Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

mrmarklin · December 26, 2021

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It never occurred to me we wouldn’t breathe, lol.

Don’t know about breathing, but eating is likely in the cards. Our bodies will need energy to maintain themselves. This implies some sort of fuel source, presumably food. Personally, I would like to sample some things that I can’t eat here. Wine with dinner. A fine cigar and brandy afterwards. Coffee in the morning, even though I won’t need the caffeine. As well as enjoying all manner of gourmet foods that are expensive and difficult to obtain, like abalone.

why me · December 26, 2021

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure I understand this kind of binary thinking? It is a form of "if you are not for us, you are against us!" Anyone or anything that leads us to Christ and the atonement is a beneficial force in our life. Coming to Christ is never a "useless" process. It matters not if it is Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, or the Pope who leads us to the Savior. Best wishes to all on this special day that reminds of the Savior.

I think that it is black and white. If Joseph was a prophet and he received this revelation about plural marriage then the struggle was a necessary struggle for the people involved. If not it was a useless struggle. But this is true for all faiths who have principles to live by. It is a principle of faith.

JLHPROF · December 26, 2021

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope it won't feel awful, not to be able to eat or even talk. I've heard both might happen.

Oh they CAN eat, they don't need to.

CV75 · December 26, 2021

On 12/24/2021 at 11:43 PM, sunstoned said:

Qualifier: everyone has their own journey. The following applies to me only.

It is hard to explain, but it is an issue to me. It, along with other aspects of the church doctrine, culture and beliefs are issues (not sure if that is the right word) for me. Even though I have left, all of it is still part of me. I was a committed member for over 40 years. I am a RM, BIC and Temple married. Lots of church jobs, lots of tithing paid, etc. You have all heard these types of stories many times before. The bottom line is, as traumatizing as my decision was, you just can't cleanly walk away from something that consumed over half of your life. Mormonism is my culture and my pedigree, and I am never far away from it. This forum is part of that. I've been listening and learning from you folks for over fifteen years.

I appreciate your sharing this, but I was not trying to delve into your motive or need for participating on the forum.

The explanation I was referring to had to do with your appeal to “overwhelming empirical evidence”, and a moral standard determining that the practice is not “holy” and references to the afterlife are unnecessary when don’t believe in “god” anyway.

You pointed out that you identify as Mormon (culture, family, emotional connections, etc.) but not as a saint (internalized religious and spiritual covenants and practices of discipleship). Hence my suggestion to see what might be discussed between the two types of posters that is on common ground on this subject (which I think played out a long time ago, on a broader societal level at least). What common ground on the subject has common relevancy for today’s world? Maybe it's just the issues facing people in communities where polygamy is still practiced, appealing to Mormon religious belief.

The Nehor · December 26, 2021

10 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Don’t know about breathing, but eating is likely in the cards. Our bodies will need energy to maintain themselves. This implies some sort of fuel source, presumably food. Personally, I would like to sample some things that I can’t eat here. Wine with dinner. A fine cigar and brandy afterwards. Coffee in the morning, even though I won’t need the caffeine. As well as enjoying all manner of gourmet foods that are expensive and difficult to obtain, like abalone.

I intend to be powered by an internal perpetual motion machine.

CV75 · December 26, 2021

12 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Don’t know about breathing, but eating is likely in the cards. Our bodies will need energy to maintain themselves. This implies some sort of fuel source, presumably food. Personally, I would like to sample some things that I can’t eat here. Wine with dinner. A fine cigar and brandy afterwards. Coffee in the morning, even though I won’t need the caffeine. As well as enjoying all manner of gourmet foods that are expensive and difficult to obtain, like abalone.

Any interest in cat food, either wet or dry?

Stargazer · December 26, 2021

10 hours ago, Rain said:

Don't try to fix their feelings. Validate their feelings.

How do I validate their feelings?

10 hours ago, Rain said:

Try to understand why they would have those fears. Once you understand then let them know you see why they fear. When you understand and they can trust you then MAYBE it's time you can assuage their fears, but if you really understand them you may find a different way to do it or may find you just need to mourn with them till the Spirit is the one who does the assuaging.

What if I do already understand why they have these fears? What if I already feel compassion for their dilemma?

You and others have expressed concerns over a matter of doctrine. I have tried to answer those concerns with thoughts of my own, to try to suggest ways of thinking about it which might address the fears. You clearly find these inadequate. Fair enough. But in your quoted paragraph above, your advice for handling the concern really only works for a personal interaction, in person or via live conversation. Obviously we are not in such a situation. I can't read your emotions except from your written words, and lacking the ability to see your face or hear your voice, I can't adjust my own reactions in compensation.

If one is not seeking a solution to an emotional issue, then perhaps one should make it clear that one just wants to vent. Or perhaps it is I who should have just assumed that venting was the object of the post, and perhaps just posted a response along the lines of "That's a hard thing, sorry you're experiencing it." And then only give a substantive reply when asked to do so.

You do understand that it is a typical "man thing," to want to immediately fix the thing, whatever it is?

10 hours ago, Rain said:

Do we know we won't need to breathe or eat or do we just assume that eternal beings don't need to?

Can an resurrected eternal being die? If not, then breathing, eating, and the rest of the essential life-sustaining activities we mortals must absolutely engage in to survive are not necessary, or in other words, are not needed. Obviously, an eternal being can eat. For example, Jesus ate with the Apostles after his resurrection, after all -- presumably to demonstrate to them his embodiment, that he wasn't just a spirit.

rodheadlee · December 27, 2021

On 12/24/2021 at 9:40 PM, Rain said:

If that is how it is then I most definitely want Heavenly Father's job and not Heavenly Mother's. I do not regret having children. I love them and am glad I have them, but there is all too much pain in mothering children to have my husband going off and doing the fun creative things and leaving me to do the mothering.

But honestly, from what has been revealed we see God doing the nurturing and Heavenly Mother doing.. what?

So either I go with your idea and be in pain for eternity or I do nothing useful enough for my children to know about it. But either way I have to share my best friend, the love of my life with another woman.

Seriously, with the way heaven is sometimes described it's a wonder any woman wants to go there.

If you were childless, you would have a different opinion. I want to love and nurture a son to carry on my line, to teach how to build homes, to have as crew on our sailboat....Mothers don't do all the nurturing. My wife is just as much a captain on our boat/home as I am.

rodheadlee · December 27, 2021

On 12/25/2021 at 4:46 AM, Stargazer said:

And besides, there's no sex in eternity. Or at least, not in the same sense we have here in mortality.

Great post except for this. I have a promise that there is.... But I have to live up to my part of the deal.

smac97 · December 28, 2021

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

(I'd like to ask that you read through my entire post before you try to break it up and reply. You'll need the context of the entire post if there is any hope that you will understand what I'm saying.)

The scriptures--which we believe are the word of God--are full of stories of women being treated like property, being expendable, being unimportant and ignored-often by men that we believe are prophets of God, but sometimes by God Himself.

A few thoughts:

First, we also believe "the scriptures" are not inerrant. The "Title Page" to The Book of Mormon actually tells us there are, or may be, "faults" in the record: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Near the end of the record Moroni cautions us again on this point: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Second, I think it's important to contextualize the narratives in terms of historical setting, translation, culture, law, sociopolitical milieu, and so on. But perhaps the most important is to contextualize these narratives relative to what we understand about the character of God. If there is a discrepancy between the individual's subjective response to a narrative and the superlative attributes of God, then the response needs further review. To do otherwise would be to find fault with God, who is without fault and perfect in every respect.

Third, I don't think we need to address these issues in the first instance, as they have been extensively addressed in many ways (see, e.g., here).

Fourth, Joseph Smith said: "There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me." See also these remarks by Kent P. Jackson:

Quote

The Prophet took the Bible very seriously, yet he was aware of its limitations and often pointed out problems that resulted through its transmission from the original sources. The following quotations are representative of his thoughts concerning this matter:

"Many important points touching the salvation of men had been taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 10.)

"There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me." (Teachings, p. 310.)

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." (Teachings, p. 327.) In this statement the Prophet identified three sources of inaccuracies caused by the transmission of the Bible. Those who have had the experience of trying to learn a new language can sympathize with "ignorant translators," as can those who type or take notes with "careless transcribers." Only the errors introduced by "designing and corrupt priests" were done with evil intent.

The eighth Article of Faith provides a succinct summary: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

Based on these quotations, it appears that "translated" includes the whole process of translation - from revelation received by the original ancient prophets, through generations of manuscript copies, to publication in modern translations.

