it. 
 

As for sexual lust, enough men have engaged in and gotten away with it in secret through the ages that I don’t know that societal disapprobation is necessarily a deterrent. 

However, can you see that other men might see it differently if their society allowed for multiple wives and made a big deal about children?  If well off enough, by collecting wives, they could satisfy carnal desires while avoiding condemnation when visiting prostitutes or having affairs could get them into trouble  

In a society that approved plural marriage or even viewed those practicing it as more spiritual, can you see men and women choosing plural marriage for immature, self centered reasons even if most chose for religious reasons?

I am not saying plural marriage was motivated by sexual or status lust, just saying it was likely a part of some marriages. 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well if God commanded concubines as well as polygamy, then why didn't Joseph Smith get a revelation to only restore half of the command?  Wasn't the claim that Joseph Smith was restoring all things?

Yep, the biblical phrase was "restitution of all things."  That doesn't mean that Joseph Smith had to build an Ark like Noah.  Same applies to all commandments:  Yet he was not commanded to build any temples following God's plan for a temple or tabernacle in the desert.  He did the same things as anciently, but only in modern form.

He did not have to duplicate everything, but only do similar things.  The differences are entirely normal matters of contemporary style as opposed to the ancient ways.  Abraham was only following the legal and cultural fashion of his own day and time when he agreed to take Sarah's servant girl in order to have offspring.  Same applies to Jacob taking the two servant girls of Rachel and Leah.  They weren't termed concubines, but they were lesser caste wives of some sort just the same.  The Bible doesn't flinch from portraying those relationships in a realistic fashion, warts and all.

The biblical texts I cited merely regulate the legal niceties of such relationships, and many ancient Near Eastern law codes dealt with those matters as well.  When the modern state of Israel was founded, plural marriage was outlawed.  Yet Jews and Muslims already married to multiple women did not have to kick them out.  Just no new such marriages were permitted.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, can you see that other men might see it differently if their society allowed for multiple wives and made a big deal about children?  If well off enough, by collecting wives, they could satisfy carnal desires while avoiding condemnation when visiting prostitutes or having affairs could get them into trouble  

In a society that approved plural marriage or even viewed those practicing it as more spiritual, can you see men and women choosing plural marriage for immature, self centered reasons even if most chose for religious reasons?

I am not saying plural marriage was motivated by sexual or status lust, just saying it was likely a part of some marriages. 

I will acknowledge that men — and women too — occasionally engage in behavior that holds no appeal for me personally and with which I could not identify, even theoretically. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, can you see that other men might see it differently if their society allowed for multiple wives and made a big deal about children?  If well off enough, by collecting wives, they could satisfy carnal desires while avoiding condemnation when visiting prostitutes or having affairs could get them into trouble  

In a society that approved plural marriage or even viewed those practicing it as more spiritual, can you see men and women choosing plural marriage for immature, self centered reasons even if most chose for religious reasons?

I am not saying plural marriage was motivated by sexual or status lust, just saying it was likely a part of some marriages. 

In most cases, plural marriage is really no different than monogamy.  Whatever happens to be the social norm in a particular time and place.  A phenomenological  analysis doesn't really take sides, but only reports on the prevailing cultural norms.  In Classical Greece, for example, pederasty was a social norm (though rejected by Jews and later by Christians).  Some people find that shockingly odd, and ask why, but you don't really ask about the why of social norms -- which may take nearly any form, such as the Spartan custom of leaving weak babies out to die.  We find ourselves searching for an etiological explanation, but such is not always apparent.

[Risingtide]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

.  I believe that if one wants a person to be honest, they have to provide an environment that promotes honesty. 

I think wide range is an understatement. Using scripture to deceive is beyond my level of tolerance. 

The 1835 edition of D&C section 101 disturbs me. " Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman should have but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

I know this was written by Oliver Cowdrey, and it doesn't pretend to be revelation, yet many historians feel there is ample evidence Joseph Smith knew it would be included in the book. I have a hard time squaring this. It is so clearly meant to deceive. This should never happen with scripture.

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

I think wide range is an understatement. Using scripture to deceive is beyond my level of tolerance. 

The 1835 edition of D&C section 101 disturbs me. " Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman should have but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

I know this was written by Oliver Cowdrey, and it doesn't pretend to be revelation, yet many historians feel there is ample evidence Joseph Smith knew it would be included in the book. I have a hard time squaring this. It is so clearly meant to deceive. This should never happen with scripture.

In 1835, Joseph Smith only had one polygamous marriage.  Next one would be 1838.  I don't see how it was clearly meant to deceive.  I see Joseph Smith trying to understand polygamy at this time and being wary of it since his first attempt went poorly.

If this had been added in the 1840s, then I could see it being meant to deceive.

