- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.
No, you answered my question just fine. Looking back, my post wasn’t too clear and not really what I intended. Let me rephrase it and elaborate a little.🙂 If JS never received the revelation or inspiration(or whatever you want to call it) of the “new and everlasting covenant”, what would be different in the church? Or what would be different if Sect. 132 never existed? Would we still have temple sealings? It wouldn’t really affect endowments because endowments have been around longer than sealings, is that right?
Also, what if a different prophet years later received the revelation of the “new and everlasting covenant”, would they interpret it to mean something other than polygamy or temple marriage?
I don’t know if that made it any clearer. I’ve just been thinking of the “what-ifs” when it comes to D&C 132. I guess I’m also trying to see if anything positive came from D&C 132 and all of the polygamy/polyandry craziness. Maybe the Church was suppose to make that mistake?
I think we need to learn from the past, so, in that light, I would say that the take-away is that polygamy is a bad thing all around – even though I can see one “good” thing that happened as a result: the accelerated creation of a new “people”, if you will, in which everyone was inter-related to a much greater extent than normally would have happened and the subsequent commitment and bonding (“sealing” in a sense) that helped the LDS Church survive and begin to flourish in Utah. That brought all kinds of issues, imo, that weren’t good – but I’m not sure if the LDS Church would have survived or flourished nearly as much if it had been able to remain in Missouri or Illinois. Polygamy was the primary reason for the expulsion and migration, so, in a really ironic way, it might have saved the Church – by allowing Joseph to be martyred and cementing the commitment of the members as a result. (Jesus’ crucifixion was a similar catalyst for the early Christians, and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire saved the Christian Church from being destroyed. I would say both were bad things – only “good” if viewed in terms of what they caused at the time, since I believe each led directly to lots of other issues that were not good at all.)
I’m not saying I like or approve of polygamy in any way, but, as a history teacher, I can see a possible benefit that came from it. If “raising up seed unto me” wasn’t about the number of children but rather their commitment level, it might have fulfilled that reason.
DontKnow wrote:Maybe the Church was suppose to make that mistake?
And when somebody makes a mistake, we tell them to not over-analyze or shift blame or wallow in guilt. You acknowledge it as a mistake and move forward. From Curtis’s post “How Christianity Gave Us Gay Marriage”:
Quote:For Tocqueville, the march of equality was upending age-old institutions and moral habits “in all the Christian world.” It was a “providential fact,” by which he meant that there was nothing anybody could do to stop it.The ultimate source of the democratic revolution — the motor behind its inexorable unfolding — is the figure of Jesus Christ, who taught the
equal dignity of all persons, and declared in the Sermon on the Mount that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, and that the meek shall inherit the earth. These are among the most subversive teachings ever uttered — and according to Tocqueville, Western civilization has been working out their logic for the better part of two millennia, as political communities have applied Christ’s egalitarian teachings in stricter and stricter terms.
More and more, I am imagining a God who feels robbed when anyone forges a check for their mistakes with His supposed signature.Curtis wrote:I’m not saying I like or approve of polygamy in any way, but, as a history teacher, I can see a possible benefit that came from it. If “raising up seed unto me” wasn’t about the number of children but rather their commitment level, it might have fulfilled that reason.
I know someone whose g-grandparents were called upon to make a sacrifice that, even among polygamists, was extreme and heart-wrenching. (Today we would look at the “counsel” they got as almost criminal, but that’s another story.) My friend has a remarkable, other-worldly capacity for love, forgiveness and inclusion that I think comes partly from contemplating his ancestors’ lives.
I have to politely disagree that polygamy was needed to cement early church members to The Lord. Being asked to cross the plains or simply believing in the book of mormon instead of soley the bible at that time would have done that.No polygamy was a sacrifice that I believe was not required of The Lord but was man made to benefit the men of the church. Once the women succumbed to the idea of polygamy being needed for their and their children’s eternal salvation they in turn taught and passed it down to the following generations. Just like burquas, female circumsion, child brides, what “modesty” is, and many other cultural/religious practices, once the women buy/are forced into it, they succeed in teaching and enforcing it to their daughters and sons. Dax, I didn’t say it was required. I said that is one “good thing” that might be said to have resulted from it. Those are two very different views. Curtis, yes you did not say that it was required…I was speaking more in response to the idea itself which I have heard often as a reason for polygamy by various people and sources… Sorry I did not make that more clear. I still believe though that nothing good came from it that would/ could not have been accomplished in another way. Dax, in your opinion, do you think the Church would be where it is today(or maybe even better) if polygamy and D&C 132 never even happened? Do you think polygamy was meant to happen even though it wasn’t good? Dontknow….I think the church would be much further along in its progression and accepted by main stream America if polygamy had not been practiced. I truly believe that God works with what he has at the time. That people, including prophets can be inspired and fallible at the same time. I believe that the sealing keys would still have been revealed and made part of the temple. To summarize Hawkgrrrl’s astute observation… that of all the practices and beliefs in the bible why was JS seeking “revelation” about polygamy in the first place? There was no need for him to be asking for an answer unless he was already “looking”. Polygamy is found in history and cultures in which women have no voice,no rights and are basically breeding property that bear a man’s posterity or reward him with new virgins for “righteous living”. (old testament anyone?) Pretty grim but that is what polygamy boils down to. In my opinion monogamy is a much higher and harder law to follow which is why I believe monogamy was the very first example demonstrated in the garden of Eden between Adam and Eve.
