DiscussMormonism.com

In the "I really struggle with polygamy" thread, BCSpace has defended his position on polygamy by stating that none of us REALLY understand the doctrine.

We all seem to be referring to something that is not his understanding of the law as it pertains to the revelation given to Joseph Smith and practiced by church leaders for a number of years.

So, BC, could you please enlighten us as to how we've mis-interpreted the revelation? What is your understanding of it?

Also, your statement that you "have no problem with it", does that mean you are pro polygamy, or are you indifferent, but see no bad in it the way LDS practiced it?

In the "I really struggle with polygamy" thread, BCSpace has defended his position on polygamy by stating that none of us REALLY understand the doctrine.

CFR. I do seem to recall saying such a thing on the sealings thread, but not on this issue.

We all seem to be referring to something that is not his understanding of the law as it pertains to the revelation given to Joseph Smith and practiced by church leaders for a number of years.

So, BC, could you please enlighten us as to how we've mis-interpreted the revelation?

Can you enlighten me where and what I might have said along those lines? The only thing I can recall are some stating that the prophet has said it's not doctrine. That would be incorrect.

What is your understanding of it?

Jacob 2:30

Also, your statement that you "have no problem with it", does that mean you are pro polygamy, or are you indifferent, but see no bad in it the way LDS practiced it?

I am pro plural marriage when the Lord authorizes it. I don't see the way LDS practiced it in general as bad. As for nonLDS practicing it, though I believe they are in violation of the Lord's lack of authorization, legally in the freedom of religion sense, I think the law should leave them alone if such marriages occur within the bounds of age of consent laws.

Gosh...

I feel a little dumb now. I re-read that thread and you didn't say that specifically. I guess that was just the way you came off to me for some reason.

Perhaps I should change my question...

How does the concept of LDS polygamy differ from all other polygamy?

If we assumed God sanctioned the FLDS to continue as Joseph Smith did, is the current FLDS polygamy a good thing in your eyes?

bcspace wrote:I am pro plural marriage when the Lord authorizes it. I don't see the way LDS practiced it in general as bad. As for nonLDS practicing it, though I believe they are in violation of the Lord's lack of authorization, legally in the freedom of religion sense, I think the law should leave them alone if such marriages occur within the bounds of age of consent laws.

Do you see any situation where a non-LDS group could be authorized by god to practice it. Maybe they are practicing it based on their interpretation of god's commandments. In other words, how do you know a non-LDS polygamous group is in violation of god?

SatanWasSetUp wrote:

bcspace wrote:I am pro plural marriage when the Lord authorizes it. I don't see the way LDS practiced it in general as bad. As for nonLDS practicing it, though I believe they are in violation of the Lord's lack of authorization, legally in the freedom of religion sense, I think the law should leave them alone if such marriages occur within the bounds of age of consent laws.

Do you see any situation where a non-LDS group could be authorized by god to practice it. Maybe they are practicing it based on their interpretation of god's commandments. In other words, how do you know a non-LDS polygamous group is in violation of god?

I imagine that if God commanded a group to practice polygamy and the Mormons all gathered their pitchforks and torches to burn them out God would see fit to tell them to stop.

I'm posting my response to BC here as well, since it also applies to the topic of this thread:

liz3564 wrote:

bcspace wrote:

Liz wrote:*sigh* BC, BC....Darling..I do like you. You are my favorite misogynist, but a misogynist, nonetheless. ;)

Methinks you do not know the definition of the word.

Liz wrote:TD brings up some good points in how to basically "turn the tables", if you will allow yourself to do so:

TD wrote:How would you feel if you were told that your wife is going to have ten new husbands, say the High Councilmen in your Stake. She would now spend about two days a month with you and your children (if you have some). YOU OTOH will not get to have a woman in your life with the exception of a day or two a month. During the time your wife spends with you she will be busy with your children and taking care of a few practical matters. She may or may not want to be emotionally or physically or sexually intimate with you so basically, your relationship is no longer one of connection, partnership, care, concern, sex, love, friendship. She more or less visits you now and then... a dozen or two times a year. As time goes on, the newer husbands are more enticing and fun and her visits become less and less.

