Polyandry by Requiem

[Requiem]

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.

Contrary to your far from subtle implication, receiving a "convincing spiritual witness" does not always translate into a lifetime of Mormon bliss. Many individuals (LDS and non-LDS) experience and recognize the workings of the spirit over the course of their lives. Mormons do not have a monopoly on spiritual experiences - read St. Augustine and tell me he was not close to the spirit. My dilemma comes in understanding and balancing the spiritual and physical aspects of religion as a whole, and Mormonism in particular.

The quest for spirituality is a lifelong struggle and in my case a balancing act. Although I have at times experienced the "tangible" witness Goat eloquently describes, these experiences contrast with the realities of trying to live a "good LDS life" while understanding the plethora of new and troubling historical data regarding Church history. Sometimes peeling back the layers of information and unanswered questions can lead to a temporary crisis of faith. I suspect there are many who fall into this category. After all, even Mother Teresa admitted to periods of doubt and darkness:

"Jesus has a very special love for you. [But] as for me--The silence and the emptiness is so great--that I look and do not see,--Listen and do not hear. --MOTHER TERESA TO THE REV. MICHAEL VAN DER PEET, SEPTEMBER 1979"

The quest for consistent spirituality is made difficult while living on the margins of Mormonism. As an active single LDS woman over 25, I receive constant reminders of my status. Two weeks ago I was greeted at the door of a family ward with the tired refrain: "why aren't you married yet?". There are never comments to the effect that I have multiple graduate degrees and a promising career. Either you are married to a RM and have children or you are lost.

My point is simple: the search for spirituality is a lifelong journey. The battle can be so much easier if collectively we bear one another's burdens and become more tolerant. Even those of us who have literally "batted for the Utes" can have worth in LDS and non-LDS culture.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Contrary to your far from subtle implication, receiving a "convincing spiritual witness" does not always translate into a lifetime of Mormon bliss. Many individuals (LDS and non-LDS) experience and recognize the workings of the spirit over the course of their lives. Mormons do not have a monopoly on spiritual experiences - read St. Augustine and tell me he was not close to the spirit. My dilemma comes in understanding and balancing the spiritual and physical aspects of religion as a whole, and Mormonism in particular.

The quest for spirituality is a lifelong struggle and in my case a balancing act. Although I have at times experienced the "tangible" witness Goat eloquently describes, these experiences contrast with the realities of trying to live a "good LDS life" while understanding the plethora of new and troubling historical data regarding Church history. Sometimes peeling back the layers of information and unanswered questions can lead to a temporary crisis of faith. I suspect there are many who fall into this category. After all, even Mother Teresa admitted to periods of doubt and darkness:

"Jesus has a very special love for you. [But] as for me--The silence and the emptiness is so great--that I look and do not see,--Listen and do not hear. --MOTHER TERESA TO THE REV. MICHAEL VAN DER PEET, SEPTEMBER 1979"

The quest for consistent sprirituality is made difficult while living on the margins of Mormonism. As an active single LDS woman over 25, I receive constant reminders of my status. Two weeks ago I was greeted at the door of a family ward with the tired refrain: "why aren't you married yet?". There are never comments to the effect that I have multiple graduate degrees and a promising career. Either you are married to a RM and have children or you are lost.

My point is simply is that the search for spirituality is a lifelong journey. The battle can be so much easier if collectively we bear one another's burdens and become more tolerant. Even those of us who have literally "batted for the Utes" can have worth in LDS and non-LDS culture.

I agree with this. There are peaks and valleys for even those that have had strong witnesses. Also spiritual experiences can be forgotten and eventually discounted.

FWIW, from the little I know of you, you are very impressive in terms of your thoughtfulness, and that's why I suggested you date my brother-in-law. So I can have another interesting person to talk to during Christmas break.