While Joseph Smith was frank to point out limitations in the Bible and spent much of his life restoring precious truths that God had revealed to its ancient authors, still his love for it never wavered. He viewed his study of the Bible as a significant part of his prophetic calling, and he taught from the Bible not only with power but also with conviction and affection. This remark summarizes his feeling and should serve as a challenge to all students of the Bible today:

"He who reads it oftenest will like it best." (Teachings, p. 56.)

In other words, there seems to be ample amounts of room for reasoned analysis when applying the scriptures to our lives. Individual study is central to that. Study not only of the bible, but from the "best books" about the Bible (see D&C 109:7, 14), and also counsel from living prophets and apostles.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

Calm gave an example of an Sarah being made to wait in a different area while an angel of the Lord told Abraham that she would have a baby as an old woman.

What do you make of Luke 1?

Quote

39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

And Joel 2?

Quote

28 ¶ And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

As Julie Beck said in April 2010:

Quote

A revelation in the book of Joel states that in the last days, sons and daughters of God will prophesy and the Lord will pour out His Spirit upon His servants and His handmaids. President Spencer W. Kimball echoed this prophecy when he said:

“Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world (in whom there is often such an inner sense of spirituality) will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world. …

“Thus it will be that female exemplars of the Church will be a significant force in both the numerical and spiritual growth of the Church in the last days.”

I bear my witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. The Lord depends on His daughters to do their part to strengthen the homes of Zion and build His kingdom on the earth. As they seek and qualify for personal revelation, the Lord will pour out His Spirit upon His handmaids in these latter days.

Quite a few examples like this.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

The law of Moses, which we are told comes from God, taught that a woman who was raped in town should be stoned because if it happened in town and no one heard and stopped it it obviously wasn't rape. We are also told that the best outcome for a woman who is raped is that she is forced to marry the rapist. We are taught in Joshua that God told the Israelite men to kill everyone except for the young virgins, who they are to kidnap and get pregnant. In the D&C we are taught that God gives prophets power to take women away from husbands and give them to different husbands, or that God Himself gives women to prophets like Abraham (the idea of the agency of the woman doesn't exist in those verses). The female imagery that is most represented in the scriptures is whore. Throughout the scriptures, when the covenant people go astray, they are whores. The daughters of zion are whores when covenant Israel is unfaithful. The great and abominable church is female, the whore of all the earth.

Accurate or not,

That's a pretty significant distinction, though, right? "Accurate or not" in terms of the narrative, in terms of the interpretation of the narrative, is a pretty important consideration.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

those stories do paint a bleak picture of God's feelings for His daughters, and I could go on and on.

So could I. Cain was male. Judas was male. Korihor was male. Satan is male. Virtually all of the most evil and depraved individuals in scripture are male.

The "Gish Gallop" approach doesn't really work here, as each of these issues can, indeed must, be addressed individually.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

We hear a lot of great words about how God values His sons and His daughters equally but then we have these examples before us-examples we read over and over again when we are studying God's word, which seem to show the opposite. It's the whole "actions speak louder than words" premise.

"Seem to" being the operative phrase.

If I run into a condundrum wherein I must choose between (A) accepting God's superlative attributes or (B) intepreting a story a scriptural narrative in a way that negates those attributes (as you put it, that "paint a bleak picture of God's feelings for His daughters"), I will go with (A) every time. The problematic narrative is from thousands of years ago, from a very different social and legal and political environment, originally memorialized in a different language and subsequently translated by who-knows-who and how many times. And the narrative is being interpreted by me, a very finite and flawed human being.

I just can't get on board with an approach to scripture that is predicated on me criticizing or finding fault with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. When and if I am headed down that road, I need to adjust course, as there is no way it is correct.

"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day." (D&C 50:24.) I believe we have received much in the way of further information, further revelation, to help us in understanding the scriptures. To be sure, there are still plenty of scriptural narratives that give me pause and/or discomfort. But inasmuch as we have not yet reached "the perfect day," I feel I should continue studying and seeking guidance, and/or exercise patience and faith pending further information and revelation.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

Polygamy often becomes just one more example in the negative column.

For some, sure. For others, not so much, and for others not at all.

A relevant quote from Joseph Smith:

Quote

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

And another:

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, the idea that he actually exists;

Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes;

Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive. But with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

God's perspective and knowledge is infinitely greater than ours, to wit:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8
"{God} comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - D&C 88:41
"And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." - Abr. 3:19
"But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24
"For now we see through a glass, darkly..." - 1 Cor.13:12

Applying the foregoing precepts, I conclude that God is perfect. He is all-powerful and all-knowing. He is perfectly righteous. He is perfectly just. He is the ultimate arbiter of "right" and "wrong." So whatever He commands is, by definition, "right." Our perception is blinkered and finite, and is therefore subordinate to His.

There is a Latin legal maxim which may have some application here: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo." This is generally translated as "Your motive gives the name to your act." If this is so, then an act, in and of itself, is devoid of morality. It is the context, the motive behind the act that is determinative of whether it is "right" or "wrong." This is why a police officer can be hailed as a hero shooting and killing an armed suspect on the cusp of killing an innocent, while a thug who shoots and kills a person so as to rob him is a murderer. The motive matters. The motive is determinative.

I therefore draw a qualitative and quantitative difference between everything that God does and what we do. Our actions are a mish-mash, some well-intended, some not. Some done in ignorance, some deliberately. Some done righteously, some wickedly. And so on. But none of that applies to God. There is no mish-mash. No evil or impure motives or actions. Whatever He does is by definition good, even if we can't see that in the moment.

That said, I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy. I'm not particularly comfortable with it. I do not understand it. So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.

Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.

Neither does the slaying of Nehor.

Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").

And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here. Context matters. A lot. Historical context. Social/cultural context. Scriptural context. Gospel context. So does accuracy in conveyed information. So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease about a given topic (polygamy, for example) is not necessarily the most reliable moral barometer in the world. So objectivity helps. So does research. Lots of research. And patience. And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky"). And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions. But most of all . . . faith. Lots and lots of faith.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

Only in a lot of ways polygamy in church history is worse because it's not something from the OT that you can find ways around. It's restored doctrine.

I think OT polygamy and 19th-century polygamy are, in the end, six of one and have dozen of another. It was doctrinal in the OT, too.

Doctrine and Covenants section 132 puts it this way:

"David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power" (D&C 132:39)

"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation" (D&C 132:37).

To do "none other things than that which they were commanded" means (among other things) to not take additional wives without the Lord's command, or to do so in unrighteousness.

In 2 Samuel 12, the LORD (through Nathan the prophet) also makes this clear. The LORD says he gave David the wives and the house of Israel and of Judah, and he would have given him a lot more if he had asked. But because David was responsible for the death of Uriah and he took his wife, that was all his own doing, and everything came crashing down upon him, and his house was cursed:

Quote

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

There are things in the scriptures that we can "find ways around," that is, that we can reject as not being from God.

Alas, I don't think authorized polygamy falls into that category.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

Women who are struggling can't put a "as long as it's translated correctly" spin on it to make it easier to take.

Neither can men (many of whom are likewise not comfortable with polygamy).

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

While you can somewhat escape the horrible interactions between women and God in the OT, polygamy in the D&C is a hammer to the heart for a lot of women, that there is no escape from.

I can understand that perspective, even though I don't agree with it (or think that it's a struggle exclusive to women).

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

Quote

But I'm not necessarily buying into subjective interpretations, either, nor am I keen on signing onto the calls for the Church to respond to such interpretations.

I'm not sure what this means. If someone says "this makes me doubt God's love for women" you don't get to say, I don't buy it. Well, you can say it, but it's completely meaningless and irrelevant.

That's not what I meant. I am, instead, suggesting that subjective interpretations that depict God as evil or indifferent or partial are valid. I don't accept such interpretations. I don't accept them because they are incompatible within the larger context of the Restored Gospel. God is not evil. He is not a respecter of persons. He does not hold His daughters in less regard than He does His sons.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

None of these are relevant to what I'm saying. I appreciate that you are trying (and I believe you are very sincere in wanting to) but as long as you insist on coming at the discussion from this angle, you will never succeed.

Right back atcha. I think your "angle" doesn't succeed because you see polygamy as being something that was only difficult for women. It wasn't.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

I am not talking about being uncomfortable with sharing a spouse. This is not about jealousy or finding it uncomfortable that God gave permission to a guy to have sex with multiple women.

