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

[_Ray A]

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! :-)

I can tell a true story about a friend of mine who came home one night, er, slightly intoxicated, and found what he thought was mince and rice in the fridge. He was hungry and ate it all. The next day his mother told him she'd mixed up dog food with some rice. He was a bit taken aback, but said he thought it tasted good. That night he was seen barking at the front gate.

But seriously, TD, what do you think, looking at this from another perspective, about the women who currently, and apparently live happily (so many of them say) in polygamy in Utah? I also know of a case here in Australia where a dozen women lived polygamously with one man, which was shown on 60 Minutes, and they said they were all happy with the set up. (He even said he copied Joseph Smith.)

Not downplaying you, or Liz, for the way you feel. My daughters feel exactly the same way. But should we assume that all women will find polygamy offensive?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ray... :-)

I can tell a true story about a friend of mine who came home one night, er, slightly intoxicated, and found what he thought was mince and rice in the fridge. He was hungry and ate it all. The next day his mother told him she'd mixed up dog food with some rice. He was a bit taken aback, but said he thought it tasted good. That night he was seen barking at the front gate.

But seriously, TD, what do you think, looking at this from anoter perspective, about the women who currently, and apparently live happily (so many of them say) in polygamy in Utah? I also know of a case here in Australia where a dozen women lived polygamously with one man, which was shown on 60 Minutes, and they said they were all happy with the set up. (He even said he copied Joseph Smith.)

Not downplaying you, or Liz, for the way you feel. My daughters feel exactly the same way. But should we assume that all women will find polygamy offensive?

I think I have been very clear that there are indeed women who enjoy the harem lifestyle. No question about it. There are folks who enjoy all sorts of alternative lifestyles, many of which disgust me... we will not get into them in this forum. :-)

I have said repeatedly that there seems to be a particular type of woman who like the idea of sharing a man, or at least clear patterns of thoughts shared by women who think sharing a man is a great idea.

And, if adults, without coercion and manipulation want to engage in whatever form of mating they wish, fine with me.

The problem comes in when folks start claiming that it is God's will, or the eternal mating pattern in heaven, or the ultimate form of relationship, or whatever.

I do think it is very clear that monogamy has evolved in the human because it is better for the survival of our species.

In addition, polygamy is clearly harmful to society by virtually every measure.

But again, I have no problem with those ADULTS who want to engage in alternative forms of mating, so long as children are not hurt.

~dancer~

[_charity]

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.

Yes, I do understand. In much of western society, there is a cultural repugnance, particularly among women, against polygamy. It gets really complicated when there is the possiblity that God has commanded it. Enough to test people's faith, and in fact, enough that some people lose their faith.

I also understand, which many do not, that most of that cultural repugnance is caused by models of polygmay which are not God's way. Truth dancer keeps referring to harems. A harem is NOT plural marriage as lived by Latter-day Saints.

And she condescendingly says, "Some women don't mind living in harems." And she is referring to LDS, as well as non-LDS here. She has made that plain. This is insulting to those women, and men, who obeyed God's command and lived in accordance with righteous principles of plural marraige.

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.

I do understand. You keep saying I should be more interested in helping. WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HELP? Please answer that question. If you say, "understanding" I think I will scream. I DO understand how they feel. And how does that help?

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.

I do not think anyone is a lost cause. Liz has spoken very respectfully. She has not insulted anyone who believes differently than she does. She has questions. And yes she is different from truth dancer, who insists she stands on high ground, with evolved human emotions, and nothing but disdain for anyone who can hold a different view.

And yes, people who believe, at this point that human possessiveness and exclusivity are higher evolved forms are mistaken.

[_Blixa]

When I read statements like this:

Your understanding will change at some point. Sounds to me like after you die.

it is like looking into the abyss; the abyss of everything cold and non human. Even this followup,

But everything will be fine.

strikes me as coming from a place so absolutist and condescending as to be truly monstrous.

Charity is right. There can be no further discussion with such a position.

[_truth dancer]

And yes she is different from truth dancer, who insists she stands on high ground, with evolved human emotions, and nothing but disdain for anyone who can hold a different view.

OMG Charity, quit with your pretend psychic abilities.

Disdain? You have got to be kidding! I happen to think the fact that the world is filled with differences to be a fabulous, amazing, wonderful, thing. I am GLAD that we all think differently, believe differently, and hold different views.

What I have a problem with is the idea that GOD commanded such a practice. Can't you see the difference? Seriously, do you not understand this?

This is the most ridiculous of all your made up, pretend psychic guesses.

How many times have I said that I AM FINE WITH THOSE WHO CHOSE AN ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE? Over and over and over I say this and you still go with your make believe garbage.

You are flat out making stuff up and you know it. Why do you do this? Isn't there something in your code of behavior about honesty?

How many times have I stated that I do not think I know truth and am quite sure there is much more to the story?

Over and over and over and over I tell you things and you make up this sort of nonsense... come on Charity.

If you can't engage in an honest conversation at least stop with this tactic.... it is so tiresome.

And she condescendingly says, "Some women don't mind living in harems." And she is referring to LDS, as well as non-LDS here. She has made that plain. This is insulting to those women, and men, who obeyed God's command and lived in accordance with righteous principles of plural marraige.

Wrong again... YOU may think a harem lifestyle is insulting. I however do not.

I respect women who enjoy whatever form of mating/partnership they want. I have said this over and over and over. Nothing condescending at all. NOTHING Charity. I'm referring to women who enjoy the lifestyle. They enjoy something different than do I. So? I do not care. I do not call it marriage because marriage is between one man and one woman. Women sharing one men, regardless of what other names you want to call it is a harem.

AGAIN... for the millionth time... I object to folks claiming GOD COMMANDS WOMEN TO SHARE A MAN. Is that clear enough for you?


