New Book on Polygamy

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There is not a single example in all gospel precedence where the Lord directed this.

Was there a need for it?  If not, then why would he in cultures that often didn’t view women as fully human?  He had enough in his hands trying to get men not to abandon wives and children who needed their support. Men being capable of not being territorial in cultures that have marriage essentially as one more way to stake claims of possession of each other and of children…where church leaders themselves describe sealings as territorial claims…God judges us by the laws we are capable of understanding and living.  True, equal plural marriage even if only with men and multiple wives…I have yet to read one life story where it was actually equally beneficial for all the wives and children. Certainly don’t see many examples in the prophets’ lives where their wives were all happy and needs fulfilled. Emma and Joseph, Brigham had his favorite wives.  In the Bible it is pure competition in every example. 
 

If we can’t handle the easier half (culturally speaking) of plural marriage sufficiently well, why would God add to that burden?

Edited August 2, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

But do they not understand that marriage in the eternity does not closely resemble marriage in mortality? 

When this kind of rationalization is used to justify the idea of multiple wives for men in the eternities, but somehow the same is rejected for the possibility of multiple husbands for women, got to say it is eyerolling for me.  

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is the rationale most in my experience give for why a man should get all his wives.  ‘It just isn’t right to ask a man to give up true love.’

Poppycock. Plenty of men will not have a wife because they mistreated her in this life -- regardless of how much love they liked to profess.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not saying you said that. 

OK, thanks. 

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is a very stupid rationale that is based on the belief that men are able to handle living more than one woman, but women are only emotionally attracted to one man at a time and would thus never want to have more than one.  Often justified in the past by the much lower numbers of women cheating on spouses and assuming when they do, it is because of dissatisfaction while men cheat because of attraction. 

Wow, now there (in bold) is a manifestly stupid and ignorant assertion. It's manifestly stupid because it's manifestly false. My wife loves her deceased husband very much. But she loves me very much, too. We recently visited Chartwell, Winston Churchill's old estate, and while walking through the rose garden there we were hand-in-hand. She later told me that a moment came when she felt like she was walking with him, and that gave her great joy because they had visited Chartwell together one time and had walked through that same rose garden together. The thing is, she loves both of us, and I can tell you that the depth of that love is great for the both of us. I know that she would love to have both of us, were it possible. I am not offended at this. In fact, when she told me about that walk through the rose garden it made me feel an increased depth of love for her -- and felt privileged that she felt that way -- that my being there could comfort her in her still-there grief! 

Love is infinite. I sometimes find myself gasping in wonder at the amount of love that God has for us, and how unbelievably awesome and unreserved it is. And then when I contemplate the fact that if we are exalted we will feel that infinite love for all His children, and for our own children, wow, it is very scary in my very limited mind. It is not for nothing that the scripture says "God is love". In your earlier post you expressed it quite nicely that we just don't know. 

But polyandry is nevertheless not a divine principle. 🙂 

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Poppycock. Plenty of men will not have a wife because they mistreated her in this life

Noting here that the use of Poppycock is a generally recognized form of mistreatment.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

She was not talking about words, but beliefs.

It seems that it is your BELIEF that the Bible is literally true, - it happened the way it says it happened

But there's a problem there, imo

How do you KNOW it happened the way the Bible says? 

"Oh!  Easy! I have a testimony it is the word of God"

Good. And That is the same way I know there is ongoing revelation and the BOM is also scripture.

Please don't ignore this question.

I don't think I shared in my reply what I personally believe about either infallibility or inerrancy. I simply tried to explain the difference and point out that many Protestants wouldn't use either word. I have my own personal beliefs on my "do not discuss" list, especially when they may not jive with some or most of you on this forum. That has invariably gotten me into trouble here. 

Let's just say I am not a huge fan of either word. I am a fan of the tough slogging of working through the scriptures using all resources at my disposal, including that of the Spirit to accurately interpret individual passages. The Holy Spirit led me to seminary and to graduate school in Biblical studies, theology, and religion. That is one way the Spirit has prepared me for the difficult task of "rightly dividing the word of truth!" OK. I did not ignore your question!