I am not talking about those either (not exclusively anyway).

Plenty of men were repulsed by polygamy as well. They struggled with it too.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

No, none of that addresses what I'm talking about. It's not that polygamy is hard. It's not that it's a sacrifice. It's not that sharing a husband would suck. It's not that it sounds sketchy. None of those things are the things that cause women, who are not being asked to live plural marriage, pain. Why would they cause them pain?

What causes pain is the implication that many women see behind the practice--an implication that begins in the OT and continues to be illustrated over and over through all the books of scriptures--

***That women exist to bless and serve men but are otherwise irrelevant to God and His kingdom.***

I reject that implication. It is incompatible with what we understand about the character and attributes of God.

And again, this is not unique to women. I would have a very hard time with it because I love and cherish my wife and daughters, and have great love and respect for the other women in the Church and of my acquaintance. I would have a very hard time reconciling that implication with the characterization of our Heavenly Father as perfectly loving, kind, just and so on.

Fortunately, I think we have ample grounds on which to reject that implication as a falsehood.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

I have no doubt you are. We usually find what we are looking for, but listening to respond/defend is a lot less effective than listening to understand.

I listen plenty. I think you are mistaking disagreement for inattentiveness.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

The church does teach that God loves His daughters as much as His sons.

I quite agree.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

But the church can't really back up those teachings with examples,

Yes, it can. And does.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

and that's why they are so easy for satan to get some women to discredit.

Finding fault is one of the easiest things to do.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

Quote

I don't understand. Your statement presupposes that the Church teaches that God "value{s} His sons more than His daughters."

We are taught that the truth is established by two or more witnesses, right?

Yes.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

Where is the other witness that our leaders can point to as evidence that God values His daughters, other than their words?

The scriptures.

The Holy Spirit.

And since when are we categorizing all prophetic counsel as a single witness?

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

You, as a man, can point to thousands of scriptures that present positive interactions between men and God.

Yes. And virtually all of those have equal utility when likened to women.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

How many verses do you think a woman could point to? A handful. Maybe.

Nope. Thousands.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

For women who are struggling to feel God's love, that handful is not a lot of protection against the forces that want them to feel like God views them as second class citizens.

I reject the notion that the scriptures about men are exclusively for the benefit of men, or that the scriptures about women are exclusively for the benefit of women.

Every Christmas season my family reads Luke 2. One of the most beautiful verses is that, having recited the circumstances of the Savior's birth, including angelic ministrants and choirs, etc., we are told that "Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19.)

I can't get on board with the idea that this verse is reserved for women only. That men can learn nothing from it, or apply it to their lives and circumstances.

I refuse to take an approach to scriptures that requires me to sit in judgment on Heavenly Father, whether as an overt or a passive-aggressive act. I refuse to attribute evil motives to God. I refuse to view Him through such a lens.

As Jacob so aptly put it: "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works." (Jacob 4:10.)

I acknowledge that there are "forces" at work that want to sow division and discord in the Church, that want to divvy up the members and pit them against each other, that want to alienate us from the Lord and His Kingdom. This is done through encouraging others to find fault, to glorify victimhood as an end unto itself, to introduce philosophies and themes that are antithetical to restored truths, and to listen to voices that have set themselves up as authorities alternative and superior to the prophets and apostles.

Nephi said "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." (1 Nephi 11:17.)

Nephi also reminded us that the Lord "doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God." (2 Nephi 26:33.)

If we start with these precepts in mind, it becomes difficult to succumb to false sentiments like God viewing His daughters as "unimportant" and to be "ignored," that they "exist to bless and serve men but are otherwise irrelevant to God and His kingdom," that He "{does not value} His daughters," that He "views them as second class citizens," and all the other unfortunate and unfair sentiments expressed above.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, bluebell said:

Especially when those few verses come up against polygamy.

It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight, as the popular saying goes.

I reject the notion that scriptures only have application to women when they are specifically directed at women. With that as a starting point (as well as God as a misogynist), the resulting assessment of scripture will never be good (or fair, or accurate).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 28, 2021 by smac97

mfbukowski · December 28, 2021

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

First, we also believe "the scriptures" are not inerrant. The "Title Page" to The Book of Mormon actually tells us there are, or may be, "faults" in the record: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Near the end of the record Moroni cautions us again on this point: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Second, I think it's important to contextualize the narratives in terms of historical setting, translation, culture, law, sociopolitical milieu, and so on. But perhaps the most important is to contextualize these narratives relative to what we understand about the character of God. If there is a discrepancy between the individual's subjective response to a narrative and the superlative attributes of God, then the response needs further review. To do otherwise would be to find fault with God, who is without fault and perfect in every respect.

Third, I don't think we need to address these issues in the first instance, as they have been extensively addressed in many ways (see, e.g., here).

Fourth, Joseph Smith said: "There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me." See also these remarks by Kent P. Jackson:

In other words, there seems to be ample amounts of room for reasoned analysis when applying the scriptures to our lives. Individual study is central to that. Study not only of the bible, but from the "best books" about the Bible (see D&C 109:7, 14), and also counsel from living prophets and apostles.

What do you make of Luke 1?

And Joel 2?

As Julie Beck said in April 2010:

Quite a few examples like this.

That's a pretty significant distinction, though, right? "Accurate or not" in terms of the narrative, in terms of the interpretation of the narrative, is a pretty important consideration.

So could I. Cain was male. Judas was male. Korihor was male. Satan is male. Virtually all of the most evil and depraved individuals in scripture are male.

The "Gish Gallop" approach doesn't really work here, as each of these issues can, indeed must, be addressed individually.

"Seem to" being the operative phrase.

If I run into a condundrum wherein I must choose between (A) accepting God's superlative attributes or (B) intepreting a story a scriptural narrative in a way that negates those attributes (as you put it, that "paint a bleak picture of God's feelings for His daughters"), I will go with (A) every time. The problematic narrative is from thousands of years ago, from a very different social and legal and political environment, originally memorialized in a different language and subsequently translated by who-knows-who and how many times. And the narrative is being interpreted by me, a very finite and flawed human being.

I just can't get on board with an approach to scripture that is predicated on me criticizing or finding fault with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. When and if I am headed down that road, I need to adjust course, as there is no way it is correct.

"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day." (D&C 50:24.) I believe we have received much in the way of further information, further revelation, to help us in understanding the scriptures. To be sure, there are still plenty of scriptural narratives that give me pause and/or discomfort. But inasmuch as we have not yet reached "the perfect day," I feel I should continue studying and seeking guidance, and/or exercise patience and faith pending further information and revelation.

For some, sure. For others, not so much, and for others not at all.

A relevant quote from Joseph Smith:

And another:

God's perspective and knowledge is infinitely greater than ours, to wit:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8

"{God} comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - D&C 88:41

"And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." - Abr. 3:19

"But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24

"For now we see through a glass, darkly..." - 1 Cor.13:12

Applying the foregoing precepts, I conclude that God is perfect. He is all-powerful and all-knowing. He is perfectly righteous. He is perfectly just. He is the ultimate arbiter of "right" and "wrong." So whatever He commands is, by definition, "right." Our perception is blinkered and finite, and is therefore subordinate to His.

There is a Latin legal maxim which may have some application here: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo." This is generally translated as "Your motive gives the name to your act." If this is so, then an act, in and of itself, is devoid of morality. It is the context, the motive behind the act that is determinative of whether it is "right" or "wrong." This is why a police officer can be hailed as a hero shooting and killing an armed suspect on the cusp of killing an innocent, while a thug who shoots and kills a person so as to rob him is a murderer. The motive matters. The motive is determinative.

I therefore draw a qualitative and quantitative difference between everything that God does and what we do. Our actions are a mish-mash, some well-intended, some not. Some done in ignorance, some deliberately. Some done righteously, some wickedly. And so on. But none of that applies to God. There is no mish-mash. No evil or impure motives or actions. Whatever He does is by definition good, even if we can't see that in the moment.

That said, I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy. I'm not particularly comfortable with it. I do not understand it. So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.

Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.

Neither does the slaying of Nehor.

Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").

And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here. Context matters. A lot. Historical context. Social/cultural context. Scriptural context. Gospel context. So does accuracy in conveyed information. So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease about a given topic (polygamy, for example) is not necessarily the most reliable moral barometer in the world. So objectivity helps. So does research. Lots of research. And patience. And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky"). And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions. But most of all . . . faith. Lots and lots of faith.

