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

[PortalToParis]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are tons of these couples over the existence of humanity though due to high mortality in childbirth as well as all the men that died and women needing to remarry to be able to be financially stable.

But I was more interested in how you see it because I can pick your brain for nuances and can’t others not here.  .:) 

I think that there have been *so many* unhappy and abusive pairings over mortality, even among couples that were sealed together during this life, that there might be some significant rearranging going on in the next life. I don't believe that the Lord will be forcing people to stay with an abuser in the next life, in a "you must choose to be with your sealed abuser or go down to the lower degree" arrangement. The idea that a woman would be so happy to be with her husband who treated her badly in this life that she would still want to worship him in his glory in the next life is a quote from Brigham Young that I don't personally think to be valid. I think that a righteous person who qualifies for a celestial relationship will ultimately get to pick who they have that relationship with (provided they are also picked by the other person too). I think that we are *intended* to live in such a way that we will be able to find a spouse here with such sustainable, healthy love that we will still want to be with them for all eternity after death. I think that won't be happening for a lot of people though, but if we're righteous and worthy we can have our sealings be transferred to another righteous soul.

Edited April 6, 2024 by PortalToParis

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

I think that there have been *so many* unhappy and abusive pairings over mortality, even among couples that were sealed together during this life, that there might be some significant rearranging going on in the next life. I don't believe that the Lord will be forcing people to stay with an abuser in the next life, in a "you must choose to be with your sealed abuser or go down to the lower degree" arrangement. The idea that a woman would be so happy to be with her husband who treated her badly in this life that she would still want to worship him in his glory in the next life is a quote from Brigham Young that I don't personally think to be valid. I think that a righteous person who qualifies for a celestial relationship will ultimately get to pick who they have that relationship with (provided they are also picked by the other person too). I think that we are *intended* to live in such a way that we will be able to find a spouse here with such sustainable, healthy love that we will still want to be with them for all eternity after death. I think that won't be happening for a lot of people though, but if we're righteous and worthy we can have our sealings be transferred to another righteous soul.

Thanks for sharing.  I definitely agree about abusers, etc.  There is something wrong with that as it feels like the man is rewarded for being an abuser just because he was smart enough to get sealed.  I get he has to repent, but given how many times we are told sinning can have eternal consequences, I don’t see a sealing as a get out of jail free card for abusive behaviour.  Goes back to the “amen to his priesthood” verse for me.  I see it more likely as the abuser has to start from scratch unless for some reason their partner and children want to be sealed to him.

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

It’s rare I have someone to play with this late.  It’s been great.    My alarm says it’s time to turn off the lights, so good night everyone who is still around,   . Let’s pick it up again tomorrow 

PS:  I made a mistake thinking the article on marriage was part of the lectures on faith. I corrected myself in the original post. 

[PortalToParis]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why remain a "Utah Mormon" if Joseph III and the RLDS people were right the entire time?? *

I think the LDS church and the now CoC have both diverged from certain original teachings of Joseph Smith's time. Right now we are two splinter groups, but I think we can continue reverting back to all original teachings as they were restored. I think that way, way in the future a convergence can be made, in which our principles and teachings return back to harmony with eachother and we become one in Zion again. If I were the Lord, I imagine my plan for the Millennium would be to settle all inter-church and inter-faith disputes such that we are no more "LDS Mormons" or "FLDS Mormons" or "RLDS Mormons", just like in The Book of Mormon we read that the people became no longer Nephites, Ishmaelites, Lamanites, or any manner of -ites. I don't know if that answer satisfies you or not, it might sound too 'Christian universalism' to you, but that's what I think. Regardless, I still believe the ordination of the priesthood from those who received it from the line of Joseph Smith to be valid, and is in effect for those who use it worthily.

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

I am not opposed (at least in principle) to the idea of multiple spouses - either a woman having multiple husbands or a man having multiple wives. In the context of our current societal norms, there are problems with these kinds of relationships - but, we can all, I think, recognize that any post-mortal condition will not come with these societal conditions.

