Come Follow Me (April 1-7) - Talk about chastity, no mention of polygamy

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

King Josiah was given two wives by the prophet when he was about 12. Judging former times by modern sensibilities is myopic.

I’m not a historian, so I don’t know if it was acceptable then for a prepubescent boy to be married to two women, but I would suggest that it wasn’t a good idea then at all.  

Was it normal for my dad to tell racist jokes at the dinner table in the 80s? Yes. Should he have done it? Absolutely not. It’s OK to say it was wrong. Should I stop speaking to him now because this is what he did back then? ***It depends on if he keeps saying it or if he defends himself when I say it troubles me. **** 
 

 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

King Josiah was given two wives by the prophet when he was about 12. Judging former times by modern sensibilities is myopic.

I think we should clarify this -

We shouldn't judge people in the past by modern sensibilities. We don't need to judge historical 'times'. On the other hand, it is completely acceptable to judge past practices when those practices conflict with a better understanding of ethics and human rights.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m not a historian, so I don’t know if it was acceptable then for a prepubescent boy to be married to two women, but I would suggest that it wasn’t a good idea then at all.  

Was it normal for my dad to tell racist jokes at the dinner table in the 80s? Yes. Should he have done it? Absolutely not. It’s OK to say it was wrong. Should I stop speaking to him now because this is what he did back then? ***It depends on if he keeps saying it or if he defends himself when I say it troubles me. **** 
 

 

 

Wait, do we have the same dad?  But seriously, I've said or done things I'm not proud of either. I think both our dad's were products of their time. My dad is now deceased, but I believe he'd be so ashamed now. At least I hope he would be.

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Wait, do we have the same dad?  But seriously, I've said or done things I'm not proud of either. I think both our dad's were products of their time. My dad is now deceased, but I believe he'd be so ashamed now. At least I hope he would be.

Yes, racism was widely acceptable back then. 
I think the question is, was adults marrying children widely acceptable enough to give Joseph Smith a pass? 

[MustardSeed]

Also of course we all have done regrettable things.  Should we defend them?

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The caveat, unless needing to raise up seed.

Hmmm, 40 polygamous wives and no additional seed from anyone but Emma to show for it. 

This raising seed argument is a common one used by many of the very people who also try to argue that Joseph never consummated any of his other marriages, thus defeating the original argument. 

So, which is it?

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Hmmm, 40 polygamous wives and no additional seed from anyone but Emma to show for it. 

This raising seed argument is a common one used by many of the very people who also try to argue that Joseph never consummated any of his other marriages, thus defeating the original argument. 

So, which is it?

 

I believe it was used to raise up a generation of leaders for the future of the Church, not just seed in general. Who more equipped to lead the Church than the children of those willing to keep ALL the principles taught?

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe it was used to raise up a generation of leaders for the future of the Church, not just seed in general. Who more equipped to lead the Church than the children of those willing to keep ALL the principles taught?

Except, the scriptures state that polygamy is evil and not a principle of the Gospel.  How do you explain the canonical doctrine in the Book of Mormon which states that polygamy is evil, with the singular exception where God may command it to raise seed?  Otherwise, it is a BIG no, no.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Except, the scriptures state that polygamy is evil and not a principle of the Gospel.  How do you explain the canonical doctrine in the Book of Mormon which states that polygamy is evil, with the singular exception where God may command it to raise seed?  Otherwise, it is a BIG no, no.  

Wrong.

The scriptures state it is evil when practiced out of order and to satisfy personal lust.

When there is a key holder and the Lord permits it, it is wholly acceptable.

Plus:

"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified... for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:62-63)

[MustardSeed]

There will always be people who hold tightly to the righteousness of polygamy. I can’t relate, but I don’t think it matters terribly much. People make decisions that I find to be immoral all the time.  (for the record, I do not believe that polygamy was directed by God, I believe it was man-made.) 

