Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Distinct polygamy concerns


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think a good historical overview of Joseph Smith's polygamy is the first two books of Brian Hales series "Joseph Smith's Polygamy".  The third book is more of an attempt to explain the doctrine behind his polygamy and also discusses Brian's belief on polyandry. 

Can you briefly describe what the third book has to say, about the "doctrine behind" Joseph's polygamy, and Brian Hales' belief on polyandry?  I ask because years ago, as a very-much-believing Latter-day Saint, I read every seemingly-relevant talk cited in the index of the Journal of Discourses and none of them really explained the underlying WHY to me.  Also polyandry was something that stood out in my amateur investigation years ago, so I'd be interested in Hales's thoughts on the subject.  

Edit:  If you'd rather go to private messaging so as not to de-rail, that's fine with me.

 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, manol said:

Can you briefly describe what the third book has to say, about the "doctrine behind" Joseph's polygamy, and Brian Hales' belief on polyandry?  I ask because years ago, as a very-much-believing Latter-day Saint, I read every seemingly-relevant talk cited in the index of the Journal of Discourses and none of them really explained the underlying WHY to me.  Also polyandry was something that stood out in my amateur investigation years ago, so I'd be interested in Hales's thoughts on the subject.  

I'm going off of memory, but he looks at the known doctrinal sources (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C 132) and then uses those to see how Joseph's polygamy fits with them.  He assumes that Joseph wasn't just making up the doctrine as he went and so when there are hard to explain situations, he tries to find a "solution" from those doctrinal foundations.  The third book wasn't really the most interesting of books to me so I might have also misread it (I was much more interested in the historical details).

For his polyandry, I understood him to mean that for the women who actually had sex with both Joseph and their other husband, they weren't actually polyandrous but serially monogamous.  Meaning, they would only be with one husband until some sort of separation; they aren't going back and forth between husbands.

He runs the website https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ which isn't nearly as detailed but might give some better understanding of his thoughts.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, juliann said:

Says the man to women who will never experience or have to experience what women have or will. 

Well, it was a comment to one poster, whether they be man or woman.

No one truly experiences what another person does, only in assumed ways, or in the most general, publicly expressed terms. This is why I asked the question. Anger does not contribute to wholesome conversation. For example, I've not seen an angry person avoid expressing contention, one way or another, in a Church meeting contribute. Anger takes precedence over content.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

When a man is explaining to a woman how she should handle something or feel about something that doesn't apply to him or that he has never/will never experience, that's usually a good example of "mansplaining".

Yes, that is a good example, and that is how I would describe it. That is precisely what is not going on in my posts, and no one has addressed the content of my remarks to show  otherwise. My remarks do apply to me, and as I wrote to the poster above, no one completely experiences what another person does. "Experience" is too general and broad a concept to put front and center with anger concerning a specific topic.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please explain how mansplaining applies in this case. I think people are responsible for personally managing their anger on this or any other topic, and we have the gift of the Holy Ghost to assist that.

Mansplaining - when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he's talking to does.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

CFR, please.   

https://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00-shtml/

Quote

 

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, juliann said:

He is talking about obeying the law and quoting an article of faith.

I condemn the practice of polygamy today.  It is illegal.  If polygamy is legalized, I will still condemn it.  I fully hold that polygamy is not doctrinal today and that anyone who practices it should be excommunicated.  

However, it was doctrinal in the past. Do you believe it was not instituted by God?  

"I think it is not doctrinal" is talking about today.   He didn't say it was wrong in the past.   He immediately pivoted to the legalities.

And he sure didn't say it in General Conference.  I wouldn't rest my hat on that single quote. 

So, again,  do you believe polygamy was instituted by God in the Restoration or not?

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Mansplaining - when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he's talking to does.

Yes, that is a good example, and that is how I would describe what mansplaining is. But you didn't address my question as to how it plays out in the content of my posts since I would say that it is precisely what is not going on; can you answer my actual question?

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, that is a good example, and that is how I would describe what mansplaining is. But you didn't address my question as to how it plays out in the content of my posts since I would say that it is precisely what is not going on; can you answer my actual question?

