Polygamy---Commanded by God in the Old Testament or Tolerated?

Post by **_ludwigm** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:12 am

charity wrote:
liz3564 wrote: ... "celestial intercourse"? ...
...

liz3564 is true.
I know other words, too, but they don't fit to "CK" definition of this forum.

charity wrote: ...
liz3564 wrote:Charity, you claim that I am looking at polygamy from "a worldly point of view".
...
Your claim for exclusivity is what is the wordly part. We don't know how we will feel when we are perfect. When we can love without condition, without possession, without jealousy and envy. I am not trying to tell anyone how they will feel. I am asking for people to understand that they can't know how they will feel under those circumstances.

1. "We don't know how we will feel when we are perfect."
I don't like name calling. It doesn't solve anything. I didn't like when charity was called st^&!@ by others and don't like it now. But I understand them (and my weakness is the agreeing).

Eating anything, claimed by so called prophets, by the name of a nonexisting being, in the hope of a never proved and unprovable other life than this ...
This is far from perfection.

2. "I am not trying to tell anyone how they will feel."
This church doesn't cease to tell it to everyone.

3. "they can't know how they will feel under those circumstances"
And because they can't know how they will feel under those circumstances, they should believe everything was told about it by every so-called "P" from Joseph Smith to GBH.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:48 pm

Charity wrote:Your claim for exclusivity is what is the worldly part.

Not according to Spencer W. Kimball:

President Kimball wrote:In 1831 the Lord declared, “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else” (D&C 42:22). Of this commandment, President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) taught: “The words none else eliminate everyone and everything. The spouse then becomes preeminent in the life of the husband or wife, and neither social life nor occupational life nor political life nor any other interest nor person nor thing shall ever take precedence over the companion spouse.” A husband or wife who places children, friends, careers, hobbies, or Church callings before the marital relationship is in direct violation of the commandment “none else.”

This is a quote taken directly from the Church website:

Link

Why is it impossible for you to understand my conflict on this topic?

Post by **_Runtu** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:32 pm

liz3564 wrote:Why is it impossible for you to understand my conflict on this topic?

Remember, Liz, charity is here doing apologetics. An apologist's job is not to understand where you're coming from but to defend the church and in particular Joseph Smith. That simple fact explains why there is so little real dialogue between us "critics" and most apologists. Rather than attempt to help us work through our conflicts, they seem content to just let us go, all the while blaming us for our lack of faith.

The only apologist who has ever offered to "help" me resolve my issues with the church is Daniel Peterson.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:40 pm

What was difficult for me as a believer was holding heaven as something horrible but holding hope that it would somehow appeal to me at some future time.

This is one of those things that felt REALLY wrong about the whole plan.

Shouldn't heaven be something wonderful? To look forward to? A place of peace and hope and love?

Not a place that feels cruel, disgusting, degrading, and literally made me physically and emotionally SICK?

It was like saying that someday I will love the idea of slavery, or child abuse, or shame.

First there is something wrong with a plan that requires someone feel good about something that emotionally and spiritually feels horrible. And secondly, isn't there something really perverse about wanting to feel good about what is horrible?

Regardless of what Charity thinks Liz... I hold that it is holy and one of the most amazing of all traits in life, to have an exclusive emotional and intimate bond between a husband and a wife.

It is FAR more life giving and expansive and incredibly enlightened than the primitive mating of animals, (which is why monogamy has evolved in the human).

~dancer~

Post by **_charity** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:15 pm

truth dancer wrote:What was difficult for me as a believer was holding heaven as something horrible but holding hope that it would somehow appeal to me at some future time.

This is one of those things that felt REALLY wrong about the whole plan.

Shouldn't heaven be something wonderful? To look forward to? A place of peace and hope and love?

Not a place that feels cruel, disgusting, degrading, and literally made me physically and emotionally SICK?

It was like saying that someday I will love the idea of slavery, or child abuse, or shame.

First there is something wrong with a plan that requires someone feel good about something that emotionally and spiritually feels horrible. And secondly, isn't there something really perverse about wanting to feel good about what is horrible?

Regardless of what Charity thinks Liz... I hold that it is holy and one of the most amazing of all traits in life, to have an exclusive emotional and intimate bond between a husband and a wife.

It is FAR more life giving and expansive and incredibly enlightened than the primitive mating of animals, (which is why monogamy has evolved in the human).

~dancer~

Dancer, you seem to think that when your idea and God's idea don't match, that He is wrong and you are right. Did you ever consider that it will be your understanding that will be changed?

One of the clues that it is your idea that is haywire is when you continually refer to plural marriage as primitive mating of animals.

I don't think I need to discuss this with you any more. I am obviously not going to get through to you. Your understanding will change at some point. Sounds to me like after you die. But everything will be fine.

Post by **_charity** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:21 pm

Runtu wrote:
liz3564 wrote:Why is it impossible for you to understand my conflict on this topic?