[Benjamin McGuire]

48 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe it was used to raise up a generation of leaders for the future of the Church, not just seed in general. Who more equipped to lead the Church than the children of those willing to keep ALL the principles taught?

Maybe that's what Brigham Young was thinking when he ordained his son John Willard to the apostleship at age 11, right after he had him endowed ... might have had a bit of a lack of inspiration on that one. Interestingly, he didn't become the prophet of the Church in 1901 when Lorenzo Snow died. While he was the most senior apostle, they changed the understanding of seniority for the purpose of choosing the next prophet by starting that seniority with entrance in the Quorum of the Twelve. Perhaps this was the best thing, since he was heavily criticized for using Church funds to pay for his lifestyle and to help deal with the large debts he incurred through his failed business ventures in New York City ...

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, pogi said:

Except, the scriptures state that polygamy is evil and not a principle of the Gospel.  How do you explain the canonical doctrine in the Book of Mormon which states that polygamy is evil, with the singular exception where God may command it to raise seed?  Otherwise, it is a BIG no, no.  

The fruit of polygamy is still haunting generations. But I know that evil leaders used/use it to harm, many were innocent when practicing it thinking it was from God. But had JS not introduced it, how many of these women/girls could have been spared the horrific abuses. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13220383/Polygamist-cult-member-admits-trafficking-four-underage-girls-Arizona-Utah-border-scheme-depraved-prophet-took-20-wives-including-ten-children.html

Edited April 5, 2024 by Tacenda

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Maybe that's what Brigham Young was thinking when he ordained his son John Willard to the apostleship at age 11, right after he had him endowed ... might have had a bit of a lack of inspiration on that one. Interestingly, he didn't become the prophet of the Church in 1901 when Lorenzo Snow died. While he was the most senior apostle, they changed the understanding of seniority for the purpose of choosing the next prophet by starting that seniority with entrance in the Quorum of the Twelve. Perhaps this was the best thing, since he was heavily criticized for using Church funds to pay for his lifestyle and to help deal with the large debts he incurred through his failed business ventures in New York City ...

And Judas betrayed the Savior....

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And Judas betrayed the Savior...

And I am not sure how that is even relevant.

The problem that we have is that we want to find ways to defend polygamy. So we invent reasons. Everyone who has ever read a lot into the early LDS polygamy practices comes up with a theory. I have my own understanding of it. It's probably wrong in many ways. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that we shouldn't feel the need to defend it. It's gone. We need to move beyond it. As McConkie said about another topic -

Quote

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation

I think he means this literally. We can recognize that it happened. In the absence of explicit statements, we have no need to fabricate or construct explanations about why it happened and what its purpose might have been. It is the controversy that keeps bringing it back to the surface though. Most of the rest of that history - the changes to the organization and structure of the Celestial Kingdom, the changes to sealings - all of that we managed to forget quite quickly.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I am not sure how that is even relevant.

The problem that we have is that we want to find ways to defend polygamy. So we invent reasons. Everyone who has ever read a lot into the early LDS polygamy practices comes up with a theory. I have my own understanding of it. It's probably wrong in many ways. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that we shouldn't feel the need to defend it. It's gone. We need to move beyond it. As McConkie said about another topic -

I think he means this literally. We can recognize that it happened. In the absence of explicit statements, we have no need to fabricate or construct explanations about why it happened and what its purpose might have been. It is the controversy that keeps bringing it back to the surface though. Most of the rest of that history - the changes to the organization and structure of the Celestial Kingdom, the changes to sealings - all of that we managed to forget quite quickly.

I agree with you on not needing to defend it. 

I think the reason that it gets so much defense (compared to other changes like the ones you noted) is for two reasons.  First, because it is used so often as a stick to beat the church with and as evidence that JS was not a prophet and second, because--due to fundamental polygamist groups in the media and our own doctrine of polygamy in the celestial kingdom--it's still very much a part of the world we live in.

