New Book on Polygamy

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I agree that you could say that, but the verses in question refer to men only.  Of course endowed sisters are capable of unrighteous dominion. And it would certainly lead to their being unworthy of exaltation. I'm still asserting that the tendency to unrighteous dominion is a danger particularly with males. You're entitled to disagree.

So do most of the verses in scripture though.  "men are that they might have joy"  "for this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", etc.  

If verses that referred to men were not meant to be applicable to women to, women would truly be second class citizens in the kingdom.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So do most of the verses in scripture though.  "men are that they might have joy"  "for this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", etc.  

If verses that referred to men were not meant to be applicable to women to, women would truly be second class citizens in the kingdom.

It's true.
Using that logic D&C 131 only requires men to be married for exaltation, not women. 

D&C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Apparently the sisters are off the hook for marriage...

[Rain]

Is there any chance we don't need to worry about ratios of men to women?  We might sit here and think that the chance of having a 1:1 ratio is small so we need to have polygamy.  But what if we are just missing understanding of how it work?

I don't know how to explain it. We logically consider that ratio, but as I have read through this thread I've just wondered if there was something else we just don't get because we are thinking in imperfect immortal terms.

I mean who among us really understands the idea of eternity or 1 eternal round? We might get little grasps of that, but unless you are one of the rare people where God has truly bestowed that knowledge most of us just really have no clue.

So maybe this ratio thing is entirely human concept like time.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's true.
Using that logic D&C 131 only requires men to be married for exaltation, not women. 

D&C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Apparently the sisters are off the hook for marriage...

This is a day I wish I had more than 12 posts allotted to me on the board, darn "limited"!

There has been a huge, huge change in the temple and I hope you know what I'm talking about, that of women not going through their husband to get to God, that has been taken out. Don't you think that affects what you say here. Don't you think women no longer go through their husbands, but go straight to the source now? 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is a day I wish I had more than 12 posts allotted to me on the board, darn "limited"!

There has been a huge, huge change in the temple and I hope you know what I'm talking about, that of women not going through their husband to get to God, that has been taken out. Don't you think that affects what you say here. Don't you think women no longer go through their husbands, but go straight to the source now? 

I'm not going to respond to that.
But you know my feelings by now on changes we keep making to temple ordinances.  But hey, as long as everyone is happy.

[bOObOO]

On 7/31/2021 at 4:00 PM, The Nehor said:

So you wouldn’t read a book about the events of the Civil War because everyone who said anything at the time might have been lying? There may not have even been a war. Maybe they just made empanadas and had a party!

I\t is widely accepted as fact that history is 'his story' of what he thought happened in the past as viewed from his own paradigm and perspective, which often varies from other people's perspective.  And in consideration of that idea, just to be safe and make sure that I'm not hoodwinked by just accepting what he says is the truth, I check with God, personally, to find out how God feels and what God thinks about his ideas, rather than just accept 'his story' as the unassailable, unvarnished, completely and totally reliable truth.  YMMV

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is a day I wish I had more than 12 posts allotted to me on the board, darn "limited"!

There has been a huge, huge change in the temple and I hope you know what I'm talking about, that of women not going through their husband to get to God, that has been taken out. Don't you think that affects what you say here. Don't you think women no longer go through their husbands, but go straight to the source now? 

I think you have to remember that he doesn't agree with all the changes.  That he feels we are really missing some things because of that.  Now, its possible he agrees with this specific change, but my guess from past discussions is he doesn't.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe we corrupt the concept of truth when we personalize it á la Oprah Winfrey with phrases such as “own truth,” “my truth,” “your truth,” etc. Truth, by definition, is not relative. There is truth and there is personal opinion. The latter is malleable; the former is not. 

Where do you think Oprah has gotten these ideas?  She reads contemporary atheistic philosophy which is correct in one way- no one can define the "TRUTH" that you describe using words.

In 2500 years NO ONE has been able to define - within the logical requirements of philosophy- a definition of "truth" which does what you wish it did.  So technically regardless of what some clerk at Webster's dictionary thinks, "truth" is undefinable.  Yes it is BELIEVED to be definable- but that is as "real" as warp drive is today

We can only know what HUMANS can know, what our human brain/mind/spirit allows- but we cannot describe ALL that we know!!  The problem as I see it is that there IS truth - as you require it to have meaning for you- in revelations directly from God.   I see that as a "sixth sense" which dwells in us inately- what LDS folks call "The Light of Christ" or "The Holy Ghost"- BUT that perception in the sixth sense -for lack of a better term is impossible to communicate in language.

If you want that in traditional LDS paradigm language- the Adamic language which God still uses in communicating with his children, was never a "language" uttered through the human mouth and understood with ears, it is communication between spirits which does not need words.   We say "I Iove you" to our sweethearts because it is nice to hear- but in a loving couple one KNOWS they love and are loved without saying a word about it.   THAT is pure spiritual communication imo.

Adamic of course then was destroyed because man became prideful of what language could do for them- like all the babble on this board will show- and so it is said that "God confounded language" because of human pride.

In the beginning was the Word- capital W- but finally words- small w- pridefully corrupted humanity because mankind thought they could use words to create themselves into gods without God.  Look at atheisim today and you will find that in its connection to corrupt science, it does just that!  Humans are "gods" but since there is no evidence of God from the 5 senses- lacking the "sixth"

 One can see this as a parable, an allegory or as something which "actually happened"- it doesn't matter as long as the message comes across.

And so today nothing in that regard has changed- language is still corrupted.

But this was a story in LDS language- perhaps the best we can come up with.  

BUT the fact is that YOUR PERSONAL TESTIMONY - what makes you  a believer in Christ- which you correctly KNOW to be "TRUE" CANNOT be conveyed to another human using language.  You can tell them all day that you KNOW it is TRUE and the best you will get from them is "That's nice, but it's not my truth"

And so back to Oprah.  For her, she is exactly right- not to judge here personally- who knows her heart?  

But she certainly knows how to communicate in the culture/ language of the 21st century USA- or she would not have gotten where she is.

Edited August 2, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

They become Lost Boys forever.

Some might think you are serious.  Be careful.   

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Is there any chance we don't need to worry about ratios of men to women?  We might sit here and think that the chance of having a 1:1 ratio is small so we need to have polygamy.  But what if we are just missing understanding of how it work?

I don't know how to explain it. We logically consider that ratio, but as I have read through this thread I've just wondered if there was something else we just don't get because we are thinking in imperfect immortal terms.

I mean who among us really understands the idea of eternity or 1 eternal round? We might get little grasps of that, but unless you are one of the rare people where God has truly bestowed that knowledge most of us just really have no clue.

So maybe this ratio thing is entirely human concept like time.

According to set theory (the foundation of mathematics) two infinite sets are the same size if they have a one to one correspondence. So the set of all even numbers is the same size as the set of all natural numbers (even and odd numbers combined). So if God’s children are infinite the idea that there are more women than men is baseless. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

One question at a time.🙂

Two things….
1. We believe this is the way the Father and the Son have worked it out.

2. We do this work because we believe God commanded us to do it. We believe every one of his children must receive the saving ordinances. This is justice. That it can be done vicariously is mercy. The considerable effort, time and resources we expend to do this is proof of our sincerity.

Ok. I really like the way you tied in the ordinances and opportunity to justice and mercy. Then the judgment seat really isn't a judgment seat in the LDS polity? By then it would be too late to receive the saving ordinances, wouldn't it? All our eternal destiny is decided prior to the judgment? Or is our placement in the three kingdoms  what is decided at the judgment seat? Oh, and I never have doubted the sincerity of the folks who take the considerable effort to do temple work on the behalf of others. It is a magnificent testimony to the commitment and conviction of the average folks in the pew that they make sure a commitment, especially after they have received their own baptism, endowment, and sealings. I was taken by someone's response recently here who indicated that his father had asked that his post-death baptismal work not be done by anyone and the son did it anyway. I can't quite reconcile that. If the father has agency, why wasn't his request honored? That is a nosy question, so no need to answer.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I Timothy 2:9-15 

Product of the era, obviously.

Quote

D&C 132:64-65

Probably a little of both.  

Quote

I Peter 3:1-7

A little of both.

Quote

Ephesians 5:22-33

A little of both.

Quote

I Corinthians 11:3

Product of the era.  I love how the heading refers to it as "Paul speaking of certain customs"  Yep.  Middle eastern customs, not revelation.

Quote

Genesis 3:16

This one is a huge mixed bag.  It's straightforward revelation (obviously childbirth hurts-that's a statement of fact--and the fall did lead the majority of men throughout history to justify treating women like crap because they believed God endorsed it) but it's also symbolic of the changes the fall created and not literal at all (how many men do you know that don't live by the sweat of their faces?  I know tons).

The fall brought some significant and difficult changes that make life harder and more painful for both women and men.  Do I believe that God decided to make childbirth hurt, for example, to punish Eve and all women?  No.  That's just dumb. 

The idea that He changed Eve from the helpmeet He created her as in the garden of Eden, to a subject to be ruled over, because of the fall is equally dumb.  The fall had that effect, sure, but not because God did it. 

Fallen men did it.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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

To say that some sealings are only paperwork really does call into question the validity of what is happening in the temple.  Do we believe that sealings mean something in heaven or don't we?

We can't really have it both ways.  Double standards never hold up well.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

Is there any chance we don't need to worry about ratios of men to women?  We might sit here and think that the chance of having a 1:1 ratio is small so we need to have polygamy.  But what if we are just missing understanding of how it work?

I don't know how to explain it. We logically consider that ratio, but as I have read through this thread I've just wondered if there was something else we just don't get because we are thinking in imperfect immortal terms.

