Why so much oppostion, disgust for polygamy?

[countbasie]

Because his interpretation is subject to subsequent inspiration, later prophets have changed the way he did many things. Joseph filtered the Gospel through his own worldview and experiences. God has fine-tuned the Gospel ever since, through his subsequent prophets

Would you apply this generous interpretation to all of Christian history? Are you saying that God works through prophets to 'fine-tune the gospel' today (prophets who, in your own words, didn't get everything right), but that He was unable or unwilling to accomplish the same 'fine-tuning' throughout 2000 years of Christian history? (hence, the great apostasy)

[charity]

Dill, I disagree with you. What do you believe is the current interpretation of the law of eternal marriage as different from an earlier interpretation?

My understanding of the principle of plural marriage is that it has not changed. The principle is that marriage is ordained of God and necessary for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. It has been revealed that women may be sealed to only one man (ultimately), but men may be sealed to more than one woman. At times, the Lord commands that His servants live the law of plural marriage on earth. If he does not so command, His servants are to live monogamously. That covers all the bases. He commanded it for a while, and the commandment was lifted in response to the evil actions of men.

It seems that you view "change" in a different way than I do. I see a consistency and continuity in God's dealings with His children over time. The Gospel does not change. It is the iron rod.

Are there "adjustments?" People didn't need Family Home Evening in 1850. But as social conditions changed, we did later. That isn't a change in the Gospel.

If there wasn't the issue of plural marriage, would people have "problems" with Joseph Smith? Will Satan always fight the truth with whatever means he has at hand? How about the fanastic story of a personal visitation of Heavenly Beings to a 14 year old boy? I believe God works with His children for their betterment. If it had really been in the best interest of His children, He could have, and would have, manifested Himself and his Gosepl in a much different way.

Oh, yes, and the biggest perk that Indians have around my neck of the woods, is they get to put casinos anywhere they want them, even in the Columbia Gorge.

[charity]

Count, As to why God commands plural marriage at one time and not at others, I don't know. I try not to second guess God. I really don't like to look foolish, and that is what I think the end result will be of trying to read God's mind with our finite understanding. He has said that He commands plural marriage to "raise up a righteous seed." That's all I know.

[Dale]

The Lord would have changed because to do it otherwise would have destroyed the LDS Church. It was futile to resist the law since it had been declared constitutional.

Lighten up the disgust.

I don't see LDS as blindly believing in D.&C. 132. They appear to be as thoughful as I am in thinking through the teaching. I reject plural marriage myself but I am open to others views on the subject from the other side.

[Dill Pickles]

Because his interpretation is subject to subsequent inspiration, later prophets have changed the way he did many things. Joseph filtered the Gospel through his own worldview and experiences. God has fine-tuned the Gospel ever since, through his subsequent prophets

Would you apply this generous interpretation to all of Christian history? Are you saying that God works through prophets to 'fine-tune the gospel' today (prophets who, in your own words, didn't get everything right), but that He was unable or unwilling to accomplish the same 'fine-tuning' throughout 2000 years of Christian history? (hence, the great apostasy)

from the Pickle jar: as far as we in the Pickle jar know, LDS don't believe in inerrancy. All men, including prophets, see through a glass darkly, can be and often are mistaken. God works with these imperfect specimen to bring about his plans, but due to the human nature of the speciman, the communication is going to be subject to error. What goes in is God-breathed; what comes out is not. By his sinful nature, man taints that communication, filters it through his own prejudices and experiences, uses his own language to express it, all of which means it's prone to error. Joseph was no different from any other man. Why would we assume he would be?

If that's changed and we now believe that everything Joseph said was true, someone please let us in the Pickle jar know. We might need to change our brine, and we'd like to know as far ahead of time as possible (hazardous waste laws and all that, we can't just dump the brine out on the road anymore).

[Scottie]

Off the subject a little bit...

Do you think it is ok for faithful LDS to be disturbed when they find out JS had polyandrous (is that right?) relationships?

[countbasie]

Dill, My point is this:

I am understanding you as saying that JS and other Mormon prophets may have periodically erred and that God progressively corrects the errors and fine-tunes things.

Are also saying that He did not do this during the first 1850 years of Christian history--hence the great apostasy?

[Dill Pickles]

Dill, My point is this:

I am understanding you as saying that JS and other Mormon prophets may have periodically erred and that God progressively corrects the errors and fine-tunes things.

Are also saying that He did not do this during the first 1850 years of Christian history--hence the great apostasy?

from the Pickle jar: we have no reason to believe that God has changed the way he does business. Should we be looking for a trick question like the ones those tricky guys in the fruit drawer are always thinking up?