[Calm]

We don’t need new revelation, we just need to start fully trusting the covenants we are already making. Women are already being sealed to multiple men.
 

If it only is paperwork, then we should be worrying about all the other sealings as paperwork as well.

[Chum]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

When this kind of rationalization is used to justify the idea of multiple wives for men in the eternities, but somehow the same is rejected for the possibility of multiple husbands for women, got to say it is eyerolling for me.  

The wisdom from a longish life shows to me that historical LDS polygamy is a profound mess, one I that have no idea what to with.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There are plenty who think of it in terms of companionship though. A man with a hundred wives could very well be leaving a woman to be physically alone in the marriage for 99% of the time if equally dividing time and physical attention (not sex, but being with her) between his wives.

Because I delight in making my wife happy, the whole idea of trying to divide myself between even just two wives makes me shudder. In mortality, anyway. Whatever comes afterwards can take care of itself -- I just need to get through today. 

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Chum said:

Noting here that the use of Poppycock is a generally recognized form of mistreatment.

??? 

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

We don’t need new revelation, we just need to start fully trusting the covenants we are already making. Women are already being sealed to multiple men.
 

If it only is paperwork, then we should be worrying about all the other sealings as paperwork as well.

Well, as I said earlier, we baptize everyone, too, regardless of whether we know they'll accept it. Dotting i's and crossing t's, as we were instructed.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

We don’t need new revelation, we just need to start fully trusting the covenants we are already making. Women are already being sealed to multiple men.

If it only is paperwork, then we should be worrying about all the other sealings as paperwork as well.

Other sealings are based on revealed doctrine and ordinance such as D&C 131 and 132.  

Any polyandrous sealings happening are not.   In fact 132 could easily be seen to prohibit them in vs 51-55.

Talk about running where we aren't sent.  That's one heck of a leap unless God himself provided an addendum to the D&C.

Edited August 2, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Chum said:

The wisdom from a longish life shows to me that historical LDS polygamy is a profound mess, one I that have no idea what to with.

What blows me away is this protest that it isn’t doctrinal when I am the one saying why not trust the covenants we are making in the temple rather than labeling a good percentage of them as inherently meaningless. What is more doctrinal than that?

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

The wisdom from a longish life shows to me that historical LDS polygamy is a profound mess, one I that have no idea what to with.

I think that some of the brethren who practiced it might have gotten it pretty close to right. And some of them completely screwed it up. 

I have no idea what to do with it, either.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Well, as I said earlier, we baptize everyone, too, regardless of whether we know they'll accept it. Dotting i's and crossing t's, as we were instructed.

I think the words that most powerfully describe this are "without consent".

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, as I said earlier, we baptize everyone, too, regardless of whether we know they'll accept it. Dotting i's and crossing t's, as we were instructed.

But we believe everyone will have the opportunity to accept each baptismal covenant or not.  You are saying that many of the marriage covenants made by proxy in the temple will by default not have a choice to be accepted. 

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

??? 

Along with Bees Knees and 23 Skidoo, Poppycock can only be safely expressed by folks who are 137 and older. For everyone else, it stirs biochemical processes that eventually end in severe cognitive disorder. 

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

But we believe everyone will have the opportunity to accept each baptismal covenant or not.  You are saying that many of the marriage covenants made by proxy in the temple will by default not have a choice to be accepted. 

Not saying anything. I don't know how those will fall out. I do know that God knows better than I, and I am willing to let Him sort it out. Because He will get it right. The paths we are walking in regards to all this are a bit murky, but we are doing the best we can. That's all we can do.

Besides, how many temple sealings are in vain anyway, because either or neither of the parties will be counted worthy to be exalted? If the Spirit does not ratify a sealing, it means nothing. My father was not a member of the church, and was not interested in learning about it. He told me not to have him baptized after he died. I did it anyway. I did his endowment, too, and stood proxy for him as he was sealed to my mother (who died when I was 7). I made sure that he was sealed to his parents, that they were baptized and sealed to each other, and then down both lines of ancestry. In most of those cases I stood in for my male ancestor (and deceased cousins and uncles). How much of that work was in vain? I have no idea, but the scriptures admonished me to do it, and my patriarchal blessing made particular emphasis about it. So it got done. I'm one of those people who doesn't really have a lot of temple work left to do, except for a couple of lines where there is just no information available. So far. 

I'm of the feeling that most all of my ancestors will accept the Gospel in the spirit world. Who among them would want to suffer for their own sins, after all -- and I'm assuming that they will be well-taught over there. But will they all be worthy of exaltation? Probably not, but that's not for me to judge. It's my task to see that the proxy work is done, all of it, and let Father deal with the cleanup at the end.

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, Chum said:

Along with Bees Knees and 23 Skidoo, Poppycock can only be safely expressed by folks who are 137 and older. For everyone else, it stirs biochemical processes that eventually end in severe cognitive disorder. 

Well, that would explain my own mental state, then.  

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Talk about running where we aren't sent.  That's one heck of a leap unless God himself provided an addendum to the D&C.

And if someone used this reasoning around 1830, we wouldn’t have the Restored Gospel as we know it. 
 

I am not running anywhere. I am looking at current sealings and saying they are meaningful and eternal, how I don’t know, but I will be try and be open to any future light and knowledge God sends our way and won’t toss away covenants that have been made until he says to do so. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Not saying anything.

Then why draw lines that don’t exist in the temple?

[mfbukowski]

11 hours 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?

Clearly all of scripture so far has been put on paper/papyrus etc by the hand of men- and not women, who lived at a specific time in history and in their own culture.

If you think none of scripture reflects those cultural biases, I think you are wrong.

The very language in which it was wrtten is part of human culture, the manner of expression, choice of words, way of thiniking are largely determined by the surrounding culture unless God totally turns the receiver of the revelation into a robot "mouth" speaking in infallible words.

Because I do not believe scripture is inerrant, I see no alternative to the notion that it can be "imperfect"

Edited August 2, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 hours 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 my wife gets no glory for what was largely her effort in making it all work?   Nope, can't believe that.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't think I shared in my reply what I personally believe about either infallibility or inerrancy. I simply tried to explain the difference and point out that many Protestants wouldn't use either word. I have my own personal beliefs on my "do not discuss" list, especially when they may not jive with some or most of you on this forum. That has invariably gotten me into trouble here. 

Let's just say I am not a huge fan of either word. I am a fan of the tough slogging of working through the scriptures using all resources at my disposal, including that of the Spirit to accurately interpret individual passages. The Holy Spirit led me to seminary and to graduate school in Biblical studies, theology, and religion. That is one way the Spirit has prepared me for the difficult task of "rightly dividing the word of truth!" OK. I did not ignore your question!

Thanks.  I really would lke to carry this forward, but I won't

[Stargazer]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then why draw lines that don’t exist in the temple?

I wasn't (and besides, I am not sure what your sentence above means).  You wrote: "You are saying that many of the marriage covenants made by proxy in the temple will by default not have a choice to be accepted. "

Maybe I should have said, "Not saying that," instead. That's because I wasn't saying what you said I was saying.

I thought I explained myself in the following sentences: "I don't know how those will fall out. I do know that God knows better than I, and I am willing to let Him sort it out. Because He will get it right. The paths we are walking in regards to all this are a bit murky, but we are doing the best we can. That's all we can do."

We connect all the dots that seem reasonable to connect, based on our perhaps faulty understanding. 

[kimpearson]

I will ask another question since no one really has anything to offer the sisters except that is just how it is.  Accept it and don't complain.  I don't want to argue.  I was just curious as to the mindset of this group which for the most part seems to be the scriptures really don't have any errors in them and prophets rarely make mistakes.  Polygamy is and eternal truth.  Fine. 

This is another thought that I am wondering if anyone is willing to discuss.  If polygamy is an eternal law, why doesn't the Church bring it back into the practice of living polygamy and why doesn't the Church teach that polygamy could be practiced again sometime in the future.  The practice of polygamy is currently considered grounds for losing membership in the Church.  Do you think it will come back into practice either in the telestial existence of the earth or during the millennium?  My gut tells me it would destroy the Church if it was brought back before the millennium.

Thanks for the discussion so far.  I always like to try to understand how other think and why they might think that way.