[katherine the great]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet Jews and Muslims already married to multiple women did not have to kick them out.  Just no new such marriages were permitted.

I think that is the practical and humane thing to do. I always found it so curious that even in countries where polygamy is legal, our church will not baptize a polygynous man unless he divorces all but one of his spouses. That just seems wrong to me. 

[Risingtide]

1 minute ago, webbles said:

In 1835, Joseph Smith only had one polygamous marriage.  Next one would be 1838.  I don't see how it was clearly meant to deceive.  I see Joseph Smith trying to understand polygamy at this time and being wary of it since his first attempt went poorly.

If this had been added in the 1840s, then I could see it being meant to deceive.

Doesn't the passage deny the practice of polygamy after Joseph Smith had already entered into it even if it was "only" one polygamous wife? And had he not claimed to have received heavenly revelation to practice polygamy before the publication?

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep, the biblical phrase was "restitution of all things."  That doesn't mean that Joseph Smith had to build an Ark like Noah.  Same applies to all commandments:  Yet he was not commanded to build any temples following God's plan for a temple or tabernacle in the desert.  He did the same things as anciently, but only in modern form.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here.  These have nothing to do with relationships and marriage.  Polygamy and concubines were interwoven together.  It was how families were constructed according to the Bible.  If God wanted to bring back that construct, then it seems like you can't dismiss concubines as being similar to Noah's ark.

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He did not have to duplicate everything, but only do similar things.  The differences are entirely normal matters of contemporary style as opposed to the ancient ways.  Abraham was only following the legal and cultural fashion of his own day and time when he agreed to take Sarah's servant girl in order to have offspring.  Same applies to Jacob taking the two servant girls of Rachel and Leah.  They weren't termed concubines, but they were lesser caste wives of some sort just the same.  The Bible doesn't flinch from portraying those relationships in a realistic fashion, warts and all.

The biblical texts I cited merely regulate the legal niceties of such relationships, and many ancient Near Eastern law codes dealt with those matters as well.  When the modern state of Israel was founded, plural marriage was outlawed.  Yet Jews and Muslims already married to multiple women did not have to kick them out.  Just no new such marriages were permitted.

This is exactly what I believe.  I don't think God had anything to do with commanding those prophets to take multiple wives and concubines.  They were just following the practices of their day.  I think there is a LOT in the Bible that were just the practices of the day including how to treat slaves, marrying your brothers wife if he dies, a lot of the dietary laws, and on and on. 

Given the deceitful way that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy it is my opinion that he just wanted a way to justify being with multiple women.  So what better way than saying God told him to do it.  We have seen this same behavior in multiple start up religion leaders haven't we.  Not a surprise really is it.  When you can start claiming that anything you want to justify came from God, then why not do it.  Since he got what he wanted, then concubines were just not necessary in this "new restoration".

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, webbles said:

In 1835, Joseph Smith only had one polygamous marriage.  Next one would be 1838. 

And if I follow the history correctly, Fanny wasn’t even around by then, so Joseph may have considered the relationship no longer a marriage (assuming he did in the first place as I do).  We also have no idea if at that time he intended to try again or if he had given up on the experiment at that time (I think he had given up).  If he didn’t intend to continue in the future (as you say, he was probably wary and IMO when he tried again, he didn’t go about it the same way with what we would view as marriages at the beginning of his second attempt), then no deception took place IMO.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

our church will not baptize a polygynous man unless he divorces all but one of his spouses. That just seems wrong to me. 

But they encourage them/tell them not to divorce from what I have heard from a few missionaries who served in such places.  They tell them the commitment to family comes first, the Lord understands.  I think whether it is wrong or not depends on whether unbaptized, but converted families are treated more or less the same as baptized ones.
 

Same as not encouraging those who convert to dump spouses who don’t, but rather make the marriage the best it can be while looking forward to greater possibilities in the future.

I know a Bishop that told a member he would lose his temple recommend if he divorce his current nonmember spouse with the justification he wanted to marry a member in the temple.  
 

I think there is a difference between being aware he can’t be baptized unless he is only married to one woman....same as in ‘mixed’ marriages with a nonmember spouse....and being told he must divorce his wives, as would be the case currently in the US I am guessing since polygyny is currently illegal.  It would be nice to know policy in those cases for sure, but I haven’t seen any documentation, just reports on how it has been handled.

Edited March 31, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

So what better way than saying God told him to do it.

Except his second start was much more complicated if the idea was simply to be with multiple women in that he was sealed to already married women, who would be highly conflicted about having sex with someone else and it was risky to require the men to share their wives sexually.  That argument, IMO, makes more sense if he had started with marrying the unmarried sisters and and daughters.

Edited March 31, 2021 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Risingtide said:

Doesn't the passage deny the practice of polygamy after Joseph Smith had already entered into it even if it was "only" one polygamous wife? And had he not claimed to have received heavenly revelation to practice polygamy before the publication?

