Polyandry by Requiem

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Perhaps I am a simple mullah, but I really believe I have had convincing spiritual experiences about Joseph being a prophet of God. I can still remember teaching the first discussion as a missionary 15 years ago, each time I quoted the first vision something tangibly changed in that room. It is not something I can explain through reason, but it does not change what I know I felt. As Joseph said he would not believe what happened to him. Obviously there is historical evidence of his polygamy, polyandry and sex life. I don't know what to think about all of it. I do not dismiss others' opinions that he used his power for sex, but certainly that is at odds with my interpretation of God and the priesthood responsibilities of representing God but I feel no need to convince myself all things about Joseph or Brigham fall within those parameters. However, because of my spiritual experiences I choose to exercise my faith and if Joseph was a philandering lecherous whore, that will be between God and him. I am not dismissing the potentiality and neither am I judging him. My individual responsibilities are to be true to what I know I have experienced. In other words, I don't feel a need to justify or rationalize what I am told and or have read were his strange and bizarre, as I would define them as an admitted victim of today's cultural biases, actions. I believe that God is just and no respector of persons.

As for his or other prophets' various revelations, I think I am similar to UtahDan. I believe that the Church has gotten the far majority of things right. However, I am not confident enough in my specific concerns to declare which teachings are totally correct and which ones are not. Once again I don't dismiss those who do. I have my concerns about polygamy, blacks and the priesthood and various other skeletons. But I really am not all too bothered about the issues. I am bothered that the LDS Church is not forthright about its history and places a higher premium upon perception than truth, but not as bothered as many that post here.

I, like many, like being mormon. It makes me happy and its prescribed lifestyle is one, that I believe if followed, optimizes happiness and betters society. Despite that, I still believe I have a personal testimony based upon spiritual experiences. I really think the whole story, as wacky and bizarre as it is, is true. The various tangential appendages don't bother me because I am convinced of the root and have faith that whatever is not true will be sorted out.

I love the quote that "doctrine exists to influence behavior." IMO, if one believes in Noah or Job is irrelevent. What is important is that one takes from those stories lessons that motivate them to become more like Christ.

Some think Joseph's punishment for his deeds was sealing his testimony with his own blood, I tend to think his punishment was not being born in a day and age when he could appreciate man made knockers. Trully, Brethren, we were commanding Generals in the war in Heaven! I led the Al Bundy Brigade!

SHUGGA SHUGGA SHUGGA, OI! OI! OI!

Nobody can craft a post as well as goatnapper. Nobody.

Well said, brother.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Perhaps I am a simple mullah, but I really believe I have had convincing spiritual experiences about Joseph being a prophet of God. I can still remember teaching the first discussion as a missionary 15 years ago, each time I quoted the first vision something tangibly changed in that room. It is not something I can explain through reason, but it does not change what I know I felt. As Joseph said he would not believe what happened to him. Obviously there is historical evidence of his polygamy, polyandry and sex life. I don't know what to think about all of it. I do not dismiss others' opinions that he used his power for sex, but certainly that is at odds with my interpretation of God and the priesthood responsibilities of representing God but I feel no need to convince myself all things about Joseph or Brigham fall within those parameters. However, because of my spiritual experiences I choose to exercise my faith and if Joseph was a philandering lecherous whore, that will be between God and him. I am not dismissing the potentiality and neither am I judging him. My individual responsibilities are to be true to what I know I have experienced. In other words, I don't feel a need to justify or rationalize what I am told and or have read were his strange and bizarre, as I would define them as an admitted victim of today's cultural biases, actions. I believe that God is just and no respector of persons.

As for his or other prophets' various revelations, I think I am similar to UtahDan. I believe that the Church has gotten the far majority of things right. However, I am not confident enough in my specific concerns to declare which teachings are totally correct and which ones are not. Once again I don't dismiss those who do. I have my concerns about polygamy, blacks and the priesthood and various other skeletons. But I really am not all too bothered about the issues. I am bothered that the LDS Church is not forthright about its history and places a higher premium upon perception than truth, but not as bothered as many that post here.

I, like many, like being mormon. It makes me happy and its prescribed lifestyle is one, that I believe if followed, optimizes happiness and betters society. Despite that, I still believe I have a personal testimony based upon spiritual experiences. I really think the whole story, as wacky and bizarre as it is, is true. The various tangential appendages don't bother me because I am convinced of the root and have faith that whatever is not true will be sorted out.

I love the quote that "doctrine exists to influence behavior." IMO, if one believes in Noah or Job is irrelevent. What is important is that one takes from those stories lessons that motivate them to become more like Christ.

I think I could say I generally agree with this. I come out with hellfire and brimstone during these discussions, but generally I am at peace with the cognitive dissonance that sometimes results from a study of history and doctrine. Largely so, because I have a testimony of the truth.

[Taq Man]

I am continually amazed at the mental gymnastics and extreme deference given to Jospeh over some of the most extreme sins (the sin next to murder).

More often than not these are the same people who don't skip in beat in throwing under the bus and discounting as worthless those who break the word of wisdom.

Wise is the man who witholds judgment of his neighbor. Archea said it right when he said that none of us have a clue what God really thinks about us.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm not forcing a premise on you. President Clinton destroyed his presidency because he had sex with an intern in the White House and then lied about it. Such conduct is relevant to judgments about a man's character, specifically, the believability of his testimony. Jimmy Swaggart was ruined as a preacher for a sexual scandal.

That a man should engage in similar but more extreme conduct is logically relevant to the truth of his claim that he received a visitation from God, who selected him as the last and foremost of all God's prophets through the ages. Perhaps that is not a conclusive, outcome determative fact standing alone, and would have to be viewed alongside other evidence such as what Egyptologists say the B of A scrolls say vs. what JS represented them as saying. But these facts are relevant, and a person who chooses to rest his testimony or activity in the LDS Church on this type of analysis must give them weight. Indeed, a fundamental premise of empiricism is that the search for truth requires aggregating evidence and weighing and drawing logical concusions, remaining continuously open to receiving new evidence.

Completely agree. There's nothing you say here that is wrong. But even with the difficulties of B o A, and weirdness of JS' actions re: plural marriage, you have two possibilities.

1. LDS church is completely false (as is every other religion) because all of science and fact and reason points against it. You are then forced to choose whether to be part of that religion because you like it, i.e. ice cream flavor.

2. You take all the facts, including difficult ones like JS's plural marriage and B o A facts (or the other difficult items from other world religions), analyze it critically along with personal spiritual experiences and you believe it is true, i.e. factual, or at least the important parts of it are true.

Sooner Coug may be in group one with you, but you've used that trick several times lately where you imply everyone is in group one and go straight to the ice cream comparison. It's a false premise. You think you're very clever for it, but I'm telling you it's becoming tired.

[MikeWaters]

SeattleUte has never had a spiritual witness. That's why he doesn't believe.

[Archaea]

I don't believe it's fair to be critical of persons who struggle with "spiritual witnesses".

I've struggled a lifetime, and have received some, but I am far from being natural at spirituality, and could easily dismiss those experiences if I am not careful. It is very difficult for those empirically inclined and mine are few and far between. Perhaps some of us are just not attuned to experience; I know not, but if some of you are like to JS, others of us are like unto BY and Heber J. Grant, who must struggle to receive what small portion of confirmations we are to receive. I liken myself not unto those persons but use the impractical comparison to one who was visionary with those who we not visionary and more pragmatic.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe it's fair to be critical of persons who struggle with "spiritual witnesses".

I've struggled a lifetime, and have received some, but I am far from being natural at spirituality, and could easily dismiss those experiences them if I am not careful. It is very difficult for those empirically inclined and mine are few and far between. Perhaps some of us are just not attuned to experience; I know not, but if some of you are like to JS, others of us are like unto BY and Heber J. Grant, who must struggle to receive what small portion of confirmations we are to receive. I liken myself not unto those persons but use the impractical comparison to one who was visionary with those who we not visionary and more pragmatic.

I'm not being critical. I'm stating what I perceive to be a fact. That SU has never had a convincing spiritual witness that allows him to move on past doubts about such things at the PoGP.

I do believe that some humble and earnest seekers are never given a witness. For reasons I do not know.

But just think how difficult in some respects, apostasy must have been for SU. I don't know, he may have lost his first family over it, and it has probably strained relations with parents and siblings. I don't think it was likely easy.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not being critical. I'm stating what I perceive to be a fact. That SU has never had a convincing spiritual witness that allows him to move on past doubts about such things at the PoGP.

I do believe that some humble and earnest seekers are never given a witness. For reasons I do not know.

But just think how difficult in some respects, apostasy must have been for SU. I don't know, he may have lost his first family over it, and it has probably strained relations with parents and siblings. I don't think it was likely easy.

Well, I sympathize with persons who never receive witnesses, because compared to what those who express deep conviction, mine appear small and insignificant, but they are all I have.

I marvel over BH Roberts, Heber J. Grant, Talmage, and Hugh B. Brown, or Reed Smoot. J. Reuben Clark also struggled with his witness. These persons are heroes for me, and those who never receive I consider as brothers. So a person who leaves the fold for never having received a spiritual witness is in many ways closer to me than somebody who claims manifold witnesses and loads of visions. That person will never be me, so I can't identify with him or her. But I'm at peace with that and never expect it any more, finding what I have sufficient for the most part, making do and moving on. It is a good group to be a part of, even if I or people like me, don't really fit the traditional mold, or are even undesired. Being on the sidelines and helping when you can is better than no involvement at all.

[SeattleUte]

Yipee! I like Adam's message. Have sex, lots of varied sex, and be merry, for tomorrow you die, and you will be forgiven. For the sins of infidelity and fornication are irresistible to the normal male.

Fawn Brodie in No Man has some hilarious rationalizatoins for polygamy quoted in her book from extant writings generated at the time. They go something like this: A man needs sexual release and variety, as well as the happiness that a younger woman will bring, as relief from his shrew of a hen pecking wife with looks gone to seed spewing hell-fire and damnation at him. This is a paraphrase, but I promise the actual stuff is fully of a piece with such a sentiment. (My view is probably the wife was doing 90% of the work in that hard scrabble frontier of a town, including on her own caring after a litter of kids, which didn't do much for her libido.)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Hence the problem--you guys think sexual sin is the most serious sin next to murder. You are wrong. Sexual sin is the most understandable of all sins, and one of the most common, and one of the most often repented of successfully.

I didn't say sexual sin was next to murder. I said that of all sins, there are not many more serious than adultery.

I am aware of the prevailing CG theory revolving around the Corianton incident (and yes, I know it doesn't originate with CG). There is some good food for thought there. But I think this rationalizing away of adultery as no better and no worse than any other sin ("Hey, ALL sin keeps us from God, right?") is false doctrine.

Adultery is extremely serious, regardless of where one puts it on the scale, and though I hate to say it, SU has a good point. I think the CG dismissal of Joseph's alleged infidelity is logically incompatible with his prophetic call. SU takes the further step of saying he is thus no prophet; I take a different tact, assuming that there is something wrong with our understanding.

But to just dismiss it is mind-boggling.