Polygamy, Shared Guilt, Control

[_Rosebud]

Kish said:

Is Mormonism invalidated because Joseph Smith foisted polygamy on his followers? No. That said, a stain remains, and it must be removed. Only by acknowledging that polygamy was wrong and by refusing to celebrate it, only by repairing the damage done to Mormon society by excising the coercive elements of Mormon priesthood practice can we start to free ourselves from the abuser.

Why isn't Mormonism invalidated? It really sucks to be on the receiving end of the battle for control.

Men wage a war, deny its existence, and tell their living battlefield that their wounds don't exist. The foundation of the religion -- the temple ceremony -- is the Mormon version of men's common battle over women. Is it possible to claim that this war wasn't really the religion's founding purpose? So much of humanity's collective behavior revolves around this battle.

Individual's apologetic defenses are attempts to defend the self against accepting a truth that is hard to swallow.

But think of the pain of those who have had bigger pills (and other things) relentlessly shoved down our throats.

I get that many people defend rape culture because they can't accept the hardship of the guilt, but it's time for its defenders to become as strong as they've unwittingly expected its victims to be.

A lot of behaviors, beliefs and institutuons are invalidated as people gather the courage to find the strength of the victims of rape culture.

Hales needs to spend a long moment looking in the mirror considering his real incentives. What does he personally gain by defending this man and how shrill are the many cries of the victims who have been harmed by what he defends for this gain?

[_Kishkumen]

It's not my place to tell you what is valid or invalid for you, Rosebud.

That said, I don't think that polygamy invalidates Mormonism. Many other people don't, too.

I say this because polygamy was not part of the faith at Mormonism's foundation, and it was embraced as a living part of the religion for less than half of Mormonism's history. Polygamy was both a crime and a tragedy, but people will find a way, and have found a way, to be Mormon without it. Most Mormons have never practiced polygamy.

Finally, in my view, Joseph Smith, though a key person in the founding of Mormonism, gets too much credit. More credit is due to the decent, sincere people who sought Zion. Their vision and sacrifice count for much more than Joseph Smith's flaws. Invalidating the entire religion on account of Joseph Smith is an erasure of the beautiful things many good people have done and continue to do.

[_Rosebud]

Yes, I suppose it depends on the way one is defining Mormonism and the scope and the credence one gives to the people who find themselves associated with this large movement one way or another. It is impossible to invalidate all individuals over the actions of a leader. Actions and belief don't invalidate people, positive intent or good deeds just because the people have been unwittingly deceived.

But using multiple definitions of valid doesn't change the fact that the church isn't validly "true" based on its own definition of "truth." We can expand that definition -- and we might as well because it deserves expansion and the good people of Mormonism deserve credit for their good deeds despite their blind eyes towards the victims of its foundational principles.

[_grindael]

I don't think anyone has the right to invalidate Mormonism. It will stand or fall under its own weight. It is like all other human endeavors, filled with flaws, hope, sacrifice, love, hate and other human foibles and achievements. Like with our country, those in leadership don't necessarily accurately represent the body of people that put them there. Unfortunately the leadership has continued to defend polygamy, and to leave it as a core doctrine of the Church. They obfuscate the truth of it, so they can continue to do so, for obvious reasons. Is Mormonism really separated from polygamy? I don't think so (only the earthly practice of it) and so it will continue to haunt them until they truly renounce it in obvious ways - like disavowing Section 132 and admitting Joseph Smith made a huge mistake.

[_RockSlider]

NL, you are a stock holder, correct?

How about you jlhprof?

http://kutv.com/news/local/the-dream-mi ... re-in-utah

[_Nightlion]

NL, you are a stock holder, correct?

How about you jlhprof?

http://kutv.com/news/local/the-dream-mi ... re-in-utah

No. When I heard about it back in the 70s I read up on it and rejected it out of hand. My paternal grandfather was a hard rock miner who prospected two mines above Alpine, Utah. I used to have the certificates for them but someone else in the family got them or I just lost them in the piles of papers I have carted around for forty years.

Bishop John Koyle was 'visited' ya know and nothing whets the spirit of Mormons more than that sort of thing.

[_consiglieri]

It is unconscionable. I wish the good men of the church (because the women don't matter) would put themselves in our shoes and then do the right thing. Speak up, say it is wrong to burden the women and girls of our church with this. Lincoln was right, "relic of barbarism," etc.

This comment brings to mind the talk by Elder Brough from last General Conference when he recounts the story of how his dad got called to be a mission president and Elder Brough at 14 had to give up his dog, Blue.

His dad told him to go and pray about what to do with his dog and he heard a distinctive voice repeating to him, "Don't burden your parents. Don't burden your parents."

[_RockSlider]

Does the Church even teach we will be parents of spirit children anymore? The whole you get your own earth was denied right? And if we don't get our own earth there is no need to populate it with our own seed correct?

[_Tator]

RockSlider, there you go again using logic.

Is there a place for logic in a TBM's world?

[_Nightlion]

Does the Church even teach we will be parents of spirit children anymore? The whole you get your own earth was denied right? And if we don't get our own earth there is no need to populate it with our own seed correct?

What got messed up was that Son of Perdition Lorenzo Snow's perversion of what Joseph Smith did not intend. The entire concept was never flushed out to its correct dimensions.

Those with eternal life continue the seed both in the world and out of the world. These continue to lay down their lives as Adam and Eve did from their exaltation to continue the seeds IN THE WORLD. Those who follow were the seeds that they finished in the beginning. BECAUSE Adam and Eve 'continue' both in and out of the world laying down their lives and taking them back [in the gospel of Jesus Christ each time] from exaltation to exaltation they are 'called gods'.

God also continues both in the world and out of the world as a Christ everything third turn of their eternal round of a course. See the similarity?

As exalted beings resurrected to the continuation of the seeds we DO get a world of our own. We are NOT the God of that world. As the creation scriptures plainly show, God makes these world and sets man and women made in the image and likeness of God (the same glory) commanding them to multiply and replenish that NEW WORLD and they comply and FINISH all the hosts thereof.

That is plain beyond all refutation in Genesis. What's the problem here? We never become as God is. LS was a son of a bitch betrayer and in my mind the most probable murderer of Joseph Smith. Thus becoming a SoP shedding innocent blood after himself having been truly born again by the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.......as he self proclaimed.... Sitting in the house of God showing himself that he is God as prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2. He took up a residence in the Salt Lake Temple after it was dedicated. There is more to it.