Polygamy, when it is instituted in a way that is non-egalitarian, when it promotes marriages between older men and younger women (a necessity once the rate of polygamy exceeds a relatively small threshold), and when it creates inequality within these multi-partner relationships is not a terribly healthy thing. But again, all of these issues cannot be contextualized in a post-mortal condition.

I think that the idea of polygamy as doctrinal is problematic - and that there is a strong chance that LDS leaders who understand the idea of polygamy as doctrinal do not have anything resembling a complete understanding. Polygyny is a practice that is biologically centered in human beings. This is a consensus view for those who study the evolutionary biology of human beings. I think that this complicates the issue in our mortal probationary period. I don't have any sort of working knowledge of what demands our post-mortal condition will be like - but I believe with some certainty that sealings are not guarantees - and that men who are sealed to more than one woman are in no different a situation than women who are sealed to more than one man.

Finally, there is the historical context. The idea that sealings between men and women (marital sealings) form the organization of the post-mortal condition is a relatively late idea in Mormon thought. Much of the development towards our current views came in both the pre-polygamy and post-polygamy periods. It was the controversy at the time that gave polygamy an oversized sense of importance. No one today, for example, would believe that I as a man would only inherit the third level of the celestial kingdom (an idea that is itself a development of the late 1800s), if I were sealed to multiple women. To see this as a development of a historical process isn't to deny its potential to be driven by revelation, but it is a recognition that we (like all of those before us) only see ourselves in the context of the moment in which we exist. To think that we have arrived at the real truth in this moment right now is in my opinion, foolish and shortsighted. There will almost certainly be future changes to these ideas (assuming of course that the LDS Church continues to receive revelation and hasn't reached a dead end).

Now to answer your question - the problem we have is that we are still too closely connected to the practice of polygamy. Our leaders are all old, and reflect the beliefs of the Church more in the period in which they were raised, than the Church of today. We have seen echoes of this sort of thing over my lifetime in the discussions over women praying in sacrament meeting, women sitting on the stand in general conference, and so on (women's issues are certainly a generationally distinct issue in our society). And given that the LDS Church is a church of converts, this creates gaps between the new converts and the cultural Mormons. I think that we would do far better to explore polygamy within a historical context than within a doctrinal context - so that we aren't trying to both defend it and criticize it at the same time. It would have been better if we had had a leader who made a statement like McConkie did about race and the priesthood - but I think that the leaders at the time were still heavily invested in it themselves - there was no distance. The last surviving child of a polygamist president of the LDS Church was a daughter of Lorenzo Snow, who didn't pass until 1976. Until more recently, many of the LDS Church leaders had polygamy in their family histories. All of this is changing. The percentage of LDS membership who have strong polygamist elements in their family history is shrinking quickly. The need to defend the practice is no longer quite so close to us or to our leaders so I think that we will be looking more at the doctrine of polygamy as a legacy of a certain period of the Church that is far less relevant to the membership today. I think that the need to defend the practice shrinks every year.

Having said that, I think that in the context of a space like this (with so many different voices) it will continue to come up - long after we stop hearing about it the pews. The reality is that the Church claims that polygamy was stopped by revelation. There are those who are going to argue that this was done of necessity to protect the Church, but that seems to be a relatively weak argument for an omnipotent God. It isn't so much about the theology as it is about the tradition - and traditions change.

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

That's not what you said (even if it's what you meant). And this is just playing word games now (not even a semantic argument) - so you are trying now to remove any context for the real issue at the heart of this discussion. I think that the question of human slavery (of someone owning someone else) is wrong in any context. Wouldn't you agree? If we can go so far as to say that overwhelming debt is a form of slavery, you run into a problem because our society actually disapproves of this. We disapprove of predatory lending. We disapprove of lots of related issues - but we have this challenge in that lobbyists working for those who are engaged in these predatory practices are working with sympathetic members of the legislature to protect these kinds of things. We could talk about reverses in some places to child labor standards ... but, those are the fuzzier applications, aren't they. Human trafficking, actual human slavery, and lots of other related issues are very clearly a red line in our society. I'll stop here on this because otherwise it will get too political. But I would suggest that in fact we do claim that these things are bad and we are conflicted about what to do about it.