Absolutely meaningless as I already know what the doctrine is. I wouldn't be a member if I did not believe all the doctrine. I would also feel free to seek elsewhere if my spouse did not meet her obligations while I was meeting mine.

Actually, BC, I do know the meaning of the word. And, true, I don't REALLY think that you hate women. But, I do think that your unwillingness to at least try to understand the problems with plural marriage from the woman's perspective is misogynistic. ;)

Looking at the issue from a woman's perspective is not disavowing the doctrine. It's an attempt to have you think outside the box for a moment.

The LDS men who have a testimony of the plural marriage principle whom I have spoken to have acknowledged that this would be difficult, and that, especially if the tables were turned, they didn't know if they could deal with it. These same men also acknowledged that they really couldn't see themselves with anyone but the one wife they were married to, and hoped that the Lord wouldn't ask them to practice the principle, but accepted it.

But for you to simply state that there is no reason that anyone should have a problem with it is pious, and yes, misogynistic in tendency.

BC---Please re-read TD's "turn the tables" analysis again. This is exactly how many of the women who participated in plural marriage during the early days of the Church felt. It's talked about "In Sacred Loneliness" as well. So, I disagree with you in regards to the practice of plural marriage in the early days of the LDS Church being a good thing. In my estimation, I don't think it was.

bcspace wrote:

Jacob 2:30

However, the legal wives of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball were all fertile. There was no need that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball to marry many wives to raise up seed unto the Lord, because their legal wives were fertile, and they bore them children, and these ladies were able to raise up seed unto the Lord. And Plus, I don't really believe that Jacob 2:30 is a pro-plural marriage Scriptural Passage.
Please See: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#131172

I do believe that Jacob Chapter 2, fully condemns the practice of Polygamy.

bcspace wrote:
I am pro plural marriage when the Lord authorizes it. I don't see the way LDS practiced it in general as bad. As for nonLDS practicing it, though I believe they are in violation of the Lord's lack of authorization, legally in the freedom of religion sense, I think the law should leave them alone if such marriages occur within the bounds of age of consent laws.

I do believe that some of the early LDS Church Leaders back in the 19th Century, did indeed practiced Polygamy in a bad way. The main reason why I believe this, is because a few of the early LDS Church Leaders did indeed had many, many wives, and a few of them weren't able to take care of all of their wives. For example, Both Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball had more than 25 wives each. There is virtually no possible way for a man, to be able to take care of having at least 25 wives. Why wasn't there a limit to the amount of a number of wives that an LDS man of Leadership Position could have, back then? Like having a man limit to having three wives, and definitely no more wives than that.

If we assumed God sanctioned the FLDS to continue as Joseph Smith did, is the current FLDS polygamy a good thing in your eyes?

Since we cannot so assume, the FLDS practice is a bad thing, not being sanctioned by the Lord.

Do you see any situation where a non-LDS group could be authorized by god to practice it.

No.

Maybe they are practicing it based on their interpretation of god's commandments.

I say, let them according to my proviso listed previously.

In other words, how do you know a non-LDS polygamous group is in violation of god?

Simply by being nonLDS.

BC---Please re-read TD's "turn the tables" analysis again.

My mind doesn't change with the rising a setting of a few suns.

Jacob 2:30

However, the legal wives of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball were all fertile. There was no need that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball to marry many wives to raise up seed unto the Lord, because their legal wives were fertile, and they bore them children, and these ladies were able to raise up seed unto the Lord.

I've never viewed that verse so narrowly. Are we not all the seed of God? Therefore, simply by practicing the higher principles makes us a godly seed as well.

And Plus, I don't really believe that Jacob 2:30 is a pro-plural marriage Scriptural Passage.

I don't believe it could be otherwise.

BC, have you ever discussed plural marriage with your wife? Do you think she would be thrilled about actually living the practice?

The Nehor wrote:I imagine that if God commanded a group to practice polygamy and the Mormons all gathered their pitchforks and torches to burn them out God would see fit to tell them to stop.

Stop the polygamists or the Mormons? Is this with or without the aid of the Danites?