I don't see how that passage denies the practice of polygamy any more than other scriptures that exist about marriage.  If that scripture was accepted by the church today, would you say it is denying the previous polygamy?

Yes, I believe he received a commandment to practice polygamy sometime between 1830 and 1833.  After Fanny Alger, I believe he believed that he didn't need to practice polygamy anymore.  He had fulfilled the commandment and was done.  But sometime before 1838, he learned otherwise.  So stating that monogamy is the only acceptable marriage in 1835 is perfectly fine.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here.  These have nothing to do with relationships and marriage.  Polygamy and concubines were interwoven together.  It was how families were constructed according to the Bible.  If God wanted to bring back that construct, then it seems like you can't dismiss concubines as being similar to Noah's ark.

This is exactly what I believe.  I don't think God had anything to do with commanding those prophets to take multiple wives and concubines.  They were just following the practices of their day.  I think there is a LOT in the Bible that were just the practices of the day including how to treat slaves, marrying your brothers wife if he dies, a lot of the dietary laws, and on and on. 

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.  On the one hand you excoriate obedience to  commandments by God (which you do not believe in), and on the other you claim to understand that all such forms and templates are according to local cultural rules.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Given the deceitful way that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy it is my opinion that he just wanted a way to justify being with multiple women.  So what better way than saying God told him to do it.  We have seen this same behavior in multiple start up religion leaders haven't we.  Not a surprise really is it.  When you can start claiming that anything you want to justify came from God, then why not do it.  Since he got what he wanted, then concubines were just not necessary in this "new restoration".

Again, because Joseph Smith lived in more recent times, you think that the ancient rules couldn't possibly apply to him.  Yet one of the reasons why Martin Luther and John Calvin considered polygamy legal in the eyes of God was precisely because they knew the Bible approved of it and that God's rules are unchanging through time.  Still, Luther and Calvin would never dare put plural marriage into actual effect in their own time.  Cultural norms would simply not accept it.  And now here you are militating against plural marriage by Joseph based on the belief that he was only acting on sexual lust (not on actual commands from God), even though genetic testing shows that he had no offspring -- despite having all those marriages while he was fertile and having children by Emma the whole time.  You haven't thought through your own hypocrisy in making a claim about ultimate reality and disallowing any opinion but yours as normative.  All at the same time that you harshly criticize those who opposed same sex marriage.  Blatant hypocrisy, instead of tolerance of other POVs.

Where is your acceptance of "equal protection of the law"?  Or, like the followers of the Trumpmonster, do you just apply the Constitution to your own personal concerns, and invalidate it for anyone else?

[Risingtide]

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't see how that passage denies the practice of polygamy any more than other scriptures that exist about marriage.  If that scripture was accepted by the church today, would you say it is denying the previous polygamy?

Yes, I believe he received a commandment to practice polygamy sometime between 1830 and 1833.  After Fanny Alger, I believe he believed that he didn't need to practice polygamy anymore.  He had fulfilled the commandment and was done.  But sometime before 1838, he learned otherwise.  So stating that monogamy is the only acceptable marriage in 1835 is perfectly fine.

OK, I don't like being a critic of the Church. I think I need to lay this subject aside for a while. I've feel blessed to have been a member of the Church. I love the members of my ward, and greatly respect the leaders both local and general. I don't want to give up the good influence the Church has given me. I feel the road I'm on threatens something that's been quite precious to me.

 

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

 

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Risingtide
The double quote of webbles saying the same thing.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I think that is the practical and humane thing to do. I always found it so curious that even in countries where polygamy is legal, our church will not baptize a polygynous man unless he divorces all but one of his spouses. That just seems wrong to me. 

Yes, and even stranger, the anti-poygamous RLDS missionaries had no problem baptizing poygamists without requiring divorce.  I don't know what the Community of Christ does.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

I feel the road I'm on threatens something that's been quite precious to me.

Hopefully in time you will receive a perspective that helps you appreciate the topic in a way you can feel good about the process.  I don’t see any reason at this point an understanding is necessary except for personal peace of mind because we aren’t called to live it.  But it still feels right to me to keep on learning, so I don’t see an issue with exploring history and other difficult topics as long as one is also focused on keeping connected with God.  Still everything has its time and place and we can’t learn everything at once, so we all have to make choices of what to engage and what to delay for a time. 

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's no dilemma at all, it's a linguistic confusion. God is identified and named and DEFINED as the "MOST GOOD" being possible especially in English. The very words even come from the same root. It's like asking if the sky is blue because it's blue or because we call it blue?

In both cases, the answer is simply "yes", ignoring the "or"

It is identifying the ways we discern Good from Evil. Do we do it via an authority figure or independently of authority figures?

That is more than a linguistic distinction.