~dancer~

[_charity]

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.

dancer, your later statements were a little less absolute, but here you clearly say that the picture of heaven as having plural marriage was horrible, but that horrible would appeal to you are some future date. And then you give the mushy dog food example, which reinforces your idea above expressed.

Your mutliple posts are just too many to take and respond to point by point. Let me try to be concise here.

I understand that plural marriage seems to you to be a condition you would not tolerate. You accept that others may accept it. (Even if you call it living in a harem, which I find to be demeaning.)

I understand that if this is a condition you could not tolerate, you find it impossible to accept that God would command it.

This is a case of assimilation vs accomodation. One has to happen when a new idea does not match with an idea we already have in our minds.

You have a certain idea about polygamy in your mind. (Polygamy is horrible to you.) The idea that God can command polygamy has to be taken into your mind's database. One of two things can happen. In the first case, assimilation, you take in the new information (God commands) and when it doesn't fit the idea, you change it to be that God would not command it. That way your idea that polygamy is horribe is maintained. But there is another way of reconciling two such competing ideas. You can accomodate the new information, and say, If God commands it, it isn't horrible, therefore my idea changes.

You have obviously chosen assimilation over accommodation. But the other strategy is just as valid.

That is all I am going to say to you dancer. You don't want to accommodate and that is fine. Assmiliation happens all the time.

[_Blixa]

dancer, your later statements were a little less absolute, but here you clearly say that the picture of heaven as having plural marriage was horrible, but that horrible would appeal to you are some future date. And then you give the mushy dog food example, which reinforces your idea above expressed.

Your mutliple posts are just too many to take and respond to point by point.

I think if one wants to respond accurately to a thread, one has to read all the posts---and read them carefully enough to comprehend both the posts and who wrote them. I know the latter can happen easily on a quick read through---its Ray A with the mushy dog food, so that doesn't reinforce TD's point. Nor is TD saying that something horrible would appeal to her at a future date, as you seem to suggest, but rather that she used to find it difficult to contemplate how something horrifying was supposed to be appealing at a future date.

I haven't found any of TD's posts to be suggestive of absolutism, either. Her stance is one that usually admits to multiple "truths," and doesn't seem to conflate her understanding with some Absoute, Universal and Transhistorical Truth.

[_truth dancer]

dancer, your later statements were a little less absolute, but here you clearly say that the picture of heaven as having plural marriage was horrible, but that horrible would appeal to you are some future date.

No that is not what I clearly state. Not at all.

Yes the idea of the LDS heaven is horrible to me. Absolutely correct.

No, I do not think that horrible would appeal to me at some future date.

And then you give the mushy dog food example, which reinforces your idea above expressed.

I'm suggesting I do NOT think a holy plan is one that seems horrible to someone but one must embrace it as if it were good. In other words, believe that what one thinks is horrible is actually good, and what one thinks is good is actually horrible.

I understand that plural marriage seems to you to be a condition you would not tolerate. You accept that others may accept it. (Even if you call it living in a harem, which I find to be demeaning.)

Glad you realize I do not use the term to be demeaning.

I understand that if this is a condition you could not tolerate,

Correct.

you find it impossible to accept that God would command it.

INCORRECT.

Of course God could command anything. The world is filled with all sorts of claims from God. I have repeatedly stated that any could be true. I do not THINK or believe polygamy is a commandment of God but I have often stated that anything is possible. It seems highly unlikely and I can't fit it into my brain, heart, or spirit but I have been clear that, if the LDS church is true, I am not one of the chosen which may be the problem. I am totally fine with this.

This is a case of assimilation vs accomodation. One has to happen when a new idea does not match with an idea we already have in our minds.

Now you are getting closer.... :-)

I tried for many years to make what seemed horrible/wrong/cruel/degrading, feel right (polygamy being one of a few issues), and to make what I believed in my heart was holy/good/sacred, seem wrong. It just couldn't happen for me.

Believe me I tried. I prayed, fasted, went to the temple, had priesthood blessings, prayed, plead, fasted some more, did everything I possibly could and ALWAYS without exception, my inspiration, answers to prayer, was inconsistent with LDS belief.

So, finally I gave up trying to accomodate what felt unholy to me. I gave up trying to convince my heart and soul that what I believed was cruel and degrading, was actually good.

I trusted my personal inspiration, the answers to my prayers, my intuition, and my conscience.

Absolutely this is true.

It was one of the most peaceful times of my life.

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

Thank you Blixa... :-)

I was beginning to wonder if I lost all ability to communicate!

:-)

~dancer~

[_charity]

dancer, your later statements were a little less absolute, but here you clearly say that the picture of heaven as having plural marriage was horrible, but that horrible would appeal to you are some future date. And then you give the mushy dog food example, which reinforces your idea above expressed.

Your mutliple posts are just too many to take and respond to point by point.

I think if one wants to respond accurately to a thread, one has to read all the posts---and read them carefully enough to comprehend both the posts and who wrote them. I know the latter can happen easily on a quick read through---its Ray A with the mushy dog food, so that doesn't reinforce TD's point. Nor is TD saying that something horrible would appeal to her at a future date, as you seem to suggest, but rather that she used to find it difficult to contemplate how something horrifying was supposed to be appealing at a future date.

I haven't found any of TD's posts to be suggestive of absolutism, either. Her stance is one that usually admits to multiple "truths," and doesn't seem to conflate her understanding with some Absoute, Universal and Transhistorical Truth.

I didn't say I didn't read them. I just said it would take too much to go point by point through them.

And the only absolute she seems to say is that to her polygamy is too horrible to contemplate in a heavenly circumstance, and that others may find living in a harem okay. Do you not see that as demeaning?