I also do not think that God wanted polygamy to “happen”. I believe that he allowed for free agency and let the consequences that followed play out in a controlled way. How do you think the church would be if polygamy had not been practiced?
Dax wrote:I also do not think that God wanted polygamy to “happen”. I believe that he allowed for free agency and let the consequences that followed play out in a controlled way.
Was JS’s talk of the threatening angel with drawn sword a delusion, do you think? A self-justifying untruth, otherwise known as a lie…. or what?
Sounds like a tool of coercion to facilitate adoption of the principle to me. He directed the immediate danger back toward himself which made it less of a direct threat but the message that the skeptical member would come away with was clear. There were angels with swords that were very insistent that the principle be adopted. To put it another way: look even
Idon’t like the principle… but do the math. Don’t shoot the messenger. Ann wrote:Was JS’s talk of the threatening angel with drawn sword a delusion, do you think? A self-justifying untruth, otherwise known as a lie…. or what?
I don’t think an angel of God would institute compulsion to gain compliance. Our understanding is that God’s way is agency and Satan’s plan is compulsion &/or fear. I think in those early days if the saints had this in mind the way we do today polygamy may have never gained traction – or at a very minimum the story of the angel with a drawn sword would not have been used. I personally lean on what William Marks (Nauvoo Stake President) said – that Joseph before his death claimed that he had been deceived and that polygamy is wrong and it’s practice must be put down or the church would ultimately be destroyed. In the end this prediction would have been fulfilled if it were not for the Manifesto, I call this true prophecy.
Yes, what is claimed to be revelation is a mix of truth and error, this is why it is vital that we listen to the prophet and follow the spirit.
I think Joseph was “a visionary man”, but I don’t think that necessarily means every “vision” he had was of divine origin. Personally, I think the vision of the angel with a drawn sword is a good example of that (that he wasn’t lying about it, but that it didn’t have to have come from God) – and I recognize fully the door I’m opening in saying that. Also, in the First Vision, he was told his “name would be had for good and evil” – and
I interpret that more literally than most members. I see great power and meaning in the concept of sealing that came out of all of this, and I see great good that is attached to his name, but I think plural marriage and, later, traditional polygamy are part of the evil for which his name became known. He wasn’t just a saint; he was a real, complex, fully human being. He did good, and he did bad – and I see that future predicted right from the start. I’m okay with that, since I don’t expect more. Ironically, I think it allows my support to me deeper than if I viewed his as a demi-god or a superhero.
If you are interested, the following posted on my personal blog last Monday:
“
I Sustain and Support Leaders IN Their Humanity, Not By Ignoring It” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2014/02/i-sustain-and-support-leaders-in-their.html Ann…in answer to your question I agree with the others answers (pressed for time as usual). I still can believe that JS was a prophet without having to believe he was perfect or that every revelation was a “revelation”. Curtis wrote:I think Joseph was “a visionary man”, but I don’t think that necessarily means every “vision” he had was of divine origin.
Personally, I think the vision of the angel with a drawn sword is a good example of that (that he wasn’t lying about it, but that it didn’t have to have come from God) – and I recognize fully the door I’m opening in saying that. Also, in the First Vision, he was told his “name would be had for good and evil” – and
I interpret that more literally than most members. I see great power and meaning in the concept of sealing that came out of all of this, and I see great good that is attached to his name, but I think plural marriage and, later, traditional polygamy are part of the evil for which his name became known. He wasn’t just a saint; he was a real, complex, fully human being. He did good, and he did bad – and I see that future predicted right from the start. I’m okay with that, since I don’t expect more. Ironically, I think it allows my support to me deeper than if I viewed his as a demi-god or a superhero.
If you’re inclined, could you elaborate?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.