I think OT polygamy and 19th-century polygamy are, in the end, six of one and have dozen of another. It was doctrinal in the OT, too.

Doctrine and Covenants section 132 puts it this way:

"David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power" (D&C 132:39)

"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation" (D&C 132:37).

To do "none other things than that which they were commanded" means (among other things) to not take additional wives without the Lord's command, or to do so in unrighteousness.

In 2 Samuel 12, the LORD (through Nathan the prophet) also makes this clear. The LORD says he gave David the wives and the house of Israel and of Judah, and he would have given him a lot more if he had asked. But because David was responsible for the death of Uriah and he took his wife, that was all his own doing, and everything came crashing down upon him, and his house was cursed:

There are things in the scriptures that we can "find ways around," that is, that we can reject as not being from God.

Alas, I don't think authorized polygamy falls into that category.

Neither can men (many of whom are likewise not comfortable with polygamy).

I can understand that perspective, even though I don't agree with it (or think that it's a struggle exclusive to women).

That's not what I meant. I am, instead, suggesting that subjective interpretations that depict God as evil or indifferent or partial are valid. I don't accept such interpretations. I don't accept them because they are incompatible within the larger context of the Restored Gospel. God is not evil. He is not a respecter of persons. He does not hold His daughters in less regard than He does His sons.

Right back atcha. I think your "angle" doesn't succeed because you see polygamy as being something that was only difficult for women. It wasn't.

I am not talking about those either (not exclusively anyway).

Plenty of men were repulsed by polygamy as well. They struggled with it too.

I reject that implication. It is incompatible with what we understand about the character and attributes of God.

And again, this is not unique to women. I would have a very hard time with it because I love and cherish my wife and daughters, and have great love and respect for the other women in the Church and of my acquaintance. I would have a very hard time reconciling that implication with the characterization of our Heavenly Father as perfectly loving, kind, just and so on.

Fortunately, I think we have ample grounds on which to reject that implication as a falsehood.

I listen plenty. I think you are mistaking disagreement for inattentiveness.

I quite agree.

Yes, it can. And does.

Finding fault is one of the easiest things to do.

Yes.

The scriptures.

The Holy Spirit.

And since when are we categorizing all prophetic counsel as a single witness?

Yes. And virtually all of those have equal utility when likened to women.

Nope. Thousands.

I reject the notion that the scriptures about men are exclusively for the benefit of men, or that the scriptures about women are exclusively for the benefit of women.

Every Christmas season my family reads Luke 2. One of the most beautiful verses is that, having recited the circumstances of the Savior's birth, including angelic ministrants and choirs, etc., we are told that "Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19.)

I can't get on board with the idea that this verse is reserved for women only. That men can learn nothing from it, or apply it to their lives and circumstances.

I refuse to take an approach to scriptures that requires me to sit in judgment on Heavenly Father, whether as an overt or a passive-aggressive act. I refuse to attribute evil motives to God. I refuse to view Him through such a lens.

As Jacob so aptly put it: "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works." (Jacob 4:10.)

I acknowledge that there are "forces" at work that want to sow division and discord in the Church, that want to divvy up the members and pit them against each other, that want to alienate us from the Lord and His Kingdom. This is done through encouraging others to find fault, to glorify victimhood as an end unto itself, to introduce philosophies and themes that are antithetical to restored truths, and to listen to voices that have set themselves up as authorities alternative and superior to the prophets and apostles.

Nephi said "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." (1 Nephi 11:17.)

Nephi also reminded us that the Lord "doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God." (2 Nephi 26:33.)

If we start with these precepts in mind, it becomes difficult to succumb to false sentiments like God viewing His daughters as "unimportant" and to be "ignored," that they "exist to bless and serve men but are otherwise irrelevant to God and His kingdom," that He "{does not value} His daughters," that He "views them as second class citizens," and all the other unfortunate and unfair sentiments expressed above.

I reject the notion that scriptures only have application to women when they are specifically directed at women. With that as a starting point (as well as God as a misogynist), the resulting assessment of scripture will never be good (or fair, or accurate).

Thanks,

-Smac

This is solid proof that "the philosophies (interpretation) of men" cannot possibly be separated from scripture.

It represents the philosophies of men mangled (no typo) with scripture.

bluebell · December 28, 2021

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

First, we also believe "the scriptures" are not inerrant. The "Title Page" to The Book of Mormon actually tells us there are, or may be, "faults" in the record: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Near the end of the record Moroni cautions us again on this point: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Second, I think it's important to contextualize the narratives in terms of historical setting, translation, culture, law, sociopolitical milieu, and so on. But perhaps the most important is to contextualize these narratives relative to what we understand about the character of God. If there is a discrepancy between the individual's subjective response to a narrative and the superlative attributes of God, then the response needs further review. To do otherwise would be to find fault with God, who is without fault and perfect in every respect.

Third, I don't think we need to address these issues in the first instance, as they have been extensively addressed in many ways (see, e.g., here).

Fourth, Joseph Smith said: "There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me." See also these remarks by Kent P. Jackson:

In other words, there seems to be ample amounts of room for reasoned analysis when applying the scriptures to our lives. Individual study is central to that. Study not only of the bible, but from the "best books" about the Bible (see D&C 109:7, 14), and also counsel from living prophets and apostles.

What do you make of Luke 1?

And Joel 2?

As Julie Beck said in April 2010:

Quite a few examples like this.

That's a pretty significant distinction, though, right? "Accurate or not" in terms of the narrative, in terms of the interpretation of the narrative, is a pretty important consideration.

So could I. Cain was male. Judas was male. Korihor was male. Satan is male. Virtually all of the most evil and depraved individuals in scripture are male.

The "Gish Gallop" approach doesn't really work here, as each of these issues can, indeed must, be addressed individually.

"Seem to" being the operative phrase.

If I run into a condundrum wherein I must choose between (A) accepting God's superlative attributes or (B) intepreting a story a scriptural narrative in a way that negates those attributes (as you put it, that "paint a bleak picture of God's feelings for His daughters"), I will go with (A) every time. The problematic narrative is from thousands of years ago, from a very different social and legal and political environment, originally memorialized in a different language and subsequently translated by who-knows-who and how many times. And the narrative is being interpreted by me, a very finite and flawed human being.

I just can't get on board with an approach to scripture that is predicated on me criticizing or finding fault with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. When and if I am headed down that road, I need to adjust course, as there is no way it is correct.

"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day." (D&C 50:24.) I believe we have received much in the way of further information, further revelation, to help us in understanding the scriptures. To be sure, there are still plenty of scriptural narratives that give me pause and/or discomfort. But inasmuch as we have not yet reached "the perfect day," I feel I should continue studying and seeking guidance, and/or exercise patience and faith pending further information and revelation.

For some, sure. For others, not so much, and for others not at all.

A relevant quote from Joseph Smith:

And another:

God's perspective and knowledge is infinitely greater than ours, to wit:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8

"{God} comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - D&C 88:41

"And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." - Abr. 3:19

"But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24

"For now we see through a glass, darkly..." - 1 Cor.13:12

Applying the foregoing precepts, I conclude that God is perfect. He is all-powerful and all-knowing. He is perfectly righteous. He is perfectly just. He is the ultimate arbiter of "right" and "wrong." So whatever He commands is, by definition, "right." Our perception is blinkered and finite, and is therefore subordinate to His.

There is a Latin legal maxim which may have some application here: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo." This is generally translated as "Your motive gives the name to your act." If this is so, then an act, in and of itself, is devoid of morality. It is the context, the motive behind the act that is determinative of whether it is "right" or "wrong." This is why a police officer can be hailed as a hero shooting and killing an armed suspect on the cusp of killing an innocent, while a thug who shoots and kills a person so as to rob him is a murderer. The motive matters. The motive is determinative.

I therefore draw a qualitative and quantitative difference between everything that God does and what we do. Our actions are a mish-mash, some well-intended, some not. Some done in ignorance, some deliberately. Some done righteously, some wickedly. And so on. But none of that applies to God. There is no mish-mash. No evil or impure motives or actions. Whatever He does is by definition good, even if we can't see that in the moment.

That said, I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy. I'm not particularly comfortable with it. I do not understand it. So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.

Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.

Neither does the slaying of Nehor.

Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").

And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here. Context matters. A lot. Historical context. Social/cultural context. Scriptural context. Gospel context. So does accuracy in conveyed information. So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease about a given topic (polygamy, for example) is not necessarily the most reliable moral barometer in the world. So objectivity helps. So does research. Lots of research. And patience. And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky"). And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions. But most of all . . . faith. Lots and lots of faith.

