Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[Fether]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

well LDS people approach it secularly for everyone but one person.

Yep! That’s exactly what faith is.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You seem to be of the opinion that because the practice was difficult, unpleasant to go through at times, feelings got hurt, people had to be more independent, that this means it couldn't be from God.

Are those things in our lives not literally the things that make us turn to God, pray more, grow faith, work to overcome the natural man?

I'm not going to try and convince you of anything since your mind appears completely made up.  But I will say you seem to have the wrong view of trials and difficulties.  Just because something is hard or unpleasant doesn't make it wrong.  Conversely just because something brings constant peace doesn't make it right.

Sorry, but real blessings come through rough roads, not smooth ones.  Exaltation will absolutely require a willingness to sacrifice all things, including feelings, peace, and comfort.

"Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation....When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do His Will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering and that he has not sought nor will he seek His face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life."

Your argument is one of theodicy. I think the LDS position is one of the better ones but still lots of holes in it. On this particular one I would say life on its own has plenty of suffering and challenges without artificially adding them like polygamy does.

[Teancum]

32 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

There is a direct relationship between what a religion demands and the level of loyalty (faith if you will) adherents have for that religion. It does not, however, have any bearing on the truthfulness of the religion in question. 

Sure.  Lots of cults demand lots of things that are bad but build loyalty.

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Yep! That’s exactly what faith is.

As Mark Twain said "Faith is believing what ya know aint so."

[Fether]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As Mark Twain said "Faith is believing what ya know aint so."

“Praise to the man who [wrote the adventures of Tom Sawyer and huckleberry Finn]”

[CA Steve]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  Lots of cults demand lots of things that are bad but build loyalty.

I would not say that Mormonism demands very many things that are bad per se, but I would say that it demands a lot of things that are unnecessary.

Tithing and parts of the WOW come to mind.

[longview]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And working through difficult things increase faith.  Couldn't be a connection could there?

Unless picking marigolds is the goal.

Sure.  Let's just give you all sorts of problems and suffering just to increase your faith. 

William Wordsworth wrote in one of his poems - - -

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
          Hath had elsewhere its setting
               And cometh from afar;
          Not in entire forgetfulness,
          And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come 
               From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
               Upon the growing Boy,
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,
               He sees it in his joy;

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Allegedly  because your position is based on faith and feelings.  

I got reactivated back to the church halfway through college.  I knew then that the convictions of the spirit impressing upon my soul was very real and powerful.  I sat there pondering about this experience and understood clearly that it did not come from my feelings or emotions.  There was no doubt about the difference between my feelings and the power of the spirit that was working upon me.

Yes, it is faith.  Something that cannot be passed on to others, even my children.  It is up to you to investigate and to truly be honest with your own self.  Sherem and Korihor went about trying to convince people their vain opinions concerning the "baselessness" of the Gospel.  But ultimately things came to a head and they finally admitted that they knew the truth and tried to squelch it.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

“Praise to the man who [wrote the adventures of Tom Sawyer and huckleberry Finn]”

😂

[Teancum]

39 minutes ago, longview said:

William Wordsworth wrote in one of his poems - - -

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
          Hath had elsewhere its setting
               And cometh from afar;
          Not in entire forgetfulness,
          And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come 
               From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
               Upon the growing Boy,
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,
               He sees it in his joy;

IT is a nice poem

39 minutes ago, longview said:

I got reactivated back to the church halfway through college.  I knew then that the convictions of the spirit impressing upon my soul was very real and powerful.  I sat there pondering about this experience and understood clearly that it did not come from my feelings or emotions.  There was no doubt about the difference between my feelings and the power of the spirit that was working upon me.

I have had similar experiences. I interpret them differently now.  I cannot know what yours were or like nor you mine. How one distinguishes between feelings and emotions and something else they think is outside themselves is impossible to determine. I think science is finding the brain is a powerful organ and can create all sorts of experiences that really are originating from no where but ourselves.  So we may disagree on this.

39 minutes ago, longview said:

Yes, it is faith.  Something that cannot be passed on to others, even my children.  It is up to you to investigate and to truly be honest with your own self.  Sherem and Korihor went about trying to convince people their vain opinions concerning the "baselessness" of the Gospel.  But ultimately things came to a head and they finally admitted that they knew the truth and tried to squelch it.

I think the stories of Sherem and Korihor are inventions and not real and a tool to convince people to conclude what you do above.  I have found that faith can be an untrustworthy tool in my own investigations.

[juliann]

On 12/7/2021 at 8:22 AM, JLHPROF said:

You seem to be of the opinion that because the practice was difficult, unpleasant to go through at times, feelings got hurt, people had to be more independent, that this means it couldn't be from God.