Hang in there.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Requiem

The quest for spirituality is a lifelong struggle and in my case a balancing act. Although I have at times experienced the "tangible" witness Goat eloquently describes, these experiences contrast with the realities of trying to live a "good LDS life" while understanding the plethora of new and troubling historical data regarding Church history. Sometimes peeling back the layers of information and unanswered questions can lead to a temporary crisis of faith. I suspect there are many who fall into this category. After all, even Mother Teresa admitted to periods of doubt and darkness:

"Jesus has a very special love for you. [But] as for me--The silence and the emptiness is so great--that I look and do not see,--Listen and do not hear. --MOTHER TERESA TO THE REV. MICHAEL VAN DER PEET, SEPTEMBER 1979"

The quest for consistent sprirituality is made difficult while living on the margins of Mormonism. As an active single LDS woman over 25, I receive constant reminders of my status. Two weeks ago I was greeted at the door of a family ward with the tired refrain: "why aren't you married yet?". There are never comments to the effect that I have multiple graduate degrees and a promising career.

There are many ways to be on the margins of LDS society, even those who look to be a prototypical LDS family may not be.

Nice post by the way. Spirituality is a process, not an object. It is not a state of nirvana attainable at brief moments of enlightenment, but a way of life, attainable by different paths.

It is the culmination of personal effort, family, local and prevailing hegemonic traditions and personal introspection. I liken it to the case of the trained athlete who has bried moments of athletic clarity, only to struggle to regain the clarity. I have mistaken the spirituality for the moments of lucid vision, when in reality it seems the spirituality was the entire process and path, because without such process the lucid moments would never be.

Again nice thoughts.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Adultery is extremely serious

It is unhealthy, because it's wrong, but it's actually emblematic of something more basic.

Cheating steals from all, because sex should create bonding memories tying two lovers together, acting as glue. Whereas cheating involves the stolen memories which should never be, and which thereafter must be foisted away to be forgotten.

It is frequently the result of isolation, regardless of cause or blame, from one's spouse.

It is spiritually damaging, and as far as permanent relationships are concerned extremely aggravating already wounded feelings and sentiments. It is wrong, but it is an understandable, and very human, given our failed abilities to form meaningful relationships.

However, ranking sin is foolish, as developing our character requires us to focus upon knowledge, communication, trust, industry, health and faith. If we wish to have a marriage full of honest communication, we will avoid infidelity. But when it happens the sources need to be attacked, not just the symptoms.

In A. Carrington, we have an example of a man who had the prophet's ear and was able to function despite his infidelity, so it is possible to perform "spiritual" work while under the sin of infidelity.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There are many ways to be on the margins of LDS society, even those who look to be a prototypical LDS family may not be.

Nice post by the way. Spirituality is a process, not an object. It is not a state of nirvana attainable at brief moments of enlightenment, but a way of life, attainable by different paths.

It is the culmination of personal effort, family, local and prevailing hegemonic traditions and personal introspection. I liken it to the case of the trained athlete who has bried moments of athletic clarity, only to struggle to regain the clarity. I have mistaken the spirituality for the moments of lucid vision, when in reality it seems the spirituality was the entire process and path, because without such process the lucid moments would never be.

Again nice thoughts.

I like this notion. Spirituality itself is in a sense "the path". And it (whatever it really is) is so multifaceted and different for each person. Given this, how anyone could ever claim it as a method for determining the truth of abstract truth-statements (like "Joseph was a true prophet", or "the church is God's only true kingdom on earth") is beyond me. This application is completely meaningless, a true misappropriation of spiritual (or other kinds) of wonder, which wonder I take to be the genus of which religiousity is one species. My secular approach to life often gives me a great sense of wonder (I wouldn't call it spirituality but isn't that what we're talking about?), but I wouldn't abuse that wonder by actually applying it to a rational quest for knowledge about the world.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think I disagree with this part of your post. This is true only under the assumption that bonding memories should only happen between two people, that glue can only bind two people together. That glue with another somehow weakens the bond with the first.

Why such exclusivity?

Victorian notions of romance between one man one woman, faithful to each other, dominate today's thinking as the only "righteous" relationship. Abraham and Joseph Smith would both raise an eyebrow at that notion.

