- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
I told my wife about the polyandry and she said “OK, so he screwed up, what’s the big deal — he was just a man!”.
I’m really surprised at her reaction. Not even sure what to write, other than I feel really surprised that an essentially TBM like this would brush it off. Perhaps because it attacks her central beliefs, she is able to brush it off — for the good of the rest of her beliefs.
I fail to see why you were surprised to her response? The direction the Church is going is recognizing the humanity of JS and that he did in fact make mistakes. Mormonism is not bound up in the supposed perfection of JS.
SD – I learned a lesson a few years ago, that was helpful to me, maybe it will help you with your wife. Early on in our faith experience in my family, I assumed that everyone’s crisis/fall-out was based on the same or similar things. But that changed when I attended an Open Stories conference to support my husband. Simultaneous to weekend of the event, the Mormon Think, creator was up for excommunication. In the online world, it was a big deal. When we arrived my husband made an announcement about the status of David Twede thing. No one, in a filled chapel, responded. I instantly became aware, that not every crisis or non-crisis is based on the same issues. During the breaks as I mingled with people I found a myriad of reasons for struggle. Yes, some were the same, but most were as individual as the people. For some the Mountain Meadows Massacre was the tipping point, for others the City Creek Mall, for other the Prop 8 experience. Still others had feminist leanings and hurts, others had history issues, but not always with Joseph. As we drove home, we talked about it. We also realized that lots of people never have a crisis or stay, much for the same diverse reasons. For your wife, polygamy isn’t an issue. For me it’s not as critical a concern as other things. But I would bet, she has struggles and they hurt her as much as your issues hurt you.
SilentDawning wrote:I told my wife about the polyandry and she said “OK, so he screwed up, what’s the big deal — he was just a man!”.
I’m really surprised at her reaction. Not even sure what to write, other than I feel really surprised that an essentially TBM like this would brush it off. Perhaps because it attacks her central beliefs, she is able to brush it off — for the good of the rest of her beliefs.
Okay, just curious. She regards the polyandry as the screw up, not plural wives?
Every once in awhile something on here saves me from feeling like all hope is lost for me with religion. Thanks Ray for this message… Quote:I’m not trying to hold up Joseph as a model of virtuous behavior (since I don’t see him as such), but I am saying the standard we (collectively) tend to demand of our prophets and apostles (particularly in the case of Joseph, who can be seen, I believe, more in the role of an Old Testament prophet than any other type) simply is not consistent with history and our own scriptural canon. The majority of exceedingly extraordinary people throughout history have carried baggage on the other side of their “greatness”, as well. I don’t see that disconnect as their fault (even as I see their actions as their fault); I see that disconnect as our fault, and I include leadership in that statement just as much as general membership – more so, in an important way, since the leadership has condoned and even encouraged that unrealistic view.
It reminded me how human we all are, even prophets. I guess what I really struggle with concerning the church whitewashing things in the past is I value honesty so very much. I would rather have people look down on me than see me in a way i don’t deserve. I feel so lied to lately so to hear they are getting more of this information out is giving me some hope.
Its about time we learned in church culture that people aren’t good or bad, they are often a little of both depending on the day. Lets put aside the image of perfection.
One of the issues I have is the double standard between Joseph Smith and the rest of us. So what if Joseph Smith used his position of authority to coerce young girls, married women, etc into having sexual relations with him. He was only a man. He isn’t perfect.
But if I were to do something similar, I would be excommunicated, my priesthood stripped away.
If we are going to be forgiving of Joseph Smith for his sexual indiscretions then we must also do the same for the rest of the church.
TheDoctor13 wrote:One of the issues I have is the double standard between Joseph Smith and the rest of us.
So what if Joseph Smith used his position of authority to coerce young girls, married women, etc into having sexual relations with him. He was only a man. He isn’t perfect.
But if I were to do something similar, I would be excommunicated, my priesthood stripped away.
If we are going to be forgiving of Joseph Smith for his sexual indiscretions then we must also do the same for the rest of the church.
I don’t think anyone is excusing JS for his actions. But he is accountable to God for his actions, just as you are accountable to God for your actions. It is my view you have no priesthood, except that which God gives you and NO MAN can give it to you or take it away from you. So, if you aren’t doing what God asks and as a result do not have his blessing and priesthood, change your ways and do as he asks.
This was in response to the previous post who described his wife as saying “so what, he was only a man” Quote:If we are going to be forgiving of Joseph Smith for his sexual indiscretions then we must also do the same for the rest of the church.
Kind of like, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
People aren’t caricatures, no matter how they are portrayed by others. Simply admitting we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (really admitting it and not acting like there are exceptions) would take care of SO much.