 

Ah, so all those women who had to support their children themselves is "hurt feelings." And "people" didn't need to be more independent, women did....in an era that discriminated against them socially and politically. The mansplaining of polygamy gets old real fast. 

Still waiting for the theological need or reason for polygamy beyond "God said it just because". It's been over a decade of asking now and dead silence. There is no rhyme or reason to it other than the exaltation of males...that is why these lame excuses just don't work anymore in a society that doesn't work as hard in discriminating against women. 

[longview]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

Still waiting for the theological need or reason for polygamy beyond "God said it just because". It's been over a decade of asking now and dead silence. There is no rhyme or reason to it other than the exaltation of males...that is why these lame excuses just don't work anymore in a society that doesn't work as hard in discriminating against women. 

Don't rely on the arm of flesh before seeking the will of God.  We only have a shadow of understanding what it will be like in the Celestial Kingdom.  You are just assuming that males will get "favorable" treatment every step of the way but the real picture may actually show astonishing egalitarianism in the Eternal World.  Why would you have your nose out of joint concerning the different roles and responsibilities of men and women?  After all, there is a LOT more in common between men and women than differences.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Ah, so all those women who had to support their children themselves is "hurt feelings." And "people" didn't need to be more independent, women did....in an era that discriminated against them socially and politically. The mansplaining of polygamy gets old real fast. 

"Mansplaining?"

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Still waiting for the theological need or reason for polygamy beyond "God said it just because". It's been over a decade of asking now and dead silence. There is no rhyme or reason to it other than the exaltation of males...that is why these lame excuses just don't work anymore in a society that doesn't work as hard in discriminating against women. 

"God commanded it" is a valid "theological need or reason."  Animal Sacrifice seems repellant to us, who are both culturally and chronologically removed from it.  And yet, "God commanded it."

Consider Moses 5:

Quote

5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.

6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

I think Adam was justified in obeying a principle he did not really understand.  The understanding came later.  I think the same thing can be said about polygamy.

Also, Jacob 2:30 has been cited many, many times on this board:

Quote

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I quoted it for you in 2019:

Quote

Quote

At the very least, it was a failed experiment. 

I question that.  Jacob 2:30 provides that "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Did the practice of 19th-century polygamy "raise up seed?"

Also, I am not sure that the rationale in Jacob 2:30 is the sole basis for God having commanded polygamy.  FAIR has some interesting postulations:

Quote

Question: What purposes could plural marriage possibly serve?

Save for scriptural accounts, any other "reasons" which we attach, in retrospect, to plural marriage can only be based on supposition and intellectual deduction

Any such list as this is therefore tentative. Any or all of these things could have been intended by the Lord for the benefit of the Church and the Saints. A few of these benefits which have been suggested include:

1. It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints.
2. It was to "raise up" righteous seed.
3. It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived.
4. Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things."
5. Numerous family ties were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.
6. Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time.^[3]

Other benefits which we do not yet see or understand could also have been intended. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate.

For a detailed response, see: Possible benefits of plural marriage To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here

If polygamy was "an Abrahamic test," did the 19th century Saints fail it?

If polygamy was intended to "set apart" and "solidify" the community of Saints, did it succeed at that?

If polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," can it be accurately called a "failed experiment?"

If polygamy strengthened familial networks in the early days of the Church (when such cohesion was perhaps very critical given the turbulent and difficult times), did it succeed?

A few more potential benefits from polygamy are outlined here:

Quote

Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts.
...
Professor Kathryn M. Daynes makes the point that in nineteenth century Utah, more women arranged to hold temple recommends and receive their endowments. That is, female rates of temple-worthiness (or, at least, being willing to take the time and effort to get a recommend and actually go to the temple) were higher than male rates. And, these rates didn't really change much, regardless of how common plural marriage was (and, so, these higher rates cannot have been caused by plural marriage). Thus, women in Utah were in a difficult situation--more of them were willing and able to have temple sealings/eternal marriage than there were men willing and able to do so. Plural marriage changed this dynamic enormously. One temple-worthy man being married would not take that man out of the "potential married partners pool." This allowed more members to have temple marriages, sealings, and the blessings that came with these ordinances.
...
Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women.
...
Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time.
...
Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming.
...
Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

Interesting stuff.

You responded:

Quote

Old stuff. Old thinking. But this needs it's own thread.

I responded:

Quote

Quote

Old stuff.

Some of the best wisdom available to us is "old."  Because it has stood the test of time.

Quote

Old thinking.

Old, but not outdated.  Chesterton's Fence coes to mind.

And FAIR isn't that old.

Quote

But this needs it's own thread.

Okay.

