Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The polygamist man is NEVER equal to his women. The more wives you have the more power and dominion you have. How is this a great equalizer? I really can’t see how it helps rid people of selfishness.” Let me try it this way. I have a very good friend…let’s call him “Jim”. Jim is 45ish and a drywall finisher by trade. He has two wives, one 43 and one in her late 30’s. His first wife has 9 kids, the other wife has 5. Wife #1 is a reflexologist, she makes good money providing services to group homes…Wife #2 is in real estate. These ladies depend on each other to watch each other’s younger children, as well as the older kids, and have more free time than a monogamous couple would with either the 9 kids or the 5….I know it’s kinda strange if you’ve never seen it but it works out that way.
“Jim”, on the other hand, works his patoot off. We live in some of the best flyfishing country on the continent and Jim doesn’t even own a fishing rod. He simply does not have time. I’ve never seen a man with as little free time as him.
He gives all he has, and every minute he has, to his wives and children.
It is truly a refiner’s fire to learn to understand the wants and needs of another individual as he does in his marriages but he pulls it off.
On the other hand, Brigham Young said that this principle would damn more people than it would save (or something akin to that) It’s not easy and it’s not for the weak.
Power and dominion? Hardly.
If his attitude was selfish, he could just have a monogamous marriage and a girlfriend or two…or maybe a monogamous marriage and some extra income for nicer cars and nicer homes…or maybe a decent fishing pole and some time to use it.
When done correctly, I don’t think it’s an equalizer at all. It’s a liberator for women. Admitedly, there are many who don’t do it correctly.
That is the difference between celestial plural marriage and just plain old polygamy/bigamy IMHO.
My 2 cents..
Thanks, It’s a bit of a joke in the fundamentalist community that it seems sometimes that we love the Church more than the members do.
I don’t know…whether fundamentalist or mainstream….we have a heck of a lot more in common than in the ways we differ. I love the Church and the people in it and hate to see misunderstandings over history drive folks away.
If a person takes an honest prayerful look at our history and feels that things are wrong and they don’t want to associate with the Church…fine…but a lot of folks are duped by exmo propoganda IMHO.
I allowed it to drive me away for many years but, in honest retrospect, I probably was looking for something to find fault with so I could lead a more secular life. Hopefully the leadership is recognizing this problem and will do more to address it than depend on outside apologetics to provide relief for disgruntled members. In fairness to them, it’s a heck of a lot easier to criticize them than to suggest a workable solution.
Our history is what it is. IMHO…let’s don’t sugar coat it and, at the same time, let’s be careful viewing it with 21st century secular values. (the latter is the hard part, at least for me)
Well, with respect, I don’t think that 2 blacks over that many years, Elijah Able and Walker Lewis, constitute “indiscriminately”. We look at is as not done properly with Joseph’s new and limited understanding but that BY “straightened it out” and removed all doubt as to their status. We view it as Joseph’s knowledge increasing in this, as well as many other things.
We feel that Joseph taught Brigham this doctrine and believe Brigham when he says that he doesn’t preach any doctrine but what Joseph preached first. (something like that)
And we view the curses of Cain and Ham as being much older than protestantism.
I don’t feel I should comment further on this on this forum….
I feel this getting a bit uncomfortable but, if it stays civil, I’ll comment. “I guess I’m curious, how do you pick and choose past “revelations”? You made the comment that it’s not your choice, God decides.
Well, we normally go by what Joseph Smith said regarding that:
TPJS 368 … if any man preach any other gospel than that which I have preached he shall be cursed.
TPJS 214 How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? by his contradicting a former revelation.
” How could you even keep track of them all?”
Good point….it’s not easy.
It’s pretty simple really, we view what BY taught on blacks to be true. I know, I know,…..that doesn’t sit well with our current worldly views on it and we have to accept the consequences.
I could go into a lengthy disertation but that wouldn’t benefit anyone.
I will say this and try to let it go:
If I were the major contributor to black charities…
If I committed my life to work in the inner-city ghettos…
If I spent all my free time toward helping under-priveledged black kids…
Heck, if I spent black history month out drumming up contributions to the united negro college fund…
etc, etc….
And I stated a belief that blacks, for some reason, shouldn’t have the priesthood yet. …..
I would, in today’s world, still be labeled as “racist” and a person filled with “hate”.
Our culture has taught us that this belief is “wrong”. Is it? Who says so? Certainly not the God of the bible, BoM, PoGP, etc.