I think OT polygamy and 19th-century polygamy are, in the end, six of one and have dozen of another. It was doctrinal in the OT, too.

Doctrine and Covenants section 132 puts it this way:

"David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power" (D&C 132:39)

"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation" (D&C 132:37).

To do "none other things than that which they were commanded" means (among other things) to not take additional wives without the Lord's command, or to do so in unrighteousness.

In 2 Samuel 12, the LORD (through Nathan the prophet) also makes this clear. The LORD says he gave David the wives and the house of Israel and of Judah, and he would have given him a lot more if he had asked. But because David was responsible for the death of Uriah and he took his wife, that was all his own doing, and everything came crashing down upon him, and his house was cursed:

There are things in the scriptures that we can "find ways around," that is, that we can reject as not being from God.

Alas, I don't think authorized polygamy falls into that category.

Neither can men (many of whom are likewise not comfortable with polygamy).

I can understand that perspective, even though I don't agree with it (or think that it's a struggle exclusive to women).

That's not what I meant. I am, instead, suggesting that subjective interpretations that depict God as evil or indifferent or partial are valid. I don't accept such interpretations. I don't accept them because they are incompatible within the larger context of the Restored Gospel. God is not evil. He is not a respecter of persons. He does not hold His daughters in less regard than He does His sons.

Right back atcha. I think your "angle" doesn't succeed because you see polygamy as being something that was only difficult for women. It wasn't.

I am not talking about those either (not exclusively anyway).

Plenty of men were repulsed by polygamy as well. They struggled with it too.

I reject that implication. It is incompatible with what we understand about the character and attributes of God.

And again, this is not unique to women. I would have a very hard time with it because I love and cherish my wife and daughters, and have great love and respect for the other women in the Church and of my acquaintance. I would have a very hard time reconciling that implication with the characterization of our Heavenly Father as perfectly loving, kind, just and so on.

Fortunately, I think we have ample grounds on which to reject that implication as a falsehood.

I listen plenty. I think you are mistaking disagreement for inattentiveness.

I quite agree.

Yes, it can. And does.

Finding fault is one of the easiest things to do.

Yes.

The scriptures.

The Holy Spirit.

And since when are we categorizing all prophetic counsel as a single witness?

Yes. And virtually all of those have equal utility when likened to women.

Nope. Thousands.

I reject the notion that the scriptures about men are exclusively for the benefit of men, or that the scriptures about women are exclusively for the benefit of women.

Every Christmas season my family reads Luke 2. One of the most beautiful verses is that, having recited the circumstances of the Savior's birth, including angelic ministrants and choirs, etc., we are told that "Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19.)

I can't get on board with the idea that this verse is reserved for women only. That men can learn nothing from it, or apply it to their lives and circumstances.

I refuse to take an approach to scriptures that requires me to sit in judgment on Heavenly Father, whether as an overt or a passive-aggressive act. I refuse to attribute evil motives to God. I refuse to view Him through such a lens.

As Jacob so aptly put it: "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works." (Jacob 4:10.)

I acknowledge that there are "forces" at work that want to sow division and discord in the Church, that want to divvy up the members and pit them against each other, that want to alienate us from the Lord and His Kingdom. This is done through encouraging others to find fault, to glorify victimhood as an end unto itself, to introduce philosophies and themes that are antithetical to restored truths, and to listen to voices that have set themselves up as authorities alternative and superior to the prophets and apostles.

Nephi said "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." (1 Nephi 11:17.)

Nephi also reminded us that the Lord "doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God." (2 Nephi 26:33.)

If we start with these precepts in mind, it becomes difficult to succumb to false sentiments like God viewing His daughters as "unimportant" and to be "ignored," that they "exist to bless and serve men but are otherwise irrelevant to God and His kingdom," that He "{does not value} His daughters," that He "views them as second class citizens," and all the other unfortunate and unfair sentiments expressed above.

I reject the notion that scriptures only have application to women when they are specifically directed at women. With that as a starting point (as well as God as a misogynist), the resulting assessment of scripture will never be good (or fair, or accurate).

Thanks,

-Smac

I really appreciate you taking the time to address my post.

With all due respect, I did not share all that I shared because the problem can be fixed if enough scriptures are quoted and there is enough opinions shared that begin with "I disagree..." or "I reject...". This is not a problem that someone with a different perspective can reason away, and it really doesn't matter who agrees or rejects any part of it. It exists separate from that perspective, and beyond the reach of those who cannot step out of their own point of view.

My only objective was to present a different perspective. While it would have been beyond amazing and charitable for you to simply respond with something like "I can see why that would be hard for some women" or whatever, I did not expect it. I really do believe that you did the best you could and I truly appreciate you being willing to engage.

I am just thankful that I had the opportunity to share a different perspective and that so many others were willing to engage with it.

ttribe · December 28, 2021

Hmmm, I see a lot of this -

and, extraordinary levels of this -

being performed in this thread in an effort to defend and explain polygamy. Perhaps the fact that it requires this kind of effort ought to motivate a pause for self-reflection on whether something being defended is, in actuality, indefensible? Just a thought.

JLHPROF · December 28, 2021

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Hmmm, I see a lot of this -

I see a lot of monogamists talking condescendingly to others about something (polygamy) they have incomplete knowledge of with the mistaken impression they know more about it than those who lived it and supported it - monosplaining.

Seriously, we all get it. Lots of people think polygamy is bad. Who exactly is it that needs to be convinced? And why not seriously look at what polygamists past and present said about it, positive and negative?

why me · December 28, 2021

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Hmmm, I see a lot of this -

and, extraordinary levels of this -

being performed in this thread in an effort to defend and explain polygamy. Perhaps the fact that it requires this kind of effort ought to motivate a pause for self-reflection on whether something being defended is, in actuality, indefensible? Just a thought.

If I am not mistaken, not everyone was a polygamist. I do believe that people were called to do it. And of course, one could refuse. As a man I wouldn't consider it a blessing to be called to be a polygamist. I would not want the problems that would come with it or the pressure. Not to mention sex. After a hard days work on the farm? Having aches and pains..And trying to keep everyone happy when life is not always full of happiness? .Forget it. So I would have refused. However, it is in section 132 and so what to do? It brought misery to Joseph and his death. But...he continued with it during the Nauvoo period knowing very well what happened with Fanny. I don't think that Joseph was a happy camper.

Edited December 28, 2021 by why me

Tacenda · December 28, 2021

On 12/9/2021 at 6:25 PM, Tacenda said:

I watch Sister Wives, and the way they live it is quite commendable, they don't have anything to do with Warren Jeffs, and you'd never know they were polygamist at all. Their married children are all monogamist, they have a gay daughter that they fully accept. But the innermost workings are so tough with the four wives. They mostly gang up on the husband. But recently one of the wives has left, something I thought would never happen with her, maybe another wife, that has no sexual relationship with the husband, it is not a marriage anymore, but she sticks around.

Love their family, honestly. If I had to live polygamy, I'd want to live it like they have.

Quoting myself. This season is a complete turnaround for this family, it's crumbling because of some affects from covid and the families quarantining from one another, on Kody and Robyn's request. But not all family members are on board, especially the youth who are upset they can't hang out with their siblings. Kody is being a jerk with the wives, not Robyn though. And he lives primarily with Robyn because of covid. Christine hasn't left on the show yet but in real life she has moved on. Kody only has sexual relations with Robyn, and doesn't have those feelings for any other wives. It's basically turned into a monogamist relationship. And now I see Kody as not being nicest guy and is quite a crumb bum so far this season. So in my quote above, I take it back, lol.

smac97 · December 28, 2021

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really appreciate you taking the time to address my post.

With all due respect, I did not share all that I shared because the problem can be fixed if enough scriptures are quoted and there is enough opinions shared that begin with "I disagree..." or "I reject...".

You presented a perspective, and so did I.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is not a problem that someone with a different perspective can reason away,

Well, it might be. There is much to be said with reasoning, discussion, analysis, evidence, and so on. Sometimes a perspective can be altered through such things.

Sometimes the solution to a problem begins with examining the presuppositions one brings to the discussion. Joseph Smith was quite right when he said that there are "three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation," the second of which is "a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes." The depictions of God as misogynist, as viewing His daughters as "unimportant" and to be "ignored," as creating women solely so as to "exist to bless and serve men but are otherwise irrelevant to God and His kingdom," as not "{valuing} His daughters," as Him "view{ing} them as second class citizens," and so on are not, in my view, "a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes."