 

My take on your answer to her was you were telling her how she needed to handle her thoughts and feelings toward any subject she had questions on. It was very logical and without empathy. Directing your answer to her instead of making it a general comment came off as personal and mansplaining. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m sort of curious, why the apparent resistance, refusal, or avoidance of the empathy that several women have requested on this topic? Some have offered it, which is so meaningful.  I wonder what is the perceived cost of something so simple? 

I'm guessing from my experiences with some on other topics, but I think the hesitation (or refusal) to offer empathy happens when someone doesn't know how to validate an emotion or position that they personally believe is wrong.  Which I can understand on a level because that can be tricky sometimes.

I think some equate empathy with approval and that makes it hard to empathize without appearing to agree.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is that is what is being advocated here?  I admit I am not paying super-duper attention, but the gist I have sensed is along these lines.  Members of the Church want to jettison Plural Marriage as a doctrine.  Altogether.  It was never a doctrine, not in the 19th century, not now in latent form.  Is this right?

It seems this is what @juliannis advocating when she sys things like this:

Quote

We would be in a huge mess if everything that came from God is eternal. I find this a very odd position to take. I'll stick with Pres. Hinckley who flat out said it isn't doctrinal, and other leaders who consistently refer to it as a practice that ended

I am not sure what other leaders she is referring to.  And President Hinckley's not doctrinal comment was in a public interview so why that suddenly carries great weight is beyond me. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm guessing from my experiences with some on other topics, but I think the hesitation (or refusal) to offer empathy happens when someone doesn't know how to validate an emotion or position that they personally believe is wrong.  Which I can understand on a level because that can be tricky sometimes.

I think some equate empathy with approval and that makes it hard to empathize without appearing to agree.

I might add that some people (me especially) are really bad at identifying when someone is looking for empathy versus resolution. My DIL and I have an ongoing joke where I ask her if she is looking for my opinion or empathy for something she tells me. I usually guess wrong.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, SkyRock said:

He is talking about obeying the law and quoting an article of faith.

I condemn the practice of polygamy today.  It is illegal.

It was also illegal in the 19th century when the Church was living it.

15 hours ago, SkyRock said:

 

 

  If polygamy is legalized, I will still condemn it.  I fully hold that polygamy is not doctrinal today and that anyone who practices it should be excommunicated.  

However, it was doctrinal in the past. Do you believe it was not instituted by God?  

HOw can something go from doctrinal to non doctrinal.  What about men sealed to more than one woman now if say divorced or prior spouse died?

15 hours ago, SkyRock said:

"I think it is not doctrinal" is talking about today.   He didn't say it was wrong in the past.   He immediately pivoted to the legalities.

And he sure didn't say it in General Conference.  I wouldn't rest my hat on that single quote. 

Seems to be a thin item to hand one's hat onthat it was not or is not doctrinal.

15 hours ago, SkyRock said:

So, again,  do you believe polygamy was instituted by God in the Restoration or not?

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

My take on your answer to her was you were telling her how she needed to handle her thoughts and feelings toward any subject she had questions on. It was very logical and without empathy. Directing your answer to her instead of making it a general comment came off as personal and mansplaining. 

So the mansplaining wasn't about the content, but your take on my "approach," which you imputed from a limited exchange between anonymous users?

I recommend anyone concerned about that re-read the exchange to see that 1. my original interlocutor was not talking about herself but about men and women in general; 2. I was doing likewise. As far as directing my reply directly to her, what else is a discussion board for, than to respectfully engage those whose posts prompt an idea or two on the topic at hand?

If you want to re-post my comment as as stand-alone comment directed to no one in particular, please feel free to do so.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I might add that some people (me especially) are really bad at identifying when someone is looking for empathy versus resolution. My DIL and I have an ongoing joke where I ask her if she is looking for my opinion or empathy for something she tells me. I usually guess wrong.

Agreed.  Communications problems can also be an big issue.  Especially between men and women.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I do believe that it was instituted by God but that it was often practiced in a way that was not condoned by Him.

That seems like a bit of equivocation.  Why did God allow that?  

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That seems like a bit of equivocation.  Why did God allow that?  

I don’t know. I leaned towards it being because He knows we are mortal and flawed and there were still benefits to practicing it imperfectly. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...