Who am I to tell Him what is right or wrong?
We probably should let this go. It’s just not something that is going to produce understanding on either side and it’s certainly not in the spirit of this blog. I’m just stating beliefs but try to always remain open-minded.
My opinion only…
Mileage will vary wildly.
I’m not sure that it would be in the interest of people trying to stay in the Church to describe fundamentalist views on blacks and the priesthood but, since you asked, I’ll try. Black people are God’s children, our brothers and sisters, and deserving of as much love and respect as anyone else. They should be treated as equals. I’ve known many wonderful black folks and hold absolutely nothing against them.
However, for some reason, God has declared that they are not to be priesthood holders until after the millinium.
Is it for some pre-existant fence-riding? I don’t know. Certain scriptures and comments from early prophets seem to indicate that.
I personally wish it wasn’t this way. It’s certainly not a comfortable position to take and it sure doesn’t win you any points in today’s world. I also personally wish God did not command us to practice celestial plural marriage….same deal.
(I also personally wish to win the lottery.) The problem is, these are not my decisions. It is not for me to tell God what kind of god He needs to be or judge his decisions by my limited human knowledge and insight. That would be indicative of a severe ego-trip on my part IMHO.
Fundamentalists fully realize the awkward postion that their view on blacks in the priesthood puts them with today’s society. It’s not a lot different than the early saints practicing polygamy….you do it because you know/believe it’s right, and you accept the consequences. We get to be called wonderful things like “racist” and be accused of “hatred” when, in reality, the idea that there is no difference in races is only an eyeblink in human history. It doesn’t matter if we harbor the most kind and loving feeling toward black people possible….if we support the view that they, for some reason, aren’t to have the priesthood yet, we are viewed as vile humans.
As far as folks leaving the Church because of it’s former beliefs on race…I think that the present leaders have come up with some pretty good explanations for the practice. It’s explained as tradition from 19th century America, mistaken leaders, etc. I certainly understand and agree for the Church to expand it is totally necessary to take positions like that.
I do find it peculiar that some of the same people that would leave the Church because of former teachings regading blacks think nothing of a bible full of references, and rules of conduct toward, slaves. I don’t see anyone “struggling” with that fact.
Surely slavery is as “bad” as racism…although in our present mindset…I don’t know.
If one believes that new revelations and principles somehow “trump” former revelations and principles, then I don’t see the problem. The Church has made it clear that all former teachings regarding the priesthood ban were wrong…or at least thats what I think they’re trying to say.
Sorry to ramble on…It’s not for me to turn this into a fundamentalist belief launch pad. If the moderators view this post as offensive or it starts an agruement, please delete it. That’s not my intention and arguement in a blog format over such issues would not benefit anyone IMHO.
I sometimes think though, that some folks leaving the Church over former beliefs like this are looking for an excuse to leave anyway. I know that’s not the case with everyone, but I sincerely hope the Church comes forth with a way to reconcile their history. It just doesn’t pay to hide things IMHO.
My apologies for appearing to push my views…that was a bit strong I suppose. I’m just saying that the guy needs the benefit-of-the-doubt that his thinking may actually be correct.
Much of out science and secular understanding today will probably be silliness and folly in a few generations. Those in the “soft, gentle darknesses” of their faith may yet be proven correct IMHO.
Just sayin….
Just to submit a little food-for-thought, could we look at it from Joseph’s point of view as he described things… **OK. I’m commanded to put this practice in place, probably as early as 1831 or so. I know what hardship this is going to bring others as well as myself. I also know my wife better than anyone and know that she absolutely won’t accept this.
I’m approached through the years 3? times by heavenly messengers, one with a drawn sword, telling me to implement this practice with severe threats if I don’t. I don’t want to, or know how, but I begin by explaining the practice/commandment and spiritually marrying a young lady living in our house.**
I don’t blame him for lying to Emma. I’m not sure that telling her a truth that he knew she couldn’t accept would have any postive outcome. I mean…what was he supposed to do? He couldn’t put off the practice anymore and he didn’t want to hurt his wife. I absolutely don’t blame him for lying to the public either. That only served to protect the people from the certain persecutions that would result.
The way us fundamentalist-types view it is that the commandment was first given to select members of the priesthood…later it became a law of the Church but, with the manifesto…it went back to being a law of the priesthood. We view it as a new and everlasting covenant…not a temporary practice until political/social pressures get to intense.