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

No. Actually, they were all evil the past. We have had this discussion numerous times on this forum. The fact that something in a specific context may be the lesser of two evils doesn't actually change if from being evil to being good. But this is what you seem to be suggesting. You are trying to redirect the discussion by bringing in modern conditions - but we don't base what makes these things wrong on ideas that we think are solely rooted in cultural and societal attitudes. We base them on things that we can look at empirically - and with that empirical understanding, we can expect that in every instance in the past it was bad, not just the ones that we can look at. This is true whether we are talking about child marriage, or slavery, or say, serial killing.

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

And now we are trying to deflect again. What does the Church's engagement (and their choice in the way they do it) have to do with whether the practice is good or bad?

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

I think the LDS church and the now CoC have both diverged from certain original teachings of Joseph Smith's time. Right now we are two splinter groups, but I think we can continue reverting back to all original teachings as they were restored. I think that way, way in the future a convergence can be made, in which our principles and teachings return back to harmony with eachother and we become one in Zion again. If I were the Lord, I imagine my plan for the Millennium would be to settle all inter-church and inter-faith disputes such that we are no more "LDS Mormons" or "FLDS Mormons" or "RLDS Mormons", just like in The Book of Mormon we read that the people became no longer Nephites, Ishmaelites, Lamanites, or any manner of -ites. I don't know if that answer satisfies you or not, it might sound too 'Christian universalism' to you, but that's what I think. Regardless, I still believe the ordination of the priesthood from those who received it from the line of Joseph Smith to be valid, and is in effect for those who use it worthily.

I moved this part of the discussion to a new topic.

[PortalToParis]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

plus there is the whole “amen to his priesthood” for anyone who uses it in unrighteous domination of others.

You might think that D&C 43:3-4 applies here:

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

In these verses the Lord is saying that Joseph Smith is the one appointed to have the gift of revelation for the church, and that if he were to lose this gift (through unrighteously not "abiding" in the Lord) then he will not have power except to pass that gift (or the potential to have that gift) onto another. By this way of thinking you could argue support for the idea that priesthood lineage is always valid, but that any gifts of the priesthood are still only in effect for those who are using their priesthood righteously.

10 hours ago, Calm said:

but the Church has been teaching a pretty massive false doctrine for the majority of its existence and Brigham Young didn’t just lie if this is true, he married a number of women and caused a good percentage of the Church to sin and not just a little inconvenience, but massive harm if it wasn’t truly a sacrifice ordered by God for some purpose of his.

King Noah is also one who introduced polygamy to the church, and led the people of the church into a severe degree of very serious wickedness. The Book of Mormon narrative still doesn't state issue with that fact that Alma, after repentance, used his own same priesthood ordination to baptize people, even though it stated those who ordained Alma were so wicked as to be worthy of death.

The priesthood is meant to be for blessing the lives of others, not as a personal status symbol or a sign of worthiness. I've had several direct experiences in which I've received priesthood blessings from LDS men that were very, very much inspired, and even one miraculous healing for myself. One of those inspired priesthood blessings was from someone who was not temple worthy at the time, and who I also know was in certain ways at that very same time practicing a certain degree of "unrighteous dominion" within his family. I think the degree of blessing received from a priesthood blessing perhaps has more to do with the faith and worthiness of the recipient than the giver. 

I've never received a priesthood blessing from an RLDS restorationist elder, or from a Snufferite elder, but if I were ever in a situation in which I felt in need of a priesthood blessing with no LDS priesthood holders around I probably wouldn't actually hesitate in asking either one of them for a priesthood blessing.

Edited April 6, 2024 by PortalToParis

[MustardSeed]

Unfortunately for modern polygamists I don’t think age will be a factor in the hereafter.  
 