If a "problem" being experienced by some is predicated on intractably wrong presuppositions, then those presuppositions can and ought to be re-visited. With reasoning and evidence, and with kindness and patience.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

and it really doesn't matter who agrees or rejects any part of it.

With respect, I disagree. I think such a perspective is not immune from critique and analysis when it is presented in the public sphere.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

It exists separate from that perspective,

With respect, I disagree. The "problem" - that God is supposedly a misogynistic jerk - is inextricably linked to and derived from "that perspective" (interpreting scriptures in such a way as to result in the the idea that God, our Heavenly Father, the perfect and all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe, is a misogynistic jerk).

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

and beyond the reach of those who cannot step out of their own point of view.

I have reviewed and considered the perspective you are describing. I disagree with it. You seem to be taking that disagreement as "{being unable to} step out of their own point of view." I don't think that works. I carefully read what you wrote. A few times, actually. And I digested it over an extended period of time. And then I responded to it. Not because I "cannot step out of {my} own point of view," but because I had spent quite a bit of time doing precisely that.

I have a friend for whom I have sporadically done some legal work. I have been slowly reducing our attorney-client relationship and transitioning back into a plain old friendship. The reason for this is that my friend, who is a very smart, "alpha male" type of guy, is not quite able to come to grips with the idea that his analysis of his legal issues may diverge from my own. Over time I have perceived that he views his perspective, his "read" of his legal issues, as deserving of deference and acceptance by me. He has what may be called a "rubber stamp" mindset. That is, he comes to me with a legal problem, and he expects me to reflexively accept his perspective on that problem as definitive and to thereafter work on it. Often times his perspective is reasonably correct, and working with him to resolve the issue is pretty easy in such circumstances. However, there have been several times when my perspective on "the facts" and/or "the law" diverge from his. And here we run into problems. He takes my differing perspective as being disrespectful or inattentive to him. To disagree with him is to not listen to him. To disagree with him is to disrespect him. This doesn't really work for me. I will not, in the interests of comity and friendship, acquiesce to a perspective that I find to be incorrect or incomplete in some material way. I don't think I would do my friend any favors by just "rubber stamping" his opinion and perspective.

So it is, I think, with this board. We are not an echo chamber, or we ought not to be. We are sharing ideas. We are putting them out in the public sphere for discussion and analysis. I have spent many years here, as I have found much value in examining the diversity of thoughts and opinions represented on this board. In, as you put it, "step{ping} out of {my} own point of view." I value this board not because I expect my views to be rubber stamped, but because I want them to be critiqued and dissected and evaluated.

I acknowledge the "problem" you describe exists. But the problem is built on presuppositions, and those presuppositions can and ought to be evaluated. So I think it does matter whether an individual "agrees {with} or rejects any part of it." If some of those presuppositions are faulty, then the subsequent conclusion may end up being faulty as well.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

My only objective was to present a different perspective.

I was doing the same thing.

It seems, though, that you are irritated with me because I am not ratifying the perspective you are describing. Because I am critiquing it.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

While it would have been beyond amazing and charitable for you to simply respond with something like "I can see why that would be hard for some women" or whatever, I did not expect it.

I don't think my remarks lacked charity. I think there is nothing charitable about acquiescing to vile and ugly and false accusations against our Heavenly Father.

If a person had posted a long list of accusations and calumnies against, say, my own father, and if I found those accusations against his character and reputation to be false and without merit, I would feel obligated to stand up and defend my father against those falsehoods. And if that person subsequently accused me of lacking charity for not going along with those falsehoods, and for presuming to speak in defense of the target of those falsehoods, I would find that accusation unfair and unreasonable.

I responded to the accusations and characterizations, but I did not do so with anger or malice. I did not respond with insults or denigrations of the character of those who harbor those sentiments. I instead sought to respond with reasoning and evidence and analysis. And I attempted to present such things with respect and decorum.

I'm not sure what "I can see why that would be hard for some women" means in this context. If "that" is a reference to the notion that God is a misogynistic jerk ("I can see why the idea of God being a misogynistic jerk would be hard for some women"), then this proposed response seems to veer pretty close to ratification / rubber stamping.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really do believe that you did the best you could and I truly appreciate you being willing to engage.

Again, I think you are mistaking disagreement for inattentiveness, or a lack of charity or understanding.

I think I do understand the perspective you are presenting. But I don't agree with it. In fact, I find it to be profoundly flawed. I could, I suppose, have remained silent in the face of such ugly accusations against our Heavenly Father. But there are times when silence can be construed as consent or agreement. I am reminded of this exchange in A Man for All Seasons:

Quote

Cromwell : Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.

Sir Thomas More : I do.

Cromwell : But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?

Crowd in court gallery : No!

Cromwell : Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

Sir Thomas More : Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

Cromwell : Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

Sir Thomas More : The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

If an acquaintance of mine came to this board and said "I think your wife is an awful person. I think she is hopelessly depraved and dishonest. I think she is without a single redeeming quality. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be associated with her in any way," what would you have me do? Respond with "I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I have nothing to say on the subject"? Would that be the appropriate and "amazing and charitable" response? I don't think so. To remain silent in the face of such accusations could easily be construed as consent to or agreement with such accusations. I would, instead, stand up and defend my wife against such accusations.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I am just thankful that I had the opportunity to share a different perspective and that so many others were willing to engage with it.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 28, 2021 by smac97

bluebell · December 28, 2021

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quoting myself. This season is a complete turnaround for this family, it's crumbling because of some affects from covid and the families quarantining from one another, on Kody and Robyn's request. But not all family members are on board, especially the youth who are upset they can't hang out with their siblings. Kody is being a jerk with the wives, not Robyn though. And he lives primarily with Robyn because of covid. Christine hasn't left on the show yet but in real life she has moved on. Kody only has sexual relations with Robyn, and doesn't have those feelings for any other wives. It's basically turned into a monogamous relationship. And now I see Kody as not being nicest guy and is quite a crumb bum so far this season. So in my quote above, I take it back, lol.

Kody is a horrible husband, using any standard but I think especially as a polygamist husband. If he has a bad relationship with one of his wives he ignores her and their problems and goes and plays house with the wives he is getting along with at the moment. And it's practically abusive because while he can go and get his emotional, mental, and physical needs met through his other wives, the ones that he doesn't want to deal with have no way to get those needs met, yet are trapped in the relationship if they want to keep their religious beliefs.

I used to think that he was just an idiot but now I think he's despicable.

bluebell · December 28, 2021

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You presented a perspective, and so did I.

Well, it might be. There is much to be said with reasoning, discussion, analysis, evidence, and so on. Sometimes a perspective can be altered through such things.

Sometimes the solution to a problem begins with examining the presuppositions one brings to the discussion. Joseph Smith was quite right when he said that there are "three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation," the second of which is "a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes." The depictions of God as misogynist, as viewing His daughters as "unimportant" and to be "ignored," as creating women solely so as to "exist to bless and serve men but are otherwise irrelevant to God and His kingdom," as not "{valuing} His daughters," as Him "view{ing} them as second class citizens," and so on are not, in my view, "a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes."

If a "problem" being experienced by some is predicated on intractably wrong presuppositions, then those presuppositions can and ought to be re-visited. With reasoning and evidence, and with kindness and patience.

With respect, I disagree. I think such a perspective is not immune from critique and analysis when it is presented in the public sphere.

With respect, I disagree. The "problem" - that God is supposedly a misogynistic jerk - is inextricably linked to and derived from "that perspective" (interpreting scriptures in such a way as to result in the the idea that God, our Heavenly Father, the perfect and all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe, is a misogynistic jerk).

I have reviewed and considered the perspective you are describing.  I disagree with it. You seem to be taking that disagreement as "{being unable to} step out of their own point of view." I don't think that works. I carefully read what you wrote. A few times, actually. And I digested it over an extended period of time. And then I responded to it. Not because I "cannot step out of {my} own point of view," but because I had spent quite a bit of time doing precisely that.