[juliann]

Because his interpretation is subject to subsequent inspiration, later prophets have changed the way he did many things. Joseph filtered the Gospel through his own worldview and experiences. God has fine-tuned the Gospel ever since, through his subsequent prophets

Would you apply this generous interpretation to all of Christian history? Are you saying that God works through prophets to 'fine-tune the gospel' today (prophets who, in your own words, didn't get everything right), but that He was unable or unwilling to accomplish the same 'fine-tuning' throughout 2000 years of Christian history? (hence, the great apostasy)

Yes. Were you thinking that an "apostasy" meant that God was not working through inspired men? Those who are troubled by "apostasy" are usually not too familiar with OT history.

[juliann]

Off the subject a little bit...

Do you think it is ok for faithful LDS to be disturbed when they find out JS had polyandrous (is that right?) relationships?

It is shocking, no doubt. But I find it less shocking when I actually know the history instead of the tabloid anti versions. As Bushman said at the conference, JS was obsessed with sealings. What underlies all of this is the question we are always obsessed with...sex.

I also find it rather odd that polyandry is so much more shocking than mulitple wives....notice the difference in reactions and complaints? We still seem to have a lot of double standards when it comes to women.

[Dale]

I have no disgust with Joseph Smith's polyandry as long as he had no improper relations with married women. I can get over it since I regard those as sealings that were not supposed to interfere with earthly marriages valid until death do you part.

[countbasie]

Should we be looking for a trick question like the ones those tricky guys in the fruit drawer are always thinking up?

No, I'm sorry. I'm Catholic and so I'm particularly interested in the criteria used to say that the Church fell into apostasy.

What I was driving at was this: it seems inconsistent, to me, to say on the one hand God will fine tune the gospel through His prophets but then, essentially deny that He could or would do this prior to Joseph Smith. (or in the era between apostasy and JS).

In other words, it seems inconsistent to say the Catholic Church fell into error and God couldn't/wouldn't correct it; in contrast, however, JS and other Mormon prophets fell into error but God did/could/will correct them.

[charity]

Count, I would reply to you that God can only "correct, fine tune" if someone were willing to listen to him. It seems to be the experience with prophets in this dispensation, at least, that God reveals only when asked. He does not force. So if no one asked a question, there would be no answers. Joseph's first encounter with Heavenly visitor's came because he asked a question.

[Brackite]

Post Deleted by Brackite.

[charity]

Calm down, Brackite. I never said Muslim polygamy was ugly, evil, whatever you posted.

I limit myself to what I know about, and don't speculate on what I don't. (Sometimes I make a goof, but that is always my intention, anyway.) So I limited my discussion to polygamy in the Church in the 19th century. I know that if God commands it, then the practice of plural marriage brings blessings. I believe He commanded it then, and there were blessings.

I cannot speak to Muslim marriages, how women are treated. That was the reason for the qualifier. So, do you feel better now?

[Brackite]

Hello Charity,

I am sorry if I got a bit too upset. I do feel better now. Thanks! There are a lot of Good and Spiritual Muslim People in the world, just like there are a lot of Good and Spiritual Mormon People. I do believe that the Muslim Practice of Polygamy is pretty much similiar to the 19th Century Mormon practice of Polygamy. Both believe that their Religion allows, condones, and permits them to practice Polygamy. However, I do have a little bit more respect or tolerance for the Muslim practice of Polygamy than the Mormon 19 Century version of Polygamy. The reason is because a Muslim man is limited to have four wives, while in the 19th century Mormon version of Polygamy you had men such as Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball having each 25 wives each.

Have you ever read the Article titled,

[juliann]

In other words, it seems inconsistent to say the Catholic Church fell into error and God couldn't/wouldn't correct it; in contrast, however, JS and other Mormon prophets fell into error but God did/could/will correct them.

I agree that an "apostasy" can be problematic. However, every major break off religion has claimed one. They have to. The apostasy has nothing to do with the Catholic church, however. It was not even there. The trouble started in NT times and by the 3rd century we have Christian philosopher theologians like Origen puzzling over what doctrine is. Had there been anyone in charge there would have been no need for councils. If you are Protestant you might as well ask why it took so long for Protestantism to prevail over Catholicism...and so on. LDS have a belief that God, for the most part, will not override men. Plus, I do think there is something to having to be in the right place at the right time with the right surroundings. Had that not happened when Christianity was initiated it would be another forgotten mystery religion in the Roman era.