Remember, Liz, charity is here doing apologetics. An apologist's job is not to understand where you're coming from but to defend the church and in particular Joseph Smith. That simple fact explains why there is so little real dialogue between us "critics" and most apologists. Rather than attempt to help us work through our conflicts, they seem content to just let us go, all the while blaming us for our lack of faith.

The only apologist who has ever offered to "help" me resolve my issues with the church is Daniel Peterson.

This is not right, runtu. I understand completely what truth dancer and liz are saying here. Obviously I do not agree with them. I have explained to them where their idea is wrong. They don't accept it. Which is fine. The only thing that is not fine is if a person says, "You don't accept that what I say is right, therefore you aren't even trying to understand me."

What is more helpful to a person who is struggling with a quesiton than to explain to them what the truth is? What do you expect in "resolving" issues? I really would like to know.

Truth dancer keeps claiming exclusivity and possessiveness as the evolving human ideal. I don't agree that this is progression toward good and right. But do you think I don't understand her?

Post by **_Runtu** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:28 pm

charity wrote:This is not right, runtu. I understand completely what truth dancer and liz are saying here.

Not once have I seen you attempt to understand what Liz thinks. You've been quite content to tell her what you think she believes. Why? Because you understand completely, or at least you think you do.

Obviously I do not agree with them. I have explained to them where their idea is wrong.

Exactly. You are more interested in summarizing and then telling them where they're wrong than you are in really understanding and helping.

They don't accept it. Which is fine. The only thing that is not fine is if a person says, "You don't accept that what I say is right, therefore you aren't even trying to understand me."

I didn't see Liz saying that at all. Rather, she said she hadn't completely explained her position, and you said you understood it anyway and then pronounced it worldly. Bottom line: you're right and Liz is wrong.

What is more helpful to a person who is struggling with a quesiton than to explain to them what the truth is? What do you expect in "resolving" issues? I really would like to know.

It would be helpful to understand where and how the person is troubled by your version of the truth and start from there. I haven't seen any attempt on your part to do that.

Truth dancer keeps claiming exclusivity and possessiveness as the evolving human ideal. I don't agree that this is progression toward good and right. But do you think I don't understand her?

I wasn't talking about TD. Here you have Liz, who is a member who wants to believe, and instead of finding out where her issues lie and why she is troubled, you seem content to lump her in with TD as a lost cause.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:36 pm

Hi Charity...

Dancer, you seem to think that when your idea and God's idea don't match, that He is wrong and you are right.

Absolutely NOT. Completely wrong on this. I have said over and over and over that I am quite certain I know nothing at all compared to what is truth. I do not claim to know truth by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I am quite certain whatever is next, whatever IS, is way beyond anything we humans can possibly imagine let alone comprehend.

Which is why I find folks who think they know "truth" and understand God, and who think they can preach it to others, silly.

Did you ever consider that it will be your understanding that will be changed?

Did you read my post? I addressed how odd is a plan where what is supposed to be heaven seems like hell, and how weird it is that we are supposed to trust that what seems horrible will actually be wonderful. (sigh)

Let me give you another example... If someone tells you, "hey, I know you do not like to eat this mushy dogfood but when we get to Bro. Smith's house you will change your mind and love it". You know? ... I mean, no thank you! :-)

Of COURSE the LDS heaven is possible... also possible is any one of the thousands of heavens created by humans. I have never stated otherwise. What I WILL tell you is that if the LDS version is the correct one, I want no part of it in the least!

One of the clues that it is your idea that is haywire is when you continually refer to plural marriage as primitive mating of animals.

I do think it is absolutely funny how you equate such a primitive animalistic mating system as the one God would choose, but I do realize folks like different things.

I don't think I need to discuss this with you any more. I am obviously not going to get through to you.

If you mean are you going to convince me that I would enjoy a harem, you are right... I'm a lost cause! :-)

Your understanding will change at some point.

Ohh Charity, the psychic. Knows everything. Can see into the future. Can prophesize. One of the chosen who can actually understand God! Wow!

;-)

~dancer~

Post by **_Gazelam** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:43 pm

The truth is indisputable that God has no problem with polygamy. We worship the God of Abraham Isacc and Jacob, with promisesd made to each of them that we strive to reach.

We need to stop trying to conform the teachings of God to what we want them to be, and try harder to conform ourselves to the doctrines of God.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:48 pm

Charity...

Truth dancer keeps claiming exclusivity and possessiveness as the evolving human ideal. I don't agree that this is progression toward good and right. But do you think I don't understand her?

CHARITY WILL YOU PLEASE STOP MISREPRESENTING ME!

I keep asking and asking for you to be honest and respectful.

I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT POSSESSIVENESS as an evolving human ideal. NEVER!

You know this... you are flat out making this up so you have something to argue about.

Yes, I believe the ability of a man and women to form an exclusive bond is AMAZING... it reflects an incredible ability for an emotional and intimate relationship virtually unknown in any other species. And yes it is a highly evolved trait... far beyond what we see in most animals who do NOT bond in this way.

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH POSSESSIVENESS. It has to do with care, connection, intimacy, compassion, and a remarkable depth of love.

Again... please stop with your nonsense!

~dancer~