If those two things weren't true I think we'd hear about it as much as we hear about the changes to sealings.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

King Josiah was given two wives by the prophet when he was about 12. Judging former times by modern sensibilities is myopic.

I somewhat agree. 

Presentism is a real issue when dealing with historical events.  However, we also don't want to fall into the habit of treating historical exceptions as equal to the historical rule. Just because something occasionally (or rarely, or once) happened in the past does not mean it is representative of what was normal or acceptable in the past.  

Exceptions are dangerous things to use as precedent.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I somewhat agree. 

Presentism is a real issue when dealing with historical events.  However, we also don't want to fall into the habit of treating historical exceptions as equal to the historical rule. Just because something occasionally (or rarely, or once) happened in the past does not mean it is representative of what was normal or acceptable in the past.  

Exceptions are dangerous things to use as precedent.  

Agreed.

In the case of Joseph, as the Lord's chosen Servant, and the head of the dispensation of the fullness of times- I believe he qualifies for the benefit of the doubt.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think we should clarify this -

We shouldn't judge people in the past by modern sensibilities. We don't need to judge historical 'times'. On the other hand, it is completely acceptable to judge past practices when those practices conflict with a better understanding of ethics and human rights.

But even conceptions of ethics and human rights (and a third distinction can be made for morality) change with the "times" and circumstances, which have a way of influencing how those past and present process the facts. Putting a finer point on it, I would say it is acceptable to judge whether past practices comport with our current biases and sensibilities and to use a council approach to establish present day norms for a community. But judging the morality of the past practices themselves (and by extension, the practitioners), in good faith calls for a good deal of empathy-historicism hybrid, which introduce a strong bias (or in the absence thereof a barrier) in themselves. And very unpopular even if in the end, the practices are rejected.

I think the Church leaders back in the 1890s set forth good reasons for no longer practicing plural marriage in our faith community. Discovering other reasons that can be introduced into the Church councils may someday be necessary, but even these are run with good-faith revelation.

Edited April 5, 2024 by CV75

[pogi]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wrong.

The scriptures state it is evil when practiced out of order and to satisfy personal lust.

Since you are not the arbiter of scriptural interpretation, my interpretation is just as valid as yours.  I am glad you have found some way to make it work for you, but I don't read it that way.  

To me, it says clearly that monogamy is the order:

Quote

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any ^aman among you have save it be ^bone ^cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

Polygamy is the exceptions (only acceptable for one purpose):

Quote

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

You note the same exception listed in the D&C:

Quote

for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment

It then lists some obscure promise but then shows the purpose of the promise is this:

Quote

that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

 Your scripture doesn't contradict what I said.  It confirms it. 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2024 by pogi

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But even conceptions of ethics and human rights (and a third distinction can be made for morality) change with the "times" and circumstances, which have a way of influencing how those past and present process the facts.

Yes. But the moment you say "conceptions" you lose the argument. What you are saying here is that if a society views slavery as acceptable, that we should respect that point of view, and believe that slavery is acceptable when they practiced it. This is a pure sort of relativism that doesn't work (it the sort of claim that is used to make a caricature of relativism). We can make a claim, and a reasonable one at that, that slavery, or human sacrifice or any of a number of other potential practices are always wrong in whatever context they occur, regardless of how those who engage in those practices conceive of them.

So we don't have to judge those who engage in those practices (there are lots of reasons why people in the past have done or believed things that are wrong), but I think that we not only can claim that slavery is bad in every context, or human sacrifice is bad in every context, we have a moral obligation to make these claims.

Are you really such a relativist?

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the Church leaders back in the 1890s set forth good reasons for no longer practicing plural marriage in our faith community. Discovering other reasons that can be introduced into the Church councils may someday be necessary, but even these are run with good-faith revelation.

I think that they can cross that bridge when they get to it. Until then, making wild speculations (without any real substantive evidence) about the good that polygamy did as a way of defending polygamy is, I think, harmful. As I said, we shouldn't feel the need to defend it (which doesn't mean we have to condemn it).