We, of course, recognize a separation between the priesthood and the Church that the Church does not.
All that aside….I do wish the Church would be more forthcoming regarding this history. It’s sad to see people leave the Church over something that might be understood if it were brought to the forefront instead of covered up. What good does it do to get increased membership if they are going to leave when they find out historical facts?
My 2 cents…
“But he thinks the temple stuff is exactly from Solomon’s temple, the tower of babel is literal for him, he knows very little about seers stones, treasure hunting, papyrus, early polygamy, witnesses ect…..He listens to the leaders and absorbs and obeys. He thinks polygamy will come back since it was a revelation and commandment, he believes in the law of consecration, he is a biblical racist. “ Er, uh…..I know about the above but believe the way your friend does after spending years questioning.
With respect, please leave a small window open in your mind that he may not be as “ignorant” as you think.
” He thinks polygamy will come back since it was a revelation and commandment, “
May I ask why you think that it won’t?
“He believes in the law of consecration,”
Is there something wrong with that that I’m missing?
” he is a biblical racist. “
Ditto. I won’t even start on the race thing because we would never agree…however, I will say that the idea of blacks being denied the priesthood is one heck of a lot bigger than just “biblical”. There are many references in the BoM, the PoGP, and the teachings of the early prophets of this dispensation.
My opinion only….
Mileage will certainly vary.
Well, the journeys not over until it’s over I hope. I went from TBM/elders’ quorum pres/temple-goer to agnostic science worshipper (heck, I had all the anti sites in my computer’s favorites) to full-blown fundamentalist Mormon in a period of about 20 years.
If you had told me when I was taking “human origins” anthropology classes and reading Richard Dawkins that I would someday embrace those things that I was way too “intelligent” to even listen to, I would not have believed it.
It’s an interesting journey, with respect, try to always reserve the right to change your mind…and be careful how “convinced” you are to others. It makes it uncomfortable later to say “oops”
Hmmm. If I could interject a fundamentalist view….
“…the payoffs need to be bigger, more significant, more urgent to justify the demands on people’s time and resources.”
Compared to the plan in the early restoration, as well as the future plans for the Church, I think the demands on time and resources are miniscule.
No one In the mainstream Church is presently required to divide their resources by living plural marriage.
No one is being required to live the United Order or the Law of Consecration.
In fact, the current Church allows prosperous and impoverished families to coexist…this is certainly not the plan in the scriptures nor the plan for the future.
I would submit that the current mainstream Church members have a comparative cake-walk compared to former and future saints. As a bonus, you won’t even be asked to build your own handcart, walk a thousand miles or so, and bury any family members along the way. What a deal.
As for payoff….increased happiness in this life and the life to come is not too bad IMHO.
..Fundamentalist view only
Disregard if you disagree…
Mileage may vary…
All that stuff……….
Well, it’s only my opinion but I’ll try. If the adversary knows that a person will not willfully fall into an intentional sinful lifestyle, then it would never work to tempt him/her with such. However, if he can use our weaknesses to fool us into a less-than-perfect path, then that just might work.
As far as I know, the only path offered to our greatest potential (exaltation) is the restored gospel. Correct me if I’m wrong.
If that is true, than it seems to stand to reason that any deviation from that is cheating ourselves.
My opinion only….
Mileage will certainly vary.
I’m too lazy to read all the previous posts but I’ll throw in my 2 cents on the “true” Church thing… Satan will tell 99 truths to slip in one lie…IOW he will try to exploit any/every weakness to keep us from reaching our potential…because IMHO our potential is unimaginable.
If he can get the most noble and rightous beings to expend their energies in a setting that won’t allow them the chance at exaltation…then that’s what he’ll do.
The restored gospel in it’s pure form is the only avenue to exaltation ever offered. Any other path offers a less-than-perfect reward.
I would challenge the true “church” thing and go more with something like “true gospel” since, as a fundamentalist, I view the Church as having some temporary issues right now. But that’s just my view….
Mileage may vary.
Wow. That is pretty bold on his part. In his defense, President Benson was getting fairly old and frail by 1988 (assuming the Ensign date was close to the date of the quote) I saw him at a conference in Dallas in about 1987 and he and his wife were looking really fragile. His talk then was on the BoM and it was rather “simple”, although admirable for a man his age and condition IMHO.