I have a friend for whom I have sporadically done some legal work. I have been slowly reducing our attorney-client relationship and transitioning back into a plain old friendship. The reason for this is that my friend, who is a very smart, "alpha male" type of guy, is not quite able to come to grips with the idea that his analysis of his legal issues may diverge from my own. Over time I have perceived that he views his perspective, his "read" of his legal issues, as deserving of deference and acceptance by me. He has what may be called a "rubber stamp" mindset. That is, he comes to me with a legal problem, and he expects me to reflexively accept his perspective on that problem as definitive and to thereafter work on it. Often times his perspective is reasonably correct, and working with him to resolve the issue is pretty easy in such circumstances. However, there have been several times when my perspective on "the facts" and/or "the law" diverge from his. And here we run into problems. He takes my differing perspective as being disrespectful or inattentive to him. To disagree with him is to not listen to him. To disagree with him is to disrespect him. This doesn't really work for me. I will not, in the interests of comity and friendship, acquiesce to a perspective that I find to be incorrect or incomplete in some material way. I don't think I would do my friend any favors by just "rubber stamping" his opinion and perspective.

So it is, I think, with this board. We are not an echo chamber, or we ought not to be. We are sharing ideas. We are putting them out in the public sphere for discussion and analysis. I have spent many years here, as I have found much value in examining the diversity of thoughts and opinions represented on this board. In, as you put it, "step{ping} out of {my} own point of view." I value this board not because I expect my views to be rubber stamped, but because I want them to be critiqued and dissected and evaluated.

I acknowledge the "problem" you describe exists. But the problem is built on presuppositions, and those presuppositions can and ought to be evaluated. So I think it does matter whether an individual "agrees {with} or rejects any part of it." If some of those presuppositions are faulty, then the subsequent conclusion may end up being faulty as well.

I was doing the same thing.

It seems, though, that you are irritated with me because I am not ratifying the perspective you are describing. Because I am critiquing it.

I don't think my remarks lacked charity. I think there is nothing charitable about acquiescing to vile and ugly and false accusations against our Heavenly Father.

If a person had posted a long list of accusations and calumnies against, say, my own father, and if I found those accusations against his character and reputation to be false and without merit, I would feel obligated to stand up and defend my father against those falsehoods. And if that person subsequently accused me of lacking charity for not going along with those falsehoods, and for presuming to speak in defense of the target of those falsehoods, I would find that accusation unfair and unreasonable.

I responded to the accusations and characterizations, but I did not do so with anger or malice. I did not respond with insults or denigrations of the character of those who harbor those sentiments. I instead sought to respond with reasoning and evidence and analysis. And I attempted to present such things with respect and decorum.

I'm not sure what "I can see why that would be hard for some women" means in this context. If "that" is a reference to the notion that God is a misogynistic jerk ("I can see why the idea of God being a misogynistic jerk would be hard for some women"), then this proposed response seems to veer pretty close to ratification / rubber stamping.

Again, I think you are mistaking disagreement for inattentiveness, or a lack of charity or understanding.

I think I do understand the perspective you are presenting.  But I don't agree with it. In fact, I find it to be profoundly flawed. I could, I suppose, have remained silent in the face of such ugly accusations against our Heavenly Father. But there are times when silence can be construed as consent or agreement. I am reminded of this exchange in A Man for All Seasons:

If an acquaintance of mine came to this board and said "I think your wife is an awful person. I think she is hopelessly depraved and dishonest. I think she is without a single redeeming quality. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be associated with her in any way," what would you have me do? Respond with "I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I have nothing to say on the subject"? Would that be the appropraite and "amazing and charitable" response? I don't think so. To remain silent in the face of such accusations could easily be construed as consent to or agreement with such accusations. I would, instead, stand up and defend my wife against such accusations.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Almost a 100% of the time, a perspective cannot be altered until it is validated. In short, no one cares how much you know until they know how much you care. But validation takes an emotional connection and a willingness to put yourself into someone else's perspective and live there for a little while until you can understand it (even if you don't ever agree with it), and I don't think that is possible for you. You have said in the past that you don't find emotions to be that useful in solving these disagreements and that will always be a hindrance to you on this topic.

There is just no reasoning or arguing your way into solving this problem.

I am not at all assigning to you any malice or inattentiveness. When I spoke about charity, I meant that it takes an act of real charity to be able to empathize with someone who has a perspective that you don't agree with. You have not been able to empathize on this issue and that was the charity that I wish you could have shown. I don't know that it's possible for you to do that though, so I hold no ill will against you for it.

It's disappointing but not unexpected. You did what you could. I truly appreciate you trying.

BRMC · December 28, 2021

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Kody is a horrible husband, using any standard but I think especially as a polygamist husband. If he has a bad relationship with one of his wives he ignores her and their problems and goes and plays house with the wives he is getting along with at the moment. And it's practically abusive because while he can go and get his emotional, mental, and physical needs met through his other wives, the ones that he doesn't want to deal with have no way to get those needs met, yet are trapped in the relationship if they want to keep their religious beliefs.

I used to think that he was just an idiot but now I think he's despicable.

Didn't one of them just take her money and run? I'm not a follower of the show, really.

smac97 · December 28, 2021

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Almost a 100% of the time, a perspective cannot be altered until it is validated.

"Validated?" As in "to make valid {sound; just; well-founded}; substantiate {to establish by proof or competent evidence}; confirm {to establish the truth, accurac, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify}"?

If a man came to this board with a "perspective" that women are inherently inferior to men, how would you "validate" that perspective?

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

In short, no one cares how much you know until they know how much you care.

You seem to be mistaking disagreement with not caring.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

But validation takes an emotional connection and a willingness to put yourself into someone else's perspective and live there for a little while until you can understand it (even if you don't ever agree with it), and I don't think that is possible for you.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "validation." I see no value in "validating," say, misogyny.

Second, there are plenty of valid and constructive ways to have discussions about topics without first establishing "an emotional connection," or else acknowledging the emotion and then getting past it and into clinical, dispassionate, objective discussion and evaluation. This stuff can and ought to have a place in societal discourse.

Third, you continue to mistake disagreement with me ostensibly being incapable of "put{ting} {my}self into someone else's perspective and liv{ing} there for a little while."

Fourth, you seem to be personalizing this thread.

Fifth, you are incorrect in your assessment of me.

Last night I had another in an ongoing discussion with my college-age daughter about an apartment contract. She moved into the apartment, found that it did not work for her (she had a very passive-aggressive roommate, the WiFi was insufficient for her work-from-home needs, and a few other problems), and has been trying to sell the contract for several months. She has not succeeded. She has repeatedly expressed frustration at the situation to me and to my wife. My wife and I have both been trying to help her find ways to resolve the issue. My wife is primarily focused on helping her via - as you put it - "an emotional connection," and has also helped her with practicalities (taking photographs of the apartment, re-wording the advertisements she's posted on FB about the contract, etc.).

I have also helped with these things, but mostly my daughter is not looking for - as you put it - "validation" from me of her problem. She's upset, and I know it. She wants out of her contract, and I know it. She is not looking to me for joining her in venting her spleen against her landlord and/or her own decision to sign the contract in the first place. She is instead looking to me - a real estate attorney - for advice on how to get out of the contract as quickly and inexpensively as possible. I would not really do her any favors by simply saying "I can see why that would be hard for you," giving her a hug and sending her on her way. She's not looking for me to ratify her emotional reaction, but to help her address the substance of her legal issues. And that assistance is better effectuated by me initially acknowledging her emotional response, but not thereafter immersing myself in it with her. She needs more than a shoulder to cry on. She needs a lawyer. She needs clinical, dispassionate, objective advice and guidance.

Last night I acknowleged her emotions and anger, but I also told her that those things are secondary to the legal issues at hand. For a time she was irritated with me because I was telling her things she did not want to hear. I was telling her these things not because I am oblivious or indifferent to her emotions, but because her emotions are not the controlling, dispositive factor. My posture in the discussion was, essentially, "I'm aware that you are upset, I get it. But we can either dwell on your anger/frustration or we can discuss strategies for addressing the problem. Every minute we focus on the former - which we already know about - is one minute less we can spend on the latter." She eventually came around to this, such that we were able to have a fairly constructive discussion on how to resolve the problem.

I think our society is steeped in expectations about emotions being validated. Emotions are strong. Emotions are often at the forefront of our minds. Emotions can therefore end up getting a lot of attention, at least some of which would be better spent on efforts to resolve the problems that are creating emotional turmoil in the first place.

In Ecclesiasties 3 we are told that "{t}o every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven . . . a time to to be born, a time to die . . . a time to kill, and a time to heal . . . a time to break down, and a time to build up . . . a time to weep, and a time to laugh . . . a time to mourn, and time to dance . . . a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing..."