I mean who among us really understands the idea of eternity or 1 eternal round? We might get little grasps of that, but unless you are one of the rare people where God has truly bestowed that knowledge most of us just really have no clue.

So maybe this ratio thing is entirely human concept like time.

It probably is a human concept.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Product of the era, obviously.

Probably a little of both.  

A little of both.

A little of both.

Product of the era.  I love how the heading refers to it as "Paul speaking of certain customs"  Yep.  Middle eastern customs, not revelation.

This one is a huge mixed bag.  It's straightforward revelation (obviously childbirth hurts-that's a statement of fact--and the fall did lead the majority of men throughout history to justify treating women like crap because they believed God endorsed it) but it's also symbolic of the changes the fall created and not literal at all (how many men do you know that don't live by the sweat of their faces?  I know tons).

The fall brought some significant and difficult changes that make life harder and more painful for both women and men.  Do I believe that God decided to make childbirth hurt, for example, to punish Eve and all women?  No.  That's just dumb. 

The idea that He changed Eve from the helpmeet He created her as in the garden of Eden, to a subject to be ruled over, because of the fall is equally dumb.  The fall had that effect, sure, but not because God did it. 

Fallen men did it.

Makes it easy doesn't it.
We can dismiss anything we don't like or agree with.

I can't help but wonder if these are the same conversations had by the early Church after Christ and the original Apostles were gone.

Up next - transubstantiation!

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, not one of those had multiple eternal companions.
Every one of Joseph's so-called polyandrous marriage he was the only "eternal companion".  Any other husband was not sealed by priesthood authority to the wife for eternity.  (There MIGHT have been one exception - I'd have to check the records again).

One thing that never seems to get realized when plural marriage is discussed is that in the views of the time priesthood marriages were the ones that counted.  Civil marriages were viewed as inferior.
Our changing perspective continues to equate temple marriage with civil marriage.  That was not the view of their day.

 

Re the first bolded item, sorry I did miss that in my response to your comment. Re the second item yes I was aware of the position that prior civil marriages were simply discounted as inferior and not even binding per say.  Another reason that I rejected LDS plural marriage as from God.   This position made it all to easy for Joseph to marry another man's wife.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This is a day I wish I had more than 12 posts allotted to me on the board, darn "limited"!

Why are you still limited?

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We can dismiss anything we don't like or agree with.

 

If we don't care about using the spirit and don't utilize the truths we already know to help us understand scriptures, that's true.

If we didn't already know that God expects women to teach at church for example, then we could decide to interpret the verses where Paul or Timothy teach that based on our personal beliefs. 

But since we know what God expects, relying on our personal beliefs would be the prideful way, but not the easy way.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

They become Lost Boys forever.

It is fantastic.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

According to set theory (the foundation of mathematics) two infinite sets are the same size if they have a one to one correspondence. So the set of all even numbers is the same size as the set of all natural numbers (even and odd numbers combined). So if God’s children are infinite the idea that there are more men than women is baseless. 

Thank you for putting that up, it sounds much more understandable than when .I have tried.  I need to read a few textbooks to get the language back again.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“Baptize everyone” raises the question, how deep does the Atonement go?

Meaning?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“Baptize everyone” raises the question, how deep does the Atonement go?

Technically we don't baptize everyone.  We don't baptize anyone who died before the age of 8 for example.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

According to set theory (the foundation of mathematics) two infinite sets are the same size if they have a one to one correspondence. So the set of all even numbers is the same size as the set of all natural numbers (even and odd numbers combined). So if God’s children are infinite the idea that there are more men than women is baseless. 

Great point.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

One has to wonder that if the state of Utah didn't need polygamy to be stopped in order to have statehood would the mainstream LDS still be living it.

It was diminishing in numbers iirc, logistically just not something that can be sustained in a non elitist culture that isn’t killing off their men in war, but could have been continued among a few upper leaders I am guessing to demonstrate we were open to the command.  It would depend on whether a revelation was received, which may depend in part on what prophets go to the Lord and ask guidance for.  It probably would have interfered with missionary work, which would have led the prophets to inquire of the Lord what he wanted them to do and my guess is when it was time for the Church to spread worldwide, he would have said something along the lines of “your sacrifices have been accepted and are sufficient” and lifted the command to practice (I believe there was a command, I just believe there were some major screwups in implementing it…as in associating more wives with more exaltation—multiplying wives, often interpreted as more than 4, is considered sinful in the Bible—rather than better treatment of family meaning never adding wives unless all wives were on board already, also when they sent wives to different settlements so it was even harder for the father to spend time with wives and kids and when he came, he was treated more as honored guest than one of the bunch, favoritism).

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Technically we don't baptize everyone.  We don't baptize anyone who died before the age of 8 for example.  

Well, of course, but I think you know what I mean, right? Those children are covered by the Atonement, too. How deep do you think  the Atonement goes?