You responded:

Quote

It's nice to have you back. With the emphasis on uncovering information on women (the church has hired a few women in the historical department to do just that) months old information can be old. So unless you are keeping track of every development, yes...that is old information. The more recent number of books on this and related topics should make that obvious. 

So we actually had a pretty decent chat.  And during that back-and-forth a number of points were raised that could be described as "theological need{s} or reason{s} for polygamy," including:

• 1. Because God commanded it;
• 2. Because obedience to a commandment is not, or should not be, predicated or contingent on first fully understanding God's motives, because God will, at times, command us to do things without necessarily fully explaining the reasoning for the commandment (see, e.g., Moses 5);
• 3. Because Jacob 2:30 references "rais{ing} up seed unto" God as being a (likely partial) explanation for why God will, at times, command His people to practice polygamy;
• 4. Because, amonth the various possible explanations cited in the above FAIR article, polygamy "was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints";
• 5. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "served to 'set apart' his people as a peculiar people to the world" because "{t}his social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived";
• 6. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "was part of the "restoration of all things";
• 7. Because, also per the FAIR article, through polygamy "{n}umerous family ties were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church";
• 8. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time."

We've talked about some of these things many times, and all of them at least once (in our 2019 discussion).  So how is it that you are now claiming that you are "{s}till waiting for the theological need or reason for polygamy beyond 'God said it just because" and that "{i}t's been over a decade of asking now and dead silence"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

We don't really know why God commanded polygamy (or if He commanded it as it was practiced--probably not all the time).  I don't see how any good can come from getting into arguments over speculation or opinions that aren't supported by anything.  

Better to just say we don't know and leave it at all.  So much harm has come to the church and members from people making up their own reasons for things, no matter how much those reasons made sense to them.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Ah, so all those women who had to support their children themselves is "hurt feelings." And "people" didn't need to be more independent, women did....in an era that discriminated against them socially and politically. The mansplaining of polygamy gets old real fast. 

Still waiting for the theological need or reason for polygamy beyond "God said it just because". It's been over a decade of asking now and dead silence. There is no rhyme or reason to it other than the exaltation of males...that is why these lame excuses just don't work anymore in a society that doesn't work as hard in discriminating against women. 

Be careful....

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Don't rely on the arm of flesh before seeking the will of God.  We only have a shadow of understanding what it will be like in the Celestial Kingdom.  You are just assuming that males will get "favorable" treatment every step of the way but the real picture may actually show astonishing egalitarianism in the Eternal World.  Why would you have your nose out of joint concerning the different roles and responsibilities of men and women?  After all, there is a LOT more in common between men and women than differences.

Such pablum....

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Ah, so all those women who had to support their children themselves is "hurt feelings." And "people" didn't need to be more independent, women did....in an era that discriminated against them socially and politically. The mansplaining of polygamy gets old real fast. 

 One day you'll be able to actually address an issue without taking this approach.  I said no such thing nor made no such implication.  This is the gender equivalent of race baiting.

Quote

Still waiting for the theological need or reason for polygamy beyond "God said it"

No other reason is needed.  Ever.  For anything.  When God commands, do it.

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No other reason is needed.  Ever.  For anything.  When God commands, do it.

But really who knows that God commands it.  I am sure the 9/11 terrorists thought God commanded it.  So there you go...🤔

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But really who knows that God commands it.  I am sure the 9/11 terrorists thought God commanded it.  So there you go...🤔

Yes, there you go.

What is the justification for truly believing 100% that God commanded you to do something and then not doing it?

As a skeptic it's easy for you to say it's wrong because you don't believe God speaks in that way.  And that's good.  But what is the justification someone should use to openly disobey what they believe is from God?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, there you go.

Yep.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

What is the justification for truly believing 100% that God commanded you to do something and then not doing it?

I do not know.  A lot of people believe God is telling the 100% to do something that you would likely argue it is not God telling them that. How do you reconcile that?

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

As a skeptic it's easy for you to say it's wrong because you don't believe God speaks in that way.  And that's good.  But what is the justification someone should use to openly disobey what they believe is from God?

Rational and critical thinking should be applied before you act on something you think God is telling you. Especially the apparent harmful things. Was God telling the 9/11 terrorists to fly planes into the buildings?  They likely believed 100% God was quite fine with that and even wanted them to do it.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Teancum

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yep.

I do not know.  A lot of people believe God is telling the 100% to do something that you would likely argue it is not God telling them that. How do you reconcile that?

I don't and I don't have to.  I have no obligation to reconcile it.  My one and only obligation is to obey God as I understand and believe to the best of my ability.  I don't expect a Methodist to reconcile my wearing of the priesthood garment.  He has no belief it came from heaven.  But I do so I would have no justification to take it off.

