New Book on Polygamy

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

McConkie -"Eternal progression consists of living the kind of life God lives and of increasing in kingdoms and dominions everlastingly. "

Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Off the top of my head but I could search for others.  The Church has taught that God's glory increases according to the exaltation of his children, ie his Kingdom size.

But for some reason we loathe any idea that our exaltation and kingdom will be the same thing.

I still have no idea what you are saying in relation to my comment. Sorry. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I still have no idea what you are saying in relation to my comment. Sorry. 

I believe he is saying the scriptures describe God’s glory as in part dependent on how many children he has, so why should we balk at believing the more children we have, the more glory we will collect. 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, believing that God views you as a possession that exists only to elevate and provide blessings for men is not a great way to have a good relationship with your Father in Heaven. 

 

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe he is saying the scriptures describe God’s glory as in part dependent on how many children he has, so why should we balk at believing the more children we have, the more glory we will collect. 

Bluebell, you said that there is a problem with feeling that you exist to elevate and provide blessings (ie glorify) another.

I am pointing out that that is exactly what we all do for God.  We exist for the purpose of increasing his kingdom.  We are literally his glory.

So why is it acceptable to our feelings to exist to glorify God.  But not acceptable to think part of our existence is to glorify another person in their exaltation?

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Bluebell, you said that there is a problem with feeling that you exist to elevate and provide blessings (ie glorify) another.

I am pointing out that that is exactly what we all do for God.  We exist for the purpose of increasing his kingdom.  We are literally his glory.

So why is it acceptable to our feelings to exist to glorify God.  But not acceptable to think part of our existence is to glorify another person in their exaltation?

Maybe it is the difference between the slant…Man is that he might have joy vs Woman is so that she might have children for Man so Man can have glory. 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/30/2021 at 12:06 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Windy is the one with stormy eyes that flash at the sound of lies and with wings to fly above the clouds. 
 

Wendy is the one who broke her boyfriend’s heart when he thought they had their love down pat. 

No, Pat had nothing to do with it. Must have been one of those gender things

Edited August 1, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 7/30/2021 at 10:01 AM, bOObOO said:

Maybe I didn't phrase that very well.  I'll try again:  When talking about people (or when the subject matter is people) of long ago history, prophets who I know are prophets are the only people I would believe.  Mortals living today weren't even there.

So the prophets you know are the ones who lived long ago and are dead, and are the only ones you believe

Interesting 

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Polygamy as a commandment never belonged to the general Church.  That's why Pres. Woodruff stopped it in the Church in 1890 but allowed Apostles to continue practicing and performing plural marriages outside Church directives nearly all the way to the 1920s.

Seeking to understand . . . members of the first presidency quietly approved post-manifesto as well as post 1904 plural marriages here in Mexico. There were many, possibly several hundred performed here. That is well documented. If someone in the first presidency approved them and an apostle or stake patriarch performed them,  how is that "outside Church directives?" Are you delimiting the "church directives" to the 1890 and 1904 statements? As a historian of the Mexican colonies, this entire subject is of great interest to me. Thanks.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

FYI, “Amazing Grace” was left out of the current hymn book because it was felt it too closely taught the protestant doctrine of salvation by grace alone.  I got that from the son of one of the then committee members.  

My observation is that our most recent bishopric initiated many more (than in previous years) conversations about grace in ward activities.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Seeking to understand . . . members of the first presidency quietly approved post-manifesto as well as post 1904 plural marriages here in Mexico. There were many, possibly several hundred performed here. That is well documented. If someone in the first presidency approved them and an apostle or stake patriarch performed them,  how is that "outside Church directives?" Are you delimiting the "church directives" to the 1890 and 1904 statements? As a historian of the Mexican colonies, this entire subject is of great interest to me. Thanks.

The Church as an organization has rules, regulations, administrative oversight, and so on.

As you pointed out plural marriages after 1890 were against Church laws.  That end was even approved by a common consent vote. But they were permitted to keep going by leaders.  The historical record is clear that Pres. Woodruff even exercised plausible deniability in his official capacity as Pres of the Church.  Historian Michael Quinn wrote much about this division, both in Joseph's day (his Origins of Power book) and post manifesto.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe he is saying the scriptures describe God’s glory as in part dependent on how many children he has, so why should we balk at believing the more children we have, the more glory we will collect. 

As women, we can't have as many children as a polygamous man.  A husband with 4 wives might have 19 kids but one of his wives might only have one. 

If this is what JLH means, then what he's saying is that men will always have more glory than women, but while men should seek for that glory, women shouldn't care that they will always have a lesser amount of it with a greater personal sacrifice so that her husband can be more like God.