Also my opinion is that in the extra life, we will all be perfected. That should say afterlife, but it’s too cute to correct! 
That means, abusers will know themselves and will take accountability for the harm done. Those are abused will be able to participate in total forgiveness which will release them from their own pain. They will have the choice to have the partner they thought they were getting when they chose them.

IMO. 

[PortalToParis]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

There is something wrong with that as it feels like the man is rewarded for being an abuser just because he was smart enough to get sealed.  I get he has to repent, but given how many times we are told sinning can have eternal consequences, I don’t see a sealing as a get out of jail free card for abusive behaviour.

Agreed. I think an abusive priesthood holder will actually have to face more serious consequences than a similarly-abusive non-priesthood holder, under the principle of 'Where much is given much is required, and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.'

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's not what you said (even if it's what you meant). And this is just playing word games now (not even a semantic argument) - so you are trying now to remove any context for the real issue at the heart of this discussion. I think that the question of human slavery (of someone owning someone else) is wrong in any context. Wouldn't you agree? If we can go so far as to say that overwhelming debt is a form of slavery, you run into a problem because our society actually disapproves of this. We disapprove of predatory lending. We disapprove of lots of related issues - but we have this challenge in that lobbyists working for those who are engaged in these predatory practices are working with sympathetic members of the legislature to protect these kinds of things. We could talk about reverses in some places to child labor standards ... but, those are the fuzzier applications, aren't they. Human trafficking, actual human slavery, and lots of other related issues are very clearly a red line in our society. I'll stop here on this because otherwise it will get too political. But I would suggest that in fact we do claim that these things are bad and we are conflicted about what to do about it.

No. Actually, they were all evil the past. We have had this discussion numerous times on this forum. The fact that something in a specific context may be the lesser of two evils doesn't actually change if from being evil to being good. But this is what you seem to be suggesting. You are trying to redirect the discussion by bringing in modern conditions - but we don't base what makes these things wrong on ideas that we think are solely rooted in cultural and societal attitudes. We base them on things that we can look at empirically - and with that empirical understanding, we can expect that in every instance in the past it was bad, not just the ones that we can look at. This is true whether we are talking about child marriage, or slavery, or say, serial killing.

And now we are trying to deflect again. What does the Church's engagement (and their choice in the way they do it) have to do with whether the practice is good or bad?

Conceptions are important because that is what makes things "fuzzy" or concrete -- you have a conception of child marriage that renders it universally bad. For me, the Joseph and Helen story is not necessarily an example of child marriage being universally bad because I hold several conceptions of what child marriage might entail. The facts concerning their relationship might support a charge of badness, but as I understand them, not yet. I didn't mean to engage where a particular concept of child marriage is "the real issue at the heart of this discussion." Joseph and Helen don't seem to have much to do with that. It's a 2-post transaction: (1) Child marriage is such-and-such and only such-and-such and therefore bad (2) "OK."

 

Edited April 6, 2024 by CV75

[PortalToParis]

25 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Also my opinion is that in the extra life, we will all be perfected. That should say afterlife, but it’s too cute to correct! 
That means, abusers will know themselves and will take accountability for the harm done. Those are abused will be able to participate in total forgiveness which will release them from their own pain. They will have the choice to have the partner they thought they were getting when they chose them.

I believe in the principle of eternal progression for abusers as well, (and really for almost all of God's children), but I don't think it will be any quick change from unworthiness to worthiness (insert whatever quote it is from Amulek here). I think they'll need to go through the pain of growth for however-long until they have properly learned the lessons that they refused to learn on the earth. 

I agree in the need for total forgiveness, but I think total forgiveness to be different from having a relationship built on earned trust and developed compatibility. And I don't think any righteous spouse's progression will be delayed by an unrighteous spouse who still has progression to do before they are worthy.

So for example, I think in the scenario that a sealed wife has kept her covenants but her husband has not kept any of his, she will be able to continue to progress to whatever extent towards Godhood she can, even to the point of having her sealing transferred to an already-worthy partner if she wishes, and not be made to wait for however-long it will be until her abusive husband from mortality has become a worthy partner for her. 