Quote

Rational and critical thinking should be applied before you act on something you think God is telling you. 

Of course it should.  How else would you determine it came from God to begin with?  We reason.

D&C 50:10 And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;
11 Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face.
12 Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.

[juliann]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

So we actually had a pretty decent chat.  And during that back-and-forth a number of points were raised that could be described as "theological need{s} or reason{s} for polygamy," including:

• 1. Because God commanded it;
• 2. Because obedience to a commandment is not, or should not be, predicated or contingent on first fully understanding God's motives, because God will, at times, command us to do things without necessarily fully explaining the reasoning for the commandment (see, e.g., Moses 5);
• 3. Because Jacob 2:30 references "rais{ing} up seed unto" God as being a (likely partial) explanation for why God will, at times, command His people to practice polygamy;
• 4. Because, amonth the various possible explanations cited in the above FAIR article, polygamy "was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints";
• 5. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "served to 'set apart' his people as a peculiar people to the world" because "{t}his social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived";
• 6. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "was part of the "restoration of all things";
• 7. Because, also per the FAIR article, through polygamy "{n}umerous family ties were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church";
• 8. Because, also per the FAIR article, polygamy "created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time."

We've talked about some of these things many times, and all of them at least once (in our 2019 discussion).  So how is it that you are now claiming that you are "{s}till waiting for the theological need or reason for polygamy beyond 'God said it just because" and that "{i}t's been over a decade of asking now and dead silence"?

Thanks,

-Smac

None of those are a theological or doctrinal reason for eternal marriage involving multiple wives. Why? Why would that even be a thing? What possible holiness would adding more people to an earthly marriage make? That is what I continue to ask and has yet to be answered. The only reasons ever given at the time were to add glory to the man and you are well aware of that. That is the irony of this whole mess. All of the reasons given at the time (which is really where we need to look for answers) have been rejected. But rather than acknowledging that,  ad hoc reasons and speculations are created on the fly to keep what was a failed practice on the table. Meanwhile, we are losing women to this unnecessary nonsense. 

The restoration of all things has to be the worst, BTW, because all things weren't "restored." At all. And no one has bemoaned that or called the church false because of it. As for animal sacrifice, seriously? Do you eat meat? Or are you not aware that sacrificed meat was eaten? So your only objection could be the manner in which they were killed. Do you consider slaughterhouses more humane or something? I don't understand this.

[juliann]

23 hours ago, longview said:

Don't rely on the arm of flesh before seeking the will of God.  We only have a shadow of understanding what it will be like in the Celestial Kingdom.  You are just assuming that males will get "favorable" treatment every step of the way but the real picture may actually show astonishing egalitarianism in the Eternal World.  Why would you have your nose out of joint concerning the different roles and responsibilities of men and women?  After all, there is a LOT more in common between men and women than differences.

If we only have a shadow of understanding, anything you say about it is irrelevant. 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by juliann

[Chum]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

If we only have a shadow of understanding, anything you say about it is irrelevant. 

Coincidentally, this is what 1950s Parents were taught to say to their kids.

[longview]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

If we only have a shadow of understanding, anything you say about it is irrelevant. 

12 minutes ago, Chum said:

Coincidentally, this is what 1950s Parents were taught to say to their kids.

Many things in the scriptures are veiled in order to spare the wicked from more severe condemnation for learning higher truths (if they do not repent of their sins).  We are to search the scriptures in order to gain greater insights.  If we pray for the spirit before studying the scriptures, then we will obtain line upon line, precept upon precept.

The entire Law of Moses foreshadowed the Christ.  But only if they were obedient and diligent would they gain the insights from it.  Gal 3:24  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.   35  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Members are instructed not to discuss the things in the temple anywhere except in the temple.  But the ordinances are meaningful if they are pondered and reflected upon.  The learning process we have in the Gospel is VERY relevant.

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

Many things in the scriptures are veiled in order to spare the wicked from more severe condemnation for learning higher truths (if they do not repent of their sins).  We are to search the scriptures in order to gain greater insights.  If we pray for the spirit before studying the scriptures, then we will obtain line upon line, precept upon precept.

The entire Law of Moses foreshadowed the Christ.  But only if they were obedient and diligent would they gain the insights from it.  Gal 3:24  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.   35  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Members are instructed not to discuss the things in the temple anywhere except in the temple.  But the ordinances are meaningful if they are pondered and reflected upon.  The learning process we have in the Gospel is VERY relevant.

Okay. But what does that have to do with discouraging discussion of an early or incomplete understanding (by branding it irrelevant)? Tie it together for me.