[Paul Osborne]

Truth,

I'm with you all the way on this one. Polygamy is a holy order of marriage when sanctioned by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The House Of Israel is built upon the foundation of polygamy and Jesus Christ is the grand result. I'm afraid that people who don't appreciate the value of polygamy are a long ways away from understanding the mysteries of godliness. Do I understand them. Heck yeah, buddy.

Paul O

[countbasie]

agree that an "apostasy" can be problematic. However, every major break off religion has claimed one. They have to. The apostasy has nothing to do with the Catholic church, however. It was not even there. The trouble started in NT times and by the 3rd century we have Christian philosopher theologians like Origen puzzling over what doctrine is

I appreciate your honesty--although I would call the charge of 'apostasy' as more than problematic.

I'm sure this ground has been covered before, but what 3rd century problems are you alluding to/

Point of clarification--the Catholic Church claims (with good reason) to be founded by Jesus, with Peter as the first Pope..so Catholicism was there during the 3rd century.

[charity]

Brackite, Thanks for the link. Good article. Her arguments are reasonable. I couldn't find much to disagree with. Which probably explains why I have no problems with the idea of plural marriage when God commands.

[Brackite]

Hello Charity,

You wrote:

Brackite,

[Dill Pickles]

Truth,

I'm with you all the way on this one. Polygamy is a holy order of marriage when sanctioned by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The House Of Israel is built upon the foundation of polygamy and Jesus Christ is the grand result. I'm afraid that people who don't appreciate the value of polygamy are a long ways away from understanding the mysteries of godliness. Do I understand them. Heck yeah, buddy.

Paul O

question from the Pickle jar: what do you mean by "sanctioned"?

[Mighty Curelom]

The great irony of this whole thing is that if Joseph Smith fancied boys the way he fancied the ladies, there would have been a "revelation" about the sanctity of man-boy intimacy, complete with a threat to Emma that she'd better accept it or be destroyed. Brigham Young would have expounded on the evils of a modern society that has drifted from the ancient sacred practice of male-male relations instead of railing against the evils of monogamy.

And LDS would now be here defending homosexuality instead of polygamy. And who knows...maybe there WAS a revelation about homosexual relations, but it was never revealed to the public. You know, kinda like how the polygamy revelation was kept secret. It's not entirely out of the question, given the church's past reputation for hiding sexual practices that society wasn't too keen on. And it doesn't even matter that homosexuality is condemned in the bible or by modern prophets. As we all know by now, even an "abominable" action can be the height of holiness--God just has to give the go-ahead.

I wonder....how many of you who defend polygamy so vigorously would defend homosexual behavior if your prophet commanded it? After all, whatever God commands is good, no matter how repulsive you currently find it. And God has commanded some pretty repulsive things in the past, so why not gay sex?

[Moksha]

Truth,

I'm with you all the way on this one. Polygamy is a holy order of marriage when sanctioned by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The House Of Israel is built upon the foundation of polygamy and Jesus Christ is the grand result. I'm afraid that people who don't appreciate the value of polygamy are a long ways away from understanding the mysteries of godliness. Do I understand them. Heck yeah, buddy. 

Paul O

question from the Pickle jar: what do you mean by "sanctioned"?

Wouldn't sanctioned mean that God did not tell them specifically not to do it?

[Moksha]

The great irony of this whole thing is that if Joseph Smith fancied boys the way he fancied the ladies, there would have been a "revelation" about the sanctity of man-boy intimacy, complete with a threat to Emma that she'd better accept it or be destroyed. Brigham Young would have expounded on the evils of a modern society that has drifted from the ancient sacred practice of male-male relations instead of railing against the evils of monogamy.

And LDS would now be here defending homosexuality instead of polygamy. And who knows...maybe there WAS a revelation about homosexual relations, but it was never revealed to the public. You know, kinda like how the polygamy revelation was kept secret. It's not entirely out of the question, given the church's past reputation for hiding sexual practices that society wasn't too keen on. And it doesn't even matter that homosexuality is condemned in the bible or by modern prophets. As we all know by now, even an "abominable" action can be the height of holiness--God just has to give the go-ahead.

I wonder....how many of you who defend polygamy so vigorously would defend homosexual behavior if your prophet commanded it? After all, whatever God commands is good, no matter how repulsive you currently find it. And God has commanded some pretty repulsive things in the past, so why not gay sex?

I think the difference here, it that if Joseph Smith had demanded this, and Brigham Young had held out the hope of getting young boys if the Brethren followed him, them Sydney Rigdon would have been the new leader.

The heterosexual urge would have been stronger than the imagined Church teachings.