Well if the understanding of the first romance is that there will be no others, then it will disrupt the glue. I am far from Victorian notions of objectifying sex, whereas I see it as an action and process, not the Cartesian object of the Victorian era. So in that regard I actually object.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I like this notion. Spirituality itself is in a sense "the path". And it (whatever it really is) is so multifaceted and different for each person. Given this, how anyone could ever claim it as a method for determining the truth of abstract truth-statements (like "Joseph was a true prophet", or "the church is God's only true kingdom on earth") is beyond me. This application is completely meaningless, a true misappropriation of spiritual (or other kinds) of wonder, which wonder I take to be the genus of which religiousity is one species. My secular approach to life often gives me a great sense of wonder (I wouldn't call it spirituality but isn't that what we're talking about?), but I wouldn't abuse that wonder by actually applying it to a rational quest for knowledge about the world.

I understand what you are saying, but let me clarify a bit. You probably didn't mean this actually, but ...


"path" is still tangible, an object, and process includes every facet of the experience, both tangible and intangible.

when we objectify JS's "spirituality" we limit it and define it so that we can capture it in a bottle, but we therefore fail to emulate his genius and his process. A spiritual verification is simply a testament of emulation IMHO.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

That is most certainly not my message.

No, I think that is the implication, whether you want to admit or not. You're basically saying that "everyone does it" including God's chosen (which I dispute) and thus it must be no big deal.

"God can do great works through adulterers, so what's the big deal? Adulterate away!"

Originally Posted by Archaea

However, ranking sin is foolish, as developing our character requires us to focus upon knowledge, communication, trust, industry, health and faith. If we wish to have a marriage full of honest communication, we will avoid infidelity. But when it happens the sources need to be attacked, not just the symptoms.

I've said repeatedly I'm not in the business of ranking sin, but adultery gets a special category--a point the Lord has made repeatedly in different dispensations through different men. Minimizing it is false doctrine.

Originally Posted by Archaea

In A. Carrington, we have an example of a man who had the prophet's ear and was able to function despite his infidelity, so it is possible to perform "spiritual" work while under the sin of infidelity.

I don't know enough about the Carrington circumstance to offer a strong opinion on this, but do not underestimate the ability of men to "fake it." Enough bishops and stake presidents have fallen into this snare that it goes without saying, but to employ an analogy, the sacrament does not become invalid for the recipients even if the men administering it are secretly unworthy.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

If one does not believe that JS was literally commanded by God to reinstute polygamy and polyandry and to go about in the way that he did, then what he did goes far beyond adultry.

We are talking using religious trust, power and authority to rape women. To rape underage girls. To coerce someone who was essentially his adopted daughter (Fanny Alger). To coerce married women after sending their husbands off to far off missions.

This is the kind of stuff that is likely bothering people like Lyndon Lamborn, not just that he took more than one wife. Its also the kind of stuff that motivated people to risk their lives and reputations by publishing The Expositor, and to motivate outsiders to kill JS. Much lessor crimes are likely going to send Warren Jeffs to jail for life.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I like this notion. Spirituality itself is in a sense "the path". And it (whatever it really is) is so multifaceted and different for each person. Given this, how anyone could ever claim it as a method for determining the truth of abstract truth-statements (like "Joseph was a true prophet", or "the church is God's only true kingdom on earth") is beyond me...My secular approach to life often gives me a great sense of wonder (I wouldn't call it spirituality but isn't that what we're talking about?), but I wouldn't abuse that wonder by actually applying it to a rational quest for knowledge about the world.

You articulate well what for me is the ultimate "conundrum of life". We have these individual experiences of wonder or spirituality where, for all too brief moments, the heavens part and feelings of comfort and warmth envelope our very beings. The feelings subside and we are left to ponder their significance and meaning. Do these moments absolutely confirm one great truth or religion, or are they simply personal glimpses of life's great beauty?

The translation of implied meaning is my dilemma. Too often LDS society errs by trying to ascribe all spiritual events to confirmation of gospel truthfulness. Why can't we enjoy these peaceful moments for their simple unadorned purity - whether it be through listening to a Beethoven Sonata (shameless plug), or gazing at the starlit heavens on a clear summer evening? I don't need a nineteenth century prophet to recite his top down interpretation of my experiences. That is not apostasy, just common sense.