It may be no secret that I would love polyandry. For the “variety” if nothing else. If one husband is an introvert, perhaps the other could be a great conversationalist.
But, that’s me.
About JS’s polyandry…I guess I never knew the church kept it secret. I am making sure MY kids know all about this stuff now so that they aren’t “hit” with it later. But I make it more of a “matter of fact” deal and not so weird to them.
What I can’t figure out are the following:
If a sealing is required for exaltation, why would these polyandous wives choose JS over their husbands? In some cases the husband was an active church member. Was there a teaching about PM that we don’t know about that made both these women AND JS think that it was okay to NOT help the husband along in his path to exaltation? If the church is all about family, JS should have turned these women away and should have insisted that they create a unity with their husband…and father to their children. Because…if you think about it, that man’s children are now sealed to JS…and not to the father. Not entirely fair in my mind…but again, perhaps there was a teaching that we didn’t get to hear about.
Also, I just can’t get past D&C 132: 61…if any man espouse a
virgin(cough, cough), and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man( ahemand to no one elsewhich contradicts vs. 41…And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
Although, vs. 41 gives *me* hope that polyandry could exist.
I do believe that in heaven we will be given the option to unite with others…I can’t imagine NOT being able to “commune” with others as we see fit, especially when we will be filled with so much love.
Anyway…
What else will the church “reveal” through these papers?
QuestionAbound wrote:It may be no secret that I would love polyandry. For the “variety” if nothing else.
If one husband is an introvert, perhaps the other could be a great conversationalist.
Even though you finished this statement with a smile, I know from some of your other posts that you are serious.The only thing I would say is that polyandry does not make polygamy OK and polygamy doesn’t make polyandry OK. In my view any form of plural marriage is disgusting and I will have no part in it.
On Own Now wrote:
Even though you finished this statement with a smile, I know from some of your other posts that you are serious.The only thing I would say is that polyandry does not make polygamy OK and polygamy doesn’t make polyandry OK. In my view any form of plural marriage is disgusting and I will have no part in it.
You are right…I am serious…but only b/c I believe that people should be able to live and worship how/what they may. If consenting adults of sound mind choose (of their OWN will) to live in a polyamorous relationship, then why would I care one way or the other? I mean, choosing outside of religious obligations or commandments…choosing because they really want to live that way.
What I don’t like is the notion that a man
mustbed multiple women in order to gain godhood. That just doesn’t sound like a “warm and fuzzy” religion to me. A god who commands his sons to enjoy multiple female bodies but consigns his daughters to “just one”…Just One Male Body…on occasion…is not a god that I care to know. So, smiley or no smiley – the variety differing personalities could very well be a welcoming change.
I also agree with you that one doesn’t make the other right, but I don’t think that one is necessarily wrong (unless it’s done out of guilt or obligation or fear or under duress or forcibly, etc.). But, let’s be fair about it all and let women choose to live how/what they may as they see fit.
I also tend to wonder about just how “doctrine” it was in the beginning, but there are many discussion threads about that very point and I’ll not take up space here in starting a new one.
I will say…I’m glad you remember me from before. That makes me feel like I might really be part of this community.
🙂 QuestionsAbound wrote:But, let’s be fair about it all and let women choose to live how/what they may as they see fit.
Just tryin’ to understand now… Are you saying that if in GC in a couple of weeks, if the Church announces that plural marriage is back, but that it now includes both polygamy and polyandry, and that it is entirely the choice of the participants, that you would raise your hand to sustain the action and then immediately text your friends to tell them how happy you are?On Own Now wrote:QuestionsAbound wrote:But, let’s be fair about it all and let women choose to live how/what they may as they see fit.
Gosh – how anonymous ARE we on this forum?
Quote:Gosh – how anonymous ARE we on this forum?
Completely – as long as nobody in your personal life or local area knows who you are. It’s why we have edited some introductions to remove identifying information long enough to make sure the person wants that information to be available publicly. You can be as open or anonymous as you want – from complete anonymity (many here) to using your real name (like me and a few others). The admins don’t share any information with anyone. Period.
Having said that, there is NO need to answer any question you are uncomfortable answering. A simple, “I’d rather not go any further than this,” is fine.
Oh, Ray! You are simply wonderful. Thank you for your reply!
I spent the better part of this morning/afternoon trying to come up with an answer to that last question. My first version was too personal and left me feeling vulnerable. My second version was too snarky. My third version…well, let’s not mention my third version.
:crazy: I think I will say in answer OON…Don’t take me too seriously. I certainly don’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.