- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have a question that I have been pondering about for some time now. We discussed in another thread how women’s “virtue” can be the most horrible thing to deprive her of and how God delights in the chastity of women.
How does this square with the experiment of polygamy in the time of JS?
These marriages were often not full marriages in the sense of living together in the same household and sharing household duties. Even though they were solemnized in ceremony there was no legal paperwork that would detail the commitments of the spouses towards each other. And finally, when these relationships came to an end there does not seem to be formal disillusion. Emma forced Emily Dow Partridge and her sister from her home after repenting of consenting to their plural marriage with JS, her husband. Emily recounted, “my sister and I were cast off.”
Were these sisters deprived of their virtue? They were married to JS in a religious but non-legal sense.
Sometimes people will defend such missteps by saying that God gave the command but left it to Joseph to figure out the implementation.
If sexual sin is such a dead serious issue, high in both eternal significance and lasting mortal consequences, then why would God not provide some sort of safeguard?
What about a man’s virtue? A man holds priesthood office and authority. Shouldn’t those leadership roles lead to higher expectations about chastity and virtue?
A young man is given priesthood authority at the age of 12. It is the beginning of becoming a man within the culture. Where is the equal focus on virtue? There is discussion about MB and porn, but not virtue.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.