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

think that they can cross that bridge when they get to it. Until then, making wild speculations (without any real substantive evidence) about the good that polygamy did as a way of defending polygamy is, I think, harmful. As I said, we shouldn't feel the need to defend it (which doesn't mean we have to condemn it).

I am curious how you approach the issue of polygyny in the Celestial Kingdom.  Does this need to be defended because in one sense it is a current practice as people prepare to practice it in their next life and it appears to be seen as doctrinal by many, including leaders?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Agreed.

In the case of Joseph, as the Lord's chosen Servant, and the head of the dispensation of the fullness of times- I believe he qualifies for the benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of the doubt with what though?  We were talking about the historicity of the prevalence of young marriages.  I'm not sure what giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt has to do with whether or not marrying young was a common thing back in the day.

Can you elaborate?

 

Edited April 5, 2024 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wrong.

The scriptures state it is evil when practiced out of order and to satisfy personal lust.

So we are back to ‘it is okay as long as you don’t enjoy it too much’

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yes. But the moment you say "conceptions" you lose the argument. What you are saying here is that if a society views slavery as acceptable, that we should respect that point of view, and believe that slavery is acceptable when they practiced it. This is a pure sort of relativism that doesn't work (it the sort of claim that is used to make a caricature of relativism). We can make a claim, and a reasonable one at that, that slavery, or human sacrifice or any of a number of other potential practices are always wrong in whatever context they occur, regardless of how those who engage in those practices conceive of them.

So we don't have to judge those who engage in those practices (there are lots of reasons why people in the past have done or believed things that are wrong), but I think that we not only can claim that slavery is bad in every context, or human sacrifice is bad in every context, we have a moral obligation to make these claims.

Are you really such a relativist?

I think that they can cross that bridge when they get to it. Until then, making wild speculations (without any real substantive evidence) about the good that polygamy did as a way of defending polygamy is, I think, harmful. As I said, we shouldn't feel the need to defend it (which doesn't mean we have to condemn it).

No. I am saying that if a society viewed slavery/human sacrifice as acceptable, and ours today has a question about its suitability for our circumstances (and do we really?) empathy and historicism in council works best for adopting and improving practices that prevent it today. It could be observed that we simply own people as property and sacrifice them in more subtle ways than we did in the 19^th century – let’s claim that is bad and do something about it.

If you meant to focus on slavery and human sacrifice and not on Joseph and Helen, I took your post out of context. Given that, I am thinking of how an analog is practiced today, and what can be dome to eliminate it. We too have multiple sex partners, including children, in more socially permissible ways than polygamy and child marriage. As an individual you can claim that polygamy and child marriage are bad in every context known to you, but there are contexts, especially in the past of which you are unfamiliar or possess incorrect data, where they may not be the universal evil you suppose they are. Instead, how do you find out about and combat sexual immorality and child exploitation in our society today?

The Church teaches against the tradition of “lobola” – but clearly in context of what it has become and being a barrier to promulgating and living the higher law of the gospel today. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/04/young-adults/14-leaving-tradition-behind-and-trusting-the-lord?lang=eng

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

empathy and historicism in council works best for adopting and improving practices that prevent it today.

Are you saying here we shouldn’t accept reasoning that just because it may (or may not of been, doesn’t really matter for the argument) have been appropriate for a past culture a practice is automatically appropriate for our current one (like those who attempt to emulate “biblical marriage” in their relationship because they see the Bible as infallible for any time period)?  
 

Or something else?

Quote

As an individual you can claim that polygamy and child marriage are bad in every context known to you, but there are contexts, especially in the past of which you are unfamiliar or possess incorrect data, where they may not be the universal evil you suppose they are. 

The “you” here is generic, correct?  You are talking about a general approach for everyone, not just Ben?

Edited April 5, 2024 by Calm