So perhaps there is a time to commiserate, and then also a time to move past commiseration and look for objective analysis and evaluation.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You have said in the past that you don't find emotions to be that useful in solving these disagreements and that will always be a hindrance to you on this topic.

I think emotions have their place, but then comes the time to shift focus and move into clinical assessment and decision-making processes.

I think endlessly fixating on "emotions," as if they are an end unto themselves, is a far more serious hindrance.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is just no reasoning or arguing your way into solving this problem.

Sure there is. You can reason or argue by . . . reasoning and arguing. Empathy and commiseration have their place, but then so does objective analysis, weighing of evidence, reasoning, planning a course of action, and taking concrete steps in "solving this problem."

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I am not at all assigning to you any malice or inattentiveness.

You are publicly declaring that I lack charity. That is what you are "assigning" to me. Because I do not write as emotively as you want me to. That's a pretty serious moral judgment. And you have repeatedly published it against me.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

When I spoke about charity, I meant that it takes an act of real charity to be able to empathize with someone who has a perspective that you don't agree with.

I can do that. I have done that. I have commiserated ("{T}here are still plenty of scriptural narratives that give me pause and/or discomfort..."). I have acknowledged that polygamy is, for some, "in the negative column." I have said that "I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy," that "I'm not particularly comfortable with it," that "I do not understand it," and that "{s}o much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of 'right' and 'wrong,' but polygamy . . . doesn't."

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You have not been able to empathize on this issue and that was the charity that I wish you could have shown.

That I have not, in your estimation, been sufficiently expressive of empathy is not something I can really address. It's a difference of style, not substance. Again: I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy. I have previously said that in this thread, and I say it again now. And I've said it before here (in 2016), here (2017), here (in 2019), here (also in 2019), and here (in August 2021).

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that it's possible for you to do that though, so I hold no ill will against you for it.

It's disappointing but not unexpected. You did what you could. I truly appreciate you trying.

I think your expectations of emotive writing from others is unreasonable, as is your public judgment of me, that I lack charity because I don't write as emotively as you expect/require.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 28, 2021 by smac97

katherine the great · December 28, 2021

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And now I see Kody as not being nicest guy and is quite a crumb bum so far this season. So in my quote above, I take it back, lol.

I’ve always seen Kody as the least of the players. The wives all seem intelligent and hard working. What in the world do they see in this mullet sporting man-child? He does not fit the description of an alpha male at all.

bluebell · December 28, 2021

2 hours ago, BRMC said:

Didn't one of them just take her money and run? I'm not a follower of the show, really.

Thankfully yes. He was the biggest jerk to her the last year.

bluebell · December 28, 2021

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Validated?" As in "to make valid {sound; just; well-founded}; substantiate {to establish by proof or competent evidence}; confirm {to establish the truth, accurac, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify}"?

If a man came to this board with a "perspective" that women are inherently inferior to men, how would you "validate" that perspective?

You seem to be mistaking disagreement with not caring.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "validation." I see no value in "validating," say, misogyny.

Second, there are plenty of valid and constructive ways to have discussions about topics without first establishing "an emotional connection," or else acknowledging the emotion and then getting past it and into clinical, dispassionate, objective discussion and evaluation. This stuff can and ought to have a place in societal discourse.

Third, you continue to mistake disagreement with me ostensibly being incapable of "put{ting} {my}self into someone else's perspective and liv{ing} there for a little while."

Fourth, you seem to be personalizing this thread.

Fifth, you are incorrect in your assessment of me.

Last night I had another in an ongoing discussion with my college-age daughter about an apartment contract. She moved into the apartment, found that it did not work for her (she had a very passive-aggressive roommate, the WiFi was insufficient for her work-from-home needs, and a few other problems), and has been trying to sell the contract for several months. She has not succeeded. She has repeatedly expressed frustration at the situation to me and to my wife. My wife and I have both been trying to help her find ways to resolve the issue. My wife is primarily focused on helping her via - as you put it - "an emotional connection," and has also helped her with practicalities (taking photographs of the apartment, re-wording the advertisements she's posted on FB about the contract, etc.).

I have also helped with these things, but mostly my daughter is not looking for - as you put it - "validation" from me of her problem. She's upset, and I know it. She wants out of her contract, and I know it. She is not looking to me for joining her in venting her spleen against her landlord and/or her own decision to sign the contract in the first place. She is instead looking to me - a real estate attorney - for advice on how to get out of the contract as quickly and inexpensively as possible. I would not really do her any favors by simply saying "I can see why that would be hard for you," giving her a hug and sending her on her way. She's not looking for me to ratify her emotional reaction, but to help her address the substance of her legal issues. And that assistance is better effectuated by me initially acknowledging her emotional response, but not thereafter immersing myself in it with her. She needs more than a shoulder to cry on. She needs a lawyer. She needs clinical, dispassionate, objective advice and guidance.

Last night I acknowleged her emotions and anger, but I also told her that those things are secondary to the legal issues at hand. For a time she was irritated with me because I was telling her things she did not want to hear. I was telling her these things not because I am oblivious or indifferent to her emotions, but because her emotions are not the controlling, dispositive factor. My posture in the discussion was, essentially, "I'm aware that you are upset, I get it. But we can either dwell on your anger/frustration or we can discuss strategies for addressing the problem. Every minute we focus on the former - which we already know about - is one minute less we can spend on the latter." She eventually came around to this, such that we were able to have a fairly constructive discussion on how to resolve the problem.

I think our society is steeped in expectations about emotions being validated. Emotions are strong. Emotions are often at the forefront of our minds. Emotions can therefore end up getting a lot of attention, at least some of which would be better spent on efforts to resolve the problems that are creating emotional turmoil in the first place.

In Ecclesiasties 3 we are told that "{t}o every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven . . . a time to to be born, a time to die . . . a time to kill, and a time to heal . . . a time to break down, and a time to build up . . . a time to weep, and a time to laugh . . . a time to mourn, and time to dance . . . a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing..."

So perhaps there is a time to commiserate, and then also a time to move past commiseration and look for objective analysis and evaluation.

I think emotions have their place, but then comes the time to shift focus and move into clinical assessment and decision-making processes.

I think endlessly fixating on "emotions," as if they are an end unto themselves, is a far more serious hindrance.

Sure there is. You can reason or argue by . . . reasoning and arguing. Empathy and commiseration have their place, but then so does objective analysis, weighing of evidence, reasoning, planning a course of action, and taking concrete steps in "solving this problem."

You are publicly declaring that I lack charity. That is what you are "assigning" to me. Because I do not write as emotively as you want me to. That's a pretty serious moral judgment. And you have repeatedly published it against me.

I can do that. I have done that. I have commiserated ("{T}here are still plenty of scriptural narratives that give me pause and/or discomfort..."). I have acknowledged that polygamy is, for some, "in the negative column." I have said that "I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy," that "I'm not particularly comfortable with it," that "I do not understand it," and that "{s}o much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of 'right' and 'wrong,' but polygamy . . . doesn't."

That I have not, in your estimation, been sufficiently expressive of empathy is not something I can really address. It's a difference of style, not substance. Again: I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy. I have previously said that in this thread, and I say it again now. And I've said it before here (in 2016), here (2017), here (in 2019), here (also in 2019), and here (in August 2021).

I think your expectations of emotive writing from others is unreasonable, as is your public judgment of me, that I lack charity because I don't write as emotively as you expect/require.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you often confuse sympathy (feeling sorrow for another) with empathy (the ability to understand and share the feelings of another), but really, I think we've probably said all there is to say on it. Probably time to agree to disagree.

JLHPROF · December 28, 2021

10 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I’ve always seen Kody as the least of the players. The wives all seem intelligent and hard working. What in the world do they see in this mullet sporting man-child? He does not fit the description of an alpha male at all.

I would think the anthropologist in you would find them fascinating.
For example, they publicly broke with the religion that led them to be polygamists and attempted to live polygamy as a "lifestyle choice" instead of a practice based in religion.

Motivations for religious practices are interesting. Motivations for continuing difficult religious practices when you have abandoned a religion would have to be hard to come by.

Sign In

Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

Recommended Posts

mrmarklin

why me

JLHPROF

CV75

The Nehor

CV75

Stargazer

rodheadlee

rodheadlee

smac97

mfbukowski

bluebell

ttribe

JLHPROF

why me

Tacenda

smac97

bluebell

bluebell

BRMC

smac97

katherine the great

bluebell

bluebell

JLHPROF

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse