Old Testament Polygmay

[nuclearfuels]

I noticed in Sunday School the sophists in my ward didn't make comments about Old Testament Polygamy and how much they are incensed by it. Wonder why?

Very different than their comments in elder's quorumn during our studies of D&C

No word about Moses' wives, Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines; Jacob and Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah; etc.

 

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I noticed in Sunday School the sophists in my ward didn't make comments about Old Testament Polygamy and how much they are incensed by it. Wonder why?

Very different than their comments in elder's quorumn during our studies of D&C

No word about Moses' wives, Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines; Jacob and Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah; etc.

 

In Sunday school you should have studied the first chapters of Moses and Abraham yesterday.  Does polygamy come up in those chapters?  I don't remember it being a topic in there, and if it's not then that seems like a very simple answer to the bolded the above.

[smac97]

On 1/3/2022 at 1:49 PM, nuclearfuels said:

I noticed in Sunday School the sophists in my ward didn't make comments about Old Testament Polygamy and how much they are incensed by it. Wonder why?

First, I would encourage you to not disparage people who struggle with polygamy by calling them "sophists."  There are ample grounds for an individual to, in good faith, have difficulty with it.  Joseph Smith struggled mightily with it.  So did Brigham Young.  So did (and do) many others.

Second, polygamy did not seem to be a part of the lesson.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 4, 2022 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I noticed in Sunday School the sophists in my ward didn't make comments about Old Testament Polygamy and how much they are incensed by it. Wonder why?

Very different than their comments in elder's quorumn during our studies of D&C

No word about Moses' wives, Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines; Jacob and Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah; etc.

 

Double standard.  It's ok as long as kept far far away from us. 😂

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I noticed in Sunday School the sophists in my ward didn't make comments about Old Testament Polygamy and how much they are incensed by it. Wonder why?

Very different than their comments in elder's quorumn during our studies of D&C

No word about Moses' wives, Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines; Jacob and Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah; etc.

You may have noticed that the Book of Mormon harshly condemns David and Solomon for their many wives and concubines, and that Lehi insisted on monogamy for the Nephites.  Both Sunday School and Elders Quorum classes could reasonably have a worthwhile discussion of that, without being disagreeable.  There are a number of other sensitive issues which could be addressed, but which some may not consider suitable for polite company.  When we had regular discussions of controversial topics in Elders Quorum, I noticed that attendance grew over time.

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In Sunday school you should have studied the first chapters of Moses and Abraham yesterday.  Does polygamy come up in those chapters?  I don't remember it being a topic in there, and if it's not then that seems like a very simple answer to the bolded the above.

He may be referring to Moses and Abraham both being polygamists.  He may be disappointed that that issue was not addressed.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He may be referring to Moses and Abraham both being polygamists.  He may be disappointed that that issue was not addressed.

Probably what he is referring to, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to believe many members, regardless of their feelings about polygamy, would bring it up to condemn it when the lesson material doesn’t cover it at all. 

[Chum]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Probably what he is referring to, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to believe many members, regardless of their feelings about polygamy, would bring it up to condemn it when the lesson material doesn’t cover it at all. 

At some point our approach to polygamy becomes Faulty Towers and DON'T MENTION THE WAR.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

At some point our approach to polygamy becomes Faulty Towers and DON'T MENTION THE WAR.

Oh, Mormon! I’m sorry, I thought there was something wrong with you! Of course! Mormon!

(whispering) Don’t mention the polygamy.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I noticed in Sunday School the sophists in my ward didn't make comments about Old Testament Polygamy and how much they are incensed by it. Wonder why?

Very different than their comments in elder's quorumn during our studies of D&C

No word about Moses' wives, Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines; Jacob and Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah; etc.

 

Polygamy is a hard issue for westerners to accept.  Sadly the church took a 180 degree turn after polygamy ended to one of being strongly defended to avoided.  
 

I do believe as more people accept same sex marriage that polygamy will be accepted more as well.  If same sex marriage does not bother someone, why should polygamy If those involved are legal age and consent to it freely bother them?  I give it 10 to 20 years for polygamy to slowly cook and it will be legal and accepted in society.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I noticed in Sunday School the sophists in my ward didn't make comments about Old Testament Polygamy and how much they are incensed by it. Wonder why?

I would think if Sophists showed up you would be more concerned about the implications of time travel being real and question them about life in Ancient Greece. Also empathize with them killing Socrates. That disingenuous weirdo must have been so annoying to deal with.

“I am going to pretend to ignorance about this topic then ask endless leading questions to make you come to the conclusion I had in mind from the beginning. It will be fun”

”Look, it was kind of funny the first time you did but the whole pretense thing is getting tired and boring.”

”Well, I know nothing about pretense and would not presume to lecture anyone on it but I do have some questions about it….”

*whispers* “Get the hemlock.”

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Polygamy is a hard issue for westerners to accept.  Sadly the church took a 180 degree turn after polygamy ended to one of being strongly defended to avoided.  
 

I do believe as more people accept same sex marriage that polygamy will be accepted more as well.  If same sex marriage does not bother someone, why should polygamy If those involved are legal age and consent to it freely bother them?  I give it 10 to 20 years for polygamy to slowly cook and it will be legal and accepted in society.

And probably still get your name removed from our records.

I kind of miss calling it excommunication.

[carbon dioxide]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Probably what he is referring to, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to believe many members, regardless of their feelings about polygamy, would bring it up to condemn it when the lesson material doesn’t cover it at all. 

Which raises the question why does not the lesson mention it.  Avoiding an issue does not make it go away.  It only gives those outside of the church to dominate the issues.  Sort of like teaching sex to kids.  Either the parents teach or the schools, media, and friends teach.  They are going to get taught by someone at some point so might as well get in the game and present your side.

[Stormin' Mormon]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Which raises the question why does not the lesson mention it. 

Uhhhmm, the lesson doesn't mention it because the text doesn't mention it.  Yeah, Moses and Abraham were polygamists, but nowhere in Moses 1 or Abraham 3 is their marital status even mentioned.  It might be a better fit for when we get further into Genesis and we are discussing the marriages of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses.  But in a lesson about these two chapters?  That would seriously be out of place. 

[carbon dioxide]

3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Uhhhmm, the lesson doesn't mention it because the text doesn't mention it.  Yeah, Moses and Abraham were polygamists, but nowhere in Moses 1 or Abraham 3 is their marital status even mentioned.  It might be a better fit for when we get further into Genesis and we are discussing the marriages of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses.  But in a lesson about these two chapters?  That would seriously be out of place. 

That is a good point.  On vacation so I missed the lesson this week. However I suspect that as the lessons advance, it will be passively referred at best.  Unless something has changed, polygamy is a topic the church typically dances around.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Which raises the question why does not the lesson mention it.  Avoiding an issue does not make it go away.  It only gives those outside of the church to dominate the issues.  Sort of like teaching sex to kids.  Either the parents teach or the schools, media, and friends teach.  They are going to get taught by someone at some point so might as well get in the game and present your side.

Did you read Moses 1 and Abraham 1?  Why would this lesson mention it?  

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Uhhhmm, the lesson doesn't mention it because the text doesn't mention it.  Yeah, Moses and Abraham were polygamists, but nowhere in Moses 1 or Abraham 3 is their marital status even mentioned.  It might be a better fit for when we get further into Genesis and we are discussing the marriages of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses.  But in a lesson about these two chapters?  That would seriously be out of place. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I would think if Sophists showed up you would be more concerned about the implications of time travel being real and question them about life in Ancient Greece. Also empathize with them killing Socrates. That disingenuous weirdo must have been so annoying to deal with.

“I am going to pretend to ignorance about this topic then ask endless leading questions to make you come to the conclusion I had in mind from the beginning. It will be fun”

”Look, it was kind of funny the first time you did but the whole pretense thing is getting tired and boring.”

”Well, I know nothing about pretense and would not presume to lecture anyone on it but I do have some questions about it….”

*whispers* “Get the hemlock.”

You definitely understand the Socratic method, clearly enough!

[The Nehor]

Coming up later tonight: A local church seems to actively avoid discussion about a sensitive and controversial issue in a class even though the text the class was studying (ominous music) did not even mention it.

Details at 11.

Edited January 3, 2022 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

You definitely understand the Socratic method, clearly enough!

I read a lot of Plato. While I think Socrates was a funny guy and would love to pick his brain on a few topics his method would have gotten obnoxious very fast if used as portrayed. If done in a classroom or explicit teacher-student relationship I would have found it annoying but more tolerable. In the Dialogues though he is just hanging out with friends and does his whole ‘mock ignorance and then asking probing questions’ bit which would have been a bit of a mood killer.

I would add as a side note that I have encountered too many people who profess that they are using the Socratic Method when really they are just arguing a point and using endless questions to put their opponent on a perpetual defense without ever taking a stance on anything. This is particularly annoying.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I noticed in Sunday School the sophists in my ward didn't make comments about Old Testament Polygamy and how much they are incensed by it. Wonder why?

Very different than their comments in elder's quorumn during our studies of D&C

No word about Moses' wives, Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines; Jacob and Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah; etc.

 

OT multiple wives was a cultural thing when women were treated more as property than humans.  And nowhere in the OT is it commanded to take multiple wives to be exalted. The Book of Mormon condemns David and Solomon's many wives but D&C 132 directly contradicts the passages condemning it that are found in Jacob 2.

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

That is a good point.  On vacation so I missed the lesson this week. However I suspect that as the lessons advance, it will be passively referred at best.  Unless something has changed, polygamy is a topic the church typically dances around.  

I teach Gospel Doctrine in my ward, and I run my classes more as a moderated discussion than like a classroom. My discussion questions focus on practical everyday applications of what we are reading: How do I use this in my life? With my family? In my community?

A discussion about polygamy has no relevance to the way I will go about my life next Tuesday. I therefore don't see myself leading a discussion about Abraham's polygamy when there are so many other practical principles that can be discussed instead with my extremely limited time with my class.

Gospel Doctrine lessons are less than an hour each, twice a month. It was only four lessons ago that I led a detailed discussion about polygamy with my class (the lesson on D&C 132). With so little time to teach each month, and with an in-depth lesson on polygamy not that far in the rearview mirror, I just don't see a pressing need to return to the subject in any of my OT lessons.

Edited to add: taking Stake and General Conferences into consideration, There are actually only an average of 1.83 Gospel Doctrine lessons per month.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

directly contradicts the passages condemning it that are found in Jacob 2.

Intentionally ignoring verse 30 I see.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Probably what he is referring to, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to believe many members, regardless of their feelings about polygamy, would bring it up to condemn it when the lesson material doesn’t cover it at all. 

He may feel that the lesson material is merely suggestive  and not controlling of what gets discussed.  Hence his disappointment.

[JustAnAustralian]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He may feel that the lesson material is merely suggestive  and not controlling of what gets discussed.  Hence his disappointment.

He'll have a chance to bring it up in Feb when the material does cover that time period (for Abraham at least).