Male-centric examples of why polygamy is so great are very short sighted.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe it is the difference between the slant…Man is that he might have joy vs Woman is so that she might have children for Man so Man can have glory. 

Exactly.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So why is it acceptable to our feelings to exist to glorify God.  But not acceptable to think part of our existence is to glorify another person in their exaltation?

Because, as you describe it, it is one sided and benefits men more than women.  

The polygamous woman exists to glorify her husband by increasing his children.  The polygamous husband does not exist to glorify his wife by increasing her children.  It's all about him and his glory.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Because, as you describe it, it is one sided and benefits men more than women.  

The polygamous woman exists to glorify her husband by increasing his children.  The polygamous husband does not exist to glorify his wife by increasing her children.  It's all about him and his glory.

Well perhaps it's all just cultural, elements of an earlier more sexist time.  But I didn't write scripture or receive the revelations on marriage we have in our canon.  If they are the word of God then they are correct.  If they aren't the word of God then I suppose the outdated thinking of prophets on gender will be removed.  That's how it works right?

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe he is saying the scriptures describe God’s glory as in part dependent on how many children he has, so why should we balk at believing the more children we have, the more glory we will collect. 

You know, thinking about it, I can see perhaps how this idea got started- certainly it is part of a "rancher" mentality- the more living beings including horses, cattle, chickens etc you "own" the more wealth you have.

Without connecting this idea to "glory", I have recently had some odd insights into my own psyche and the strange feelings this way of seeing the world can cause.   I can easily see at least in some, how this idea of glory can get confused into the equation of patriarchy.   A good patriarch of course is a servant to his family, not some kind of "owner of cattle".  Those very words give me shivers

I am an only child.  Never had siblings nor do I fully understand what it is like to have some.  My wife comes from a family with 8 kids on the other hand so she is WELL acquainted with what it is like to be a sibling.  I am close to some of her brothers so I have an inkling but at times it is very clear that I am not "one of them".  They will always have a history together that I cannot share.

But now having grandchildren, it is a very strange feeling at a reunion say, to look around a room full of my dear wife, children and grandchildren, and the spouses of my sons, and hear someone speak of "Bukowski  family traditions" or folks saying things like- "You do that??  HA! You must be a Bukowski!" and family physical resemblances, and realize that my name, shared by only my parents, now gone, came down to all these people- simply because I exist and through social convention, "gave them my name".

One lonely kid's name turned into a household full of people.  Everybody in that room had my last name.

So I can see how one might want to decide that these people are somehow "my glory" without a reason to think so except that I had normal male fertility.

Blessings?  Beyond measure.   Gratitude to God MY Heavenly FATHER?  Also beyond measure.

But "glory"??   Beause I found my wonderful sweetheart and she decided I was "good enough" and my body worked satisfactorily in one area?  I feel more like a servant with a responsibiity to these wonderful people with whom I am privileged to associate here in this life.   Glory?

Of course not!

Edited August 1, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well perhaps it's all just cultural, elements of an earlier more sexist time.  But I didn't write scripture or receive the revelations on marriage we have in our canon.  If they are the word of God then they are correct.  If they aren't the word of God then I suppose the outdated thinking of prophets on gender will be removed.  That's how it works right?

I submit that it is certain sexist interpretations and teachings of polygamy that causes harm to some women, and not the doctrine as it comes from God, uninterpreted by fallible (but good) males.

All we have to work with are fallible male interpretations of course, and that’s why the topic can be so difficult to discuss.  

Where polygamy is concerned, all the revelations are an addition to men and a subtraction for women.  When the person getting the revelation on something always comes out ahead and always gets the bigger and better blessing, that’s a red flag to me that some sexism is in play.

I think it’s weird it’s not a red flag for others, considering how easily the natural man rules us and how fallible we all our.

[JLHPROF]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You know, thinking about it, I can see perhaps how this idea got started- certainly it is part of a "rancher" mentality- the more living beings including horses, cattle, chickens etc you "own" the more wealth you have.

Without connecting this idea to "glory", I have recently had some odd insights into my own psyche and the strange feelings this way of seeing the world can cause.   I can easily see at least in some, how this idea of glory can get confused into the equation of patriarchy.   A good patriarch of course is a servant to his family, not some kind of "owner of cattle".  Those very words give me shivers

I am an only child.  Never had siblings nor do I fully understand what it is like to have some.  My wife comes from a family with 8 kids on the other hand so she is WELL acquainted with what it is like to be a sibling.  I am close to some of her brothers so I have an inkling but at times it is very clear that I am not "one of them".  They will always have a history together that I cannot share.