[manol]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was asking about the polygamists you said you lived with and their beliefs.  Sorry for the confusion.

Omigosh, apologies for and embarrassed laughter at my abysmal reading comprehension skills!  You very clearly wrote "Do they...", not "do you...".

I am under the impression that this group was self-selected largely from within the LDS Church so presumably in most cases both spouses went into it with both eyes open.  Several different individuals and couples told me very emphatically that the only way plural marriage could work was if everyone involved was firmly on board.  So if the husband wants to enter into plural marriage and the wife does not, the wife has veto power, assuming they practiced what they preached.  At least that's my recollection... not that I'm absolutely certain my memory is any better than my reading comprehension...

Edited April 6, 2024 by manol

[Teancum]

On 4/5/2024 at 11:14 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

And the Restoration itself wasn't/isn't the norm. Not being the norm doesn't=precluded.

Nice to know you are all for JS marrying young teen.  Pretty gross really.

[Teancum]

On 4/5/2024 at 11:24 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

Arguing the plural marriage is ok in the 19th century because bronze aged book that some claim to be scripture has men marrying many women is myopic as well.  Can't have it both ways.

Edited April 7, 2024 by Teancum

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/4/2024 at 1:37 PM, juliann said:

Concubines are sex slaves. There is no way to pretty that up. If you think God is commanding that, well....  

Polygamy in ancient cultures was a practice of the rich and an accepted part of the culture. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "raising seed" since plural wives have less children per wife than monogamous wives. 

I continue to be mystified why anyone would try to bring Iron Age practices into modern life where women do just fine without husbands. 

Are concubines sex slaves?  The definition I have found is "(in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives."  It does not have to mean a sex slave.

Are modern doing just fine without husbands in the modern age.   The trend is about 45% of middle age women will be single by 2030.  When this lot of women get older, not many will have husbands, not many kids and they will get into their retirement years and be pretty lonely.   A lot of western men are doing the passport thing to find women in other countries because they are tired of having to deal with the modern, western women.  The trends do not look good for women in modern life today.  

In fact we have a modern form of polygamy today.   Just not the marriage part.  They top 10% of men are getting most of the women in the dating market.   The modern morality is that its ok for a guy to have sex with a lot of women as long as he does not marry them.   If a man is married to 5 women that is considered bad.  But if a guy sleeps with 50 women, no big deal.   It is 2024.

Edited April 6, 2024 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Nice to know you are all for JS marrying young teen.  Pretty gross really.

Not really that gross in the 19th century.  I have not seen a lot of evidence that it was a big deal in those days.   Your view is based on 20th and 21st century thinking.  If you lived in 1800, you might even had considered marrying a teen.   Why not?  What would be a legit argument against it in say 1810?

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nice to know you are all for JS marrying young teen.  Pretty gross really.

You can't bring me down...

It's General Conference Weekend!!!!

🥳

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Are concubines sex slaves?  The definition I have found is "(in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives."  It does not have to mean a sex slave.

In the past, these women generally were not given choices. Their lower social standing to begin with creates the situation in which marriage isn't able to increase their status. Consider, for example, the biblical text. Abraham is "given" his wife's maidservant (equals a slave) as a wife. This sort of surrogacy wasn't uncommon.

13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Are modern doing just fine without husbands in the modern age.   The trend is about 45% of middle age women will be single by 2030.  When this lot of women get older, not many will have husbands, not many kids and they will get into their retirement years and be pretty lonely.  In fact we have a modern form of polygamy today.   They top 10% of men are getting most of the women in the dating market.   The modern morality is that its ok for a guy to have sex with a lot of women as long as he does not marry them.   If a man is married to 5 women that is considered bad.  But if a guy sleeps with 50 women, no bid deal.   It is 2024.