But now having grandchildren, it is a very strange feeling at a reunion say, to look around a room full of my dear wife, children and grandchildren, and the spouses of my sons, and hear someone speak of "Bukowski  family traditions" or folks saying things like- "You do that??  HA! You must be a Bukowski!" and family physical resemblances, and realize that my name, shared by only my parents, now gone, came down to all these people- simply because I exist and through social convention, "gave them my name".

One lonely kid's name turned into a household full of people.  Everybody in that room had my last name.

So I can see how one might want to decide that these people are somehow "my glory" without a reason to think so except that I had normal male fertility.

Blessings?  Beyond measure.   Gratitude to God MY Heavenly FATHER?  Also beyond measure.

But "glory"??   Beause I found my wonderful sweetheart and she decided I was "good enough" and my body worked satisfactorily in one area?  I feel more like a servant with a responsibiity to these wonderful people with whom I am privileged to associate here in this life.   Glory?

Of course not!

I respectfully disagree.  🙂

They absolutely are your glory.  By the same definition of God's work and glory.  The same as described in the sealing ceremony.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I submit that it is certain sexist interpretations and teachings of polygamy that causes harm to some women, and not the doctrine as it comes from God, uninterpreted by fallible (but good) males.

All we have to work with are fallible male interpretations of course, and that’s why the topic can be so difficult to discuss.  

When something is clearly written in scripture and not a matter of interpretation that's a pretty tough line to draw.  Either the scripture is wrong, the scripture is written using man's bias, or the scripture is right.

Do we believe what's written in scripture?

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I respectfully disagree.  🙂

They absolutely are your glory.  By the same definition of God's work and glory.  The same as described in the sealing ceremony.

So someone with two spouses has more glory than someone with one spouse? And someone with eight children has more glory than someone with six? Does it matter if they are exalted? How many exalted children do you need to equal the glory of one exalted spouse?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

When something is clearly written in scripture and not a matter of interpretation that's a pretty tough line to draw.  Either the scripture is wrong, the scripture is written using man's bias, or the scripture is right.

Do we believe what's written in scripture?

Are we talking about John Taylor’s talk or the verses in our canon?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are we talking about John Taylor’s talk or the verses in our canon?

Actual canonical verses that don't match today's views, even without interpretation.

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So someone with two spouses has more glory than someone with one spouse? And someone with eight children has more glory than someone with six? Does it matter if they are exalted? How many exalted children do you need to equal the glory of one exalted spouse?

Again, just reading the promises to Abraham and in the sealing ceremony, along with Moses 1.  You interpret however you like.  I'm sure that your mocking approach will steer you right.

Edited August 1, 2021 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actual canonical verses that don't match today's views, even without interpretation.

Again, just reading the promises to Abraham and in the sealing ceremony, along with Moses 1.  You interpret however you like.  I'm sure that your mocking approach will steer you right.

Brigham Young was the Lion of the Lord.

I am shooting for the Jester of the Lord spot.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

When something is clearly written in scripture and not a matter of interpretation that's a pretty tough line to draw.  Either the scripture is wrong, the scripture is written using man's bias, or the scripture is right.

Do we believe what's written in scripture?

Not really though.  We reject the protestant belief that scripture is infallible, right? 

Anything received and written down by a biased fallible human to other biased fallible humans is a matter of interpretation to some extent, and can also be incomplete and/or poorly expressed.

For example, do I think that God believes that any woman who is raped in a city is automatically at fault, just because that's what is written in our scriptures?  No. I don't believe He thinks that now and I don't believe He thought that back when the Law of Moses was in force either.    

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not really though.  We reject the protestant belief that scripture is infallible, right? 

Anything received and written down by a biased fallible human to other biased fallible humans is a matter of interpretation to some extent, and can also be incomplete and/or poorly expressed.

For example, do I think that God believes that any woman who is raped in a city is automatically at fault, just because that's what is written in our scriptures?  No. I don't believe He thinks that now and I don't believe He thought that back when the Law of Moses was in force either.    

Which unfortunately means we can't trust scripture and we only accept the parts we think are right.  I take the same approach to all Church teachings.

To know what's actually true becomes very difficult when we all have our own personal truth.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know, thinking about it, I can see perhaps how this idea got started- certainly it is part of a "rancher" mentality- the more living beings including horses, cattle, chickens etc you "own" the more wealth you have.

Job loses all his ten children. Happy ever after for him is simple replacement with ten others. Not hard thinking to read into scripture. 

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Job loses all his ten children. Happy ever after for him is simple replacement with ten others. Not hard thinking to read into scripture. 

The blessing of exaltation is literally kingdoms, thrones, dominions.  All with a command to multiply and replenish.  That implies a kingdom with members in ones family.

The glory of exaltation for married couples IS family, current and future increase.  How those kindoms are formed may be debatable but that is what our future glory will be.  Just as God's glory comes from his exalted children.