There is nothing in this that even remotely resembles modern polygamy. Marriage, in terms of societal norms, represents a social contract. Now that women can be self supportive, the traditional basis for that social contract has changed. Some men don't like this.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Conceptions are important because that is what makes things "fuzzy" or concrete -- you have a conception of child marriage that renders it universally bad. For me, the Joseph and Helen story is not necessarily an example of child marriage being universally bad because I hold several conceptions of what child marriage might entail. The facts concerning their relationship might support a charge of badness, but as I understand them, not yet. I didn't mean to engage where a particular concept of child marriage is "the real issue at the heart of this discussion." Joseph and Helen don't seem to have much to do with that. It's a 2-post transaction: (1) Child marriage is such-and-such and only such-and-such and therefore bad (2) "OK."

You are missing the point.

We can talk about real empirical data that points to the fact that child marriages are bad. Not perceptions. Not context driven discussions. Real empirical data. This is not about Joseph Smith. This is about the harm that comes to children when they are married. So let's stop worrying about trying to defend Joseph Smith. I could care less about trying to attack (or to defend) that particular example. As I noted earlier in this thread - we don't have to be critical of individuals or societies that engaged in bad practices. We have a moral obligation to reject those bad practices. Let's keep the two discussions entirely separate.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The need to defend the practice is no longer quite so close to us or to our leaders so I think that we will be looking more at the doctrine of polygamy as a legacy of a certain period of the Church that is far less relevant to the membership today. I think that the need to defend the practice shrinks every year.

I remember my grandmother talking about her Aunt Polly when I was younger, who I found out later was a plural wife.  I wish I had a chance to ask her why she never talked about her when I was older.  That fact just dawned on me…it would have been probably around 1970.  I wonder if she started to feel more unsettled about it having lived in California for most of her adult life where she would have gotten odd looks from her nonmember friends and most of her member friends as well.

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:18 PM, Tacenda said:

I guess to each their own when adults living polygamy, but Joseph propositioned the young 14 year old, Helen Mar Kimball, to marry him. And in that day and age it wasn't normal, could have happened, but it wasn't the norm. So the way Joseph Smith lived polygamy is what does me in. But chalk it up to prophets not being infallible just like in the Bible.

It was not normal yes as being normal is being typical or conforming to the standard.  However marrying a 14 year old was not illegal, not a scandal, or anything close to how its viewed today.  Norms change.  The idea of gays marrying would have been a lot more radical in the 19th century than marrying a 14 year old.  Bob living in 1834 would probably have as much disgust with gay marriage in 2024 as Jack living in 2024 has with men marrying teens in the early 19th century.   People values change over time and what they view as wrong also change.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

The priesthood is meant to be for blessing the lives of others, not as a personal status symbol or a sign of worthiness. I've had several direct experiences in which I've received priesthood blessings from LDS men that were very, very much inspired, and even one miraculous healing for myself. One of those inspired priesthood blessings was from someone who was not temple worthy at the time, and who I also know was in certain ways at that very same time practicing a certain degree of "unrighteous dominion" within his family. I think the degree of blessing received from a priesthood blessing perhaps has more to do with the faith and worthiness of the recipient than the giver. 

 

I am out of points and may not remember to get back to give you ones, so I want you to know I appreciate you sharing your reasoning, etc.  It is very interesting and worthwhile to read for me.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is nothing in this that even remotely resembles modern polygamy. Marriage, in terms of societal norms, represents a social contract. Now that women can be self supportive, the traditional basis for that social contract has changed. Some men don't like this.

Its even worse today.  At least in polygamy, if a man has a children with multiple women, the man has responsibility and duty to care for those kids and generally will.   Today a guy can spreed his seed around like a dog and have little worry about it.   Its a weird view of morality.  A man is married to 5 women.  BAD.  A man has sex with 200 women and maybe fathers children with 40 of them.  No big deal. 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

When this lot of women get older, not many will have husbands, not many kids and they will get into their retirement years and be pretty lonely.  

While some women will be lonely, others will shine.

My mom wondered if her dad died when he did (right when he retired of a heart attack) because he was giving his wife the life she really wanted.  Grandma loved living alone and having a life full of clubs and church and getting together with her friends in similar situations.  And this is a woman who grew up in an era where family was everything…and it was for her too, only it was her sisters who lived the same life she did that was her family core.

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm