Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:05 pm
NeveR wrote: March 10th, 2022, 2:05 pm
Luke wrote: March 10th, 2022, 1:49 pm
NeveR wrote: March 10th, 2022, 12:39 pm

So, two years ago the Lord told you polygamy was a moral requirement and now you're waiting for him to tell you who the lucky girl is going to be.

Can you explain what moral principle it helps to uphold?

And how will you know when God is pointing at Mrs Luke No. 2?

Will you expect to find her attractive? Is that part of the moral imperative?
If you honestly want the answers, I will PM you. I’m finished with people like DtL who just mock the Principle and those who believe in it.
It's not mockery, it's skepticism. We ought to be always skeptical of commandments from God that appear to authorize our basest natures, right?

If I announced God had told me I NEEDED to lie in bed all day eating chocolate in order to enter the CK it would be prudent to interrogate this with skepticism wouldn't it.

Equally so when a man says "God just told me I need to take other wives in order to get to the CK", it's reasonably to be skeptical also.

Hence my question about what greater moral function will be served by you acquiring an additional sexual partner, and how the selection process will proceed.

These questions seem key to understanding what is really going on.

I have not mocked you and don't intend to
This is a telling response, equating plural marriage with indolent behavior. I think this is where most people get it wrong, so don't feel badly that I'm calling that out. The truth is that polygyny is about increasing a man's responsibility and the industry of his family unit, not sitting around in a hookah-induced torpor with one's harem.

Sex is a part of marriage and is enjoyable, but that activity serves only two purposes that are completely obfuscated when that activity is pejorated by even married couples into unnatural and abominable pursuits of pleasure. Those two purposes are: (1) strengthening the emotional bond of the couple, and (2) procreating children. God designed that this activity would be enjoyable or the human race would have died out long ago. But all things are to be enjoyed within the bounds the Lord has set. A couple once told me that after being married in the temple the law of chastity no longer applies in their bedroom. This is a false and disturbing notion.

Sex has been twisted by the world into the ultimate pleasure and source of satisfaction that can be had by couples. This precept falls apart in the face of spiritual communion and pursuit of the presence of the divine in marriage.

In my talks with people who blush at the thought of polygamy, sex is always considered the source of taboo. If we thought less like the "natural man" or woman in these regards and more like saints, the stigma could be replaced by an appreciation for not only the Lion of Judah but also his pride.
Then let's take the sex out of it for a moment, and look at what the biggest problems were for the early saints, and the biggest complaints - that of not enough resources to sustain multiple wives and children (in effect running faster than you have strength), with wives living like single mothers and children living like orphans. If I wanted to be a single mother and support myself like so many of these women were forced to do (or told to do) than I wouldn't need a husband, I just need to be impregnated. Do you think this is what the Lord's ideal is? Of course not. What these women did was done for the hope of the blessings in the next life. But we should go forward differently. The ideal is to combine male resources, and have a sharing/giving/receiving relationship with everything, temporal and spiritual.

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by diligently seeking »

Luke, you reference a quote in a journal you read from a member found in church archives in SLC dating back to 1904, in your other post, the author was a s Sister who heard from a person who heard from W.W. That polygamy was—- a go / on the down low for select group of people etc. I continued to read this Sisters words in the page you snapped a pic of. Something about this gal(owner of the journal) referring to a sister who was apart of this select secretive group and how she had dialogue with another sister “Rose” who helped her feel the reassurance of knowing she is still like a virgin for her soon to be husband—which the gal about to engage in the secret order authorized by Apostle W.W. “Very much appreciated”.

Sigh… I don’t know Luke—-dubious sex focused (at least in their journals) celestial order is troubling stuff. A lot of sad ladies who lived this Brigham motivated inspired order. Phoebe—- W.W.’s first wife’s expressions seem to sum- up this order well: “the most heinous thing I ever heard of’

I see real clear parallels of heart ache and pain suffered by BoM sisters along with Brighamite iteration of the Restoration Sisters with their similar heart broken and pain of mind and souls and body like their Jesus following Pure of heart BoM female counterparts. I believe the Jesus in the BoM that his thoughts / “decrees are unalterable” I value the Lord’s decrees on this matter above all else along with Joseph’s condemnation of wrong headed use of polygamy. The Lord’s “unalterable decrees” on the matter:

Jacob 2
Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

The Lord sure seemed to care about these heart broken trampled upon in the manner that many a Brighamite sisters complained about similar to the Prophets first wife Phoebe. His thoughts / “unalterable decrees” :

Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.
7 And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;
8 And it supposeth me that they have come up hither to hear the pleasing word of God, yea, the word which healeth the wounded soul.
9 Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds...

10 But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God…

…22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.
Last edited by diligently seeking on March 10th, 2022, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:05 pm
NeveR wrote: March 10th, 2022, 2:05 pm
Luke wrote: March 10th, 2022, 1:49 pm
NeveR wrote: March 10th, 2022, 12:39 pm

So, two years ago the Lord told you polygamy was a moral requirement and now you're waiting for him to tell you who the lucky girl is going to be.

Can you explain what moral principle it helps to uphold?

And how will you know when God is pointing at Mrs Luke No. 2?

Will you expect to find her attractive? Is that part of the moral imperative?
If you honestly want the answers, I will PM you. I’m finished with people like DtL who just mock the Principle and those who believe in it.
It's not mockery, it's skepticism. We ought to be always skeptical of commandments from God that appear to authorize our basest natures, right?

If I announced God had told me I NEEDED to lie in bed all day eating chocolate in order to enter the CK it would be prudent to interrogate this with skepticism wouldn't it.

Equally so when a man says "God just told me I need to take other wives in order to get to the CK", it's reasonably to be skeptical also.

Hence my question about what greater moral function will be served by you acquiring an additional sexual partner, and how the selection process will proceed.

These questions seem key to understanding what is really going on.

I have not mocked you and don't intend to
This is a telling response, equating plural marriage with indolent behavior. I think this is where most people get it wrong, so don't feel badly that I'm calling that out. The truth is that polygyny is about increasing a man's responsibility and the industry of his family unit, not sitting around in a hookah-induced torpor with one's harem.

Sex is a part of marriage and is enjoyable, but that activity serves only two purposes that are completely obfuscated when that activity is pejorated by even married couples into unnatural and abominable pursuits of pleasure. Those two purposes are: (1) strengthening the emotional bond of the couple, and (2) procreating children. God designed that this activity would be enjoyable or the human race would have died out long ago. But all things are to be enjoyed within the bounds the Lord has set. A couple once told me that after being married in the temple the law of chastity no longer applies in their bedroom. This is a false and disturbing notion.

Sex has been twisted by the world into the ultimate pleasure and source of satisfaction that can be had by couples. This precept falls apart in the face of spiritual communion and pursuit of the presence of the divine in marriage.

In my talks with people who blush at the thought of polygamy, sex is always considered the source of taboo. If we thought less like the "natural man" or woman in these regards and more like saints, the stigma could be replaced by an appreciation for not only the Lion of Judah but also his pride.
I think it's understandable for people to feel uncomfortable with the sex part too. How would you feel if you knew your wife was in the next room over sleeping with another husband of hers, and you were sleeping with the children and had no other wife? (That's how many of the polygynous homes are for the wives)

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Baurak Ale »

Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:28 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:05 pm
NeveR wrote: March 10th, 2022, 2:05 pm
Luke wrote: March 10th, 2022, 1:49 pm

If you honestly want the answers, I will PM you. I’m finished with people like DtL who just mock the Principle and those who believe in it.
It's not mockery, it's skepticism. We ought to be always skeptical of commandments from God that appear to authorize our basest natures, right?

If I announced God had told me I NEEDED to lie in bed all day eating chocolate in order to enter the CK it would be prudent to interrogate this with skepticism wouldn't it.

Equally so when a man says "God just told me I need to take other wives in order to get to the CK", it's reasonably to be skeptical also.

Hence my question about what greater moral function will be served by you acquiring an additional sexual partner, and how the selection process will proceed.

These questions seem key to understanding what is really going on.

I have not mocked you and don't intend to
This is a telling response, equating plural marriage with indolent behavior. I think this is where most people get it wrong, so don't feel badly that I'm calling that out. The truth is that polygyny is about increasing a man's responsibility and the industry of his family unit, not sitting around in a hookah-induced torpor with one's harem.

Sex is a part of marriage and is enjoyable, but that activity serves only two purposes that are completely obfuscated when that activity is pejorated by even married couples into unnatural and abominable pursuits of pleasure. Those two purposes are: (1) strengthening the emotional bond of the couple, and (2) procreating children. God designed that this activity would be enjoyable or the human race would have died out long ago. But all things are to be enjoyed within the bounds the Lord has set. A couple once told me that after being married in the temple the law of chastity no longer applies in their bedroom. This is a false and disturbing notion.

Sex has been twisted by the world into the ultimate pleasure and source of satisfaction that can be had by couples. This precept falls apart in the face of spiritual communion and pursuit of the presence of the divine in marriage.

In my talks with people who blush at the thought of polygamy, sex is always considered the source of taboo. If we thought less like the "natural man" or woman in these regards and more like saints, the stigma could be replaced by an appreciation for not only the Lion of Judah but also his pride.
I think it's understandable for people to feel uncomfortable with the sex part too. How would you feel if you knew your wife was in the next room over sleeping with another husband of hers, and you were sleeping with the children and had no other wife? (That's how many of the polygynous homes are for the wives)
I think there's a false comparison inherent to the situation you present. Your scenario only works as a comparison if we assume men and women are equal in all respects, but they are not; they are complimentary. The man sends out and the woman receives. To imagine a woman, a receptor, having multiple husbands give her seed has an unnatural aura. If woman was the dominant sex and disposed toward governance and blessing man with seed, then my mind can comprehend the comparison and I would admit nothing strange to it. But this is not the nature of men and women.

Misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the sexes is another worldly precept that must be shed to see polygyny as the sacred institution it was designed to be.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by JLHPROF »

diligently seeking wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:22 pm Jacob 2
Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.
7 And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;
8 And it supposeth me that they have come up hither to hear the pleasing word of God, yea, the word which healeth the wounded soul.
9 Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds...

10 But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God…

…22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.
I went ahead and highlighted the reasons for the ban. And the exception to the ban.
You're welcome.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:41 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:28 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:05 pm
NeveR wrote: March 10th, 2022, 2:05 pm

It's not mockery, it's skepticism. We ought to be always skeptical of commandments from God that appear to authorize our basest natures, right?

If I announced God had told me I NEEDED to lie in bed all day eating chocolate in order to enter the CK it would be prudent to interrogate this with skepticism wouldn't it.

Equally so when a man says "God just told me I need to take other wives in order to get to the CK", it's reasonably to be skeptical also.

Hence my question about what greater moral function will be served by you acquiring an additional sexual partner, and how the selection process will proceed.

These questions seem key to understanding what is really going on.

I have not mocked you and don't intend to
This is a telling response, equating plural marriage with indolent behavior. I think this is where most people get it wrong, so don't feel badly that I'm calling that out. The truth is that polygyny is about increasing a man's responsibility and the industry of his family unit, not sitting around in a hookah-induced torpor with one's harem.

Sex is a part of marriage and is enjoyable, but that activity serves only two purposes that are completely obfuscated when that activity is pejorated by even married couples into unnatural and abominable pursuits of pleasure. Those two purposes are: (1) strengthening the emotional bond of the couple, and (2) procreating children. God designed that this activity would be enjoyable or the human race would have died out long ago. But all things are to be enjoyed within the bounds the Lord has set. A couple once told me that after being married in the temple the law of chastity no longer applies in their bedroom. This is a false and disturbing notion.

Sex has been twisted by the world into the ultimate pleasure and source of satisfaction that can be had by couples. This precept falls apart in the face of spiritual communion and pursuit of the presence of the divine in marriage.

In my talks with people who blush at the thought of polygamy, sex is always considered the source of taboo. If we thought less like the "natural man" or woman in these regards and more like saints, the stigma could be replaced by an appreciation for not only the Lion of Judah but also his pride.
I think it's understandable for people to feel uncomfortable with the sex part too. How would you feel if you knew your wife was in the next room over sleeping with another husband of hers, and you were sleeping with the children and had no other wife? (That's how many of the polygynous homes are for the wives)
I think there's a false comparison inherent to the situation you present. Your scenario only works as a comparison if we assume men and women are equal in all respects, but they are not; they are complimentary. The man sends out and the woman receives. To imagine a woman, a receptor, having multiple husbands give her seed has an unnatural aura. If woman was the dominant sex and disposed toward governance and blessing man with seed, then my mind can comprehend the comparison and I would admit nothing strange to it. But this is not the nature of men and women.

Misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the sexes is another worldly precept that must be shed to see polygyny as the sacred institution it was designed to be.
A woman does bless a man with "seed" - she is also a giver of children, and not just a receiver of seed. You also believe that your first wife should give you as many virgins as you desire, according to that part of the Law of the Priesthood that was revealed, so she is also a giver, more so than you in that respect. So in some ways, she is dominant in her role of giving to you than you are giving to her. And the more wives you take on, the less time you have to give to her, the less opportunity she has to get pregnant, the less resources you have to give to her. So you believe in a perpetual state of wives receiving less as you receive more and more. I'm going to send you a PM.
Last edited by Sarah on March 10th, 2022, 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:41 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:28 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:05 pm
NeveR wrote: March 10th, 2022, 2:05 pm

It's not mockery, it's skepticism. We ought to be always skeptical of commandments from God that appear to authorize our basest natures, right?

If I announced God had told me I NEEDED to lie in bed all day eating chocolate in order to enter the CK it would be prudent to interrogate this with skepticism wouldn't it.

Equally so when a man says "God just told me I need to take other wives in order to get to the CK", it's reasonably to be skeptical also.

Hence my question about what greater moral function will be served by you acquiring an additional sexual partner, and how the selection process will proceed.

These questions seem key to understanding what is really going on.

I have not mocked you and don't intend to
This is a telling response, equating plural marriage with indolent behavior. I think this is where most people get it wrong, so don't feel badly that I'm calling that out. The truth is that polygyny is about increasing a man's responsibility and the industry of his family unit, not sitting around in a hookah-induced torpor with one's harem.

Sex is a part of marriage and is enjoyable, but that activity serves only two purposes that are completely obfuscated when that activity is pejorated by even married couples into unnatural and abominable pursuits of pleasure. Those two purposes are: (1) strengthening the emotional bond of the couple, and (2) procreating children. God designed that this activity would be enjoyable or the human race would have died out long ago. But all things are to be enjoyed within the bounds the Lord has set. A couple once told me that after being married in the temple the law of chastity no longer applies in their bedroom. This is a false and disturbing notion.

Sex has been twisted by the world into the ultimate pleasure and source of satisfaction that can be had by couples. This precept falls apart in the face of spiritual communion and pursuit of the presence of the divine in marriage.

In my talks with people who blush at the thought of polygamy, sex is always considered the source of taboo. If we thought less like the "natural man" or woman in these regards and more like saints, the stigma could be replaced by an appreciation for not only the Lion of Judah but also his pride.
I think it's understandable for people to feel uncomfortable with the sex part too. How would you feel if you knew your wife was in the next room over sleeping with another husband of hers, and you were sleeping with the children and had no other wife? (That's how many of the polygynous homes are for the wives)
I think there's a false comparison inherent to the situation you present. Your scenario only works as a comparison if we assume men and women are equal in all respects, but they are not; they are complimentary. The man sends out and the woman receives. To imagine a woman, a receptor, having multiple husbands give her seed has an unnatural aura. If woman was the dominant sex and disposed toward governance and blessing man with seed, then my mind can comprehend the comparison and I would admit nothing strange to it. But this is not the nature of men and women.

Misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the sexes is another worldly precept that must be shed to see polygyny as the sacred institution it was designed to be.
Also, what your answer is saying here is that you have not allowed yourself (often enough) to empathize with your wife's feelings, because in your mind it is never even a possibility for you to be in her shoes. Criticizing NeveR, by saying her post is "telling" because it shows somehow her weakness in thinking about sex in a "carnal" way, means nothing if you haven't even put yourself in your wife's place to imagine how it would feel if roles were reversed.

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by diligently seeking »

JLHPROF wrote: March 10th, 2022, 4:19 pm
diligently seeking wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:22 pm Jacob 2
Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.
7 And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;
8 And it supposeth me that they have come up hither to hear the pleasing word of God, yea, the word which healeth the wounded soul.
9 Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds...

10 But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God…

…22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.
I went ahead and highlighted the reasons for the ban. And the exception to the ban.
You're welcome.
👍👍

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by TheDuke »

I like how Sarah put it above (partially anyway), it is a true principle, but is generally more damning and difficult to live in this messed up Telestial world where things are upside-down all the time. I believe it is a true principle and like many Moses initially got, it was repealed soon after it proved too hard to bare, would have likely been sooner had BY not made it core of his principles. It is not allowed at this time because it is too hard to live in this life. We could say it is because women become jealous, but the truth is it is because men don't know how to love in the relationships. either way, like consecration, or building city of Zion, or getting all the saints into the presence of the Lord, it is too hard a principle.

However, I don't feel that in celestial life the same issues exist as here. so, it is unfair to say it isn't beautiful there as JS stated. We just cannot live a single celestial law here. BTW I firmly believe men and women are not equal. After all mother is the source of all life and is sacred, especially with regard to bringing eternal life into existence.

Personally, after receiving several revelations on aspects of celestial families, I'm prepared to find out that Mother is the boss and I'm destined to serve and worship her forever. Polygamy would simply mean multiple bosses to please. BTW, if the glimpse I have felt of eternal love is at all real, then, I would give up everything just to love and be loved like I felt in the presence of the Lord for my partner(s). I don't think women in celestial marriage are the ones to worry about being put in a place. They rule the roost (at least according to my eternal father).

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Baurak Ale »

Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 4:25 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:41 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:28 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:05 pm

This is a telling response, equating plural marriage with indolent behavior. I think this is where most people get it wrong, so don't feel badly that I'm calling that out. The truth is that polygyny is about increasing a man's responsibility and the industry of his family unit, not sitting around in a hookah-induced torpor with one's harem.

Sex is a part of marriage and is enjoyable, but that activity serves only two purposes that are completely obfuscated when that activity is pejorated by even married couples into unnatural and abominable pursuits of pleasure. Those two purposes are: (1) strengthening the emotional bond of the couple, and (2) procreating children. God designed that this activity would be enjoyable or the human race would have died out long ago. But all things are to be enjoyed within the bounds the Lord has set. A couple once told me that after being married in the temple the law of chastity no longer applies in their bedroom. This is a false and disturbing notion.

Sex has been twisted by the world into the ultimate pleasure and source of satisfaction that can be had by couples. This precept falls apart in the face of spiritual communion and pursuit of the presence of the divine in marriage.

In my talks with people who blush at the thought of polygamy, sex is always considered the source of taboo. If we thought less like the "natural man" or woman in these regards and more like saints, the stigma could be replaced by an appreciation for not only the Lion of Judah but also his pride.
I think it's understandable for people to feel uncomfortable with the sex part too. How would you feel if you knew your wife was in the next room over sleeping with another husband of hers, and you were sleeping with the children and had no other wife? (That's how many of the polygynous homes are for the wives)
I think there's a false comparison inherent to the situation you present. Your scenario only works as a comparison if we assume men and women are equal in all respects, but they are not; they are complimentary. The man sends out and the woman receives. To imagine a woman, a receptor, having multiple husbands give her seed has an unnatural aura. If woman was the dominant sex and disposed toward governance and blessing man with seed, then my mind can comprehend the comparison and I would admit nothing strange to it. But this is not the nature of men and women.

Misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the sexes is another worldly precept that must be shed to see polygyny as the sacred institution it was designed to be.
Also, what your answer is saying here is that you have not allowed yourself (often enough) to empathize with your wife's feelings, because in your mind it is never even a possibility for you to be in her shoes. Criticizing NeveR, by saying her post is "telling" because it shows somehow her weakness in thinking about sex in a "carnal" way, means nothing if you haven't even put yourself in your wife's place to imagine how it would feel if roles were reversed.
My wife and I talk about polygamy quite frequently and with no reservations. I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are.

As for NeveR’s telling response, it was telling exactly because it revealed an assumption that I have found is present in 95% of people I talk to about polygamy. People view sex in a worldly way and it inhibits understanding. This is actually my wife’s talking point when we have these conversations with others.

User avatar
BuriedTartaria
Captain of Tartary
Posts: 1904

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by BuriedTartaria »

Reading through this lovely thread I just don't understand why more solid, good, honest people never embraced Mormonism. I also wonder why God has not given a clear, profound prophetic voice to teach polygamy since Joseph pussyfooted around it (if you believe he was a polygamist) and Brigham by his own admission was not a prophet. And even if you want to go ahead and consider Brigham one, why no real prophet following that? Seems like sending a real prophet to really teach it would be a kind thing for God to do.
Last edited by BuriedTartaria on March 10th, 2022, 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 7:38 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 4:25 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:41 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:28 pm

I think it's understandable for people to feel uncomfortable with the sex part too. How would you feel if you knew your wife was in the next room over sleeping with another husband of hers, and you were sleeping with the children and had no other wife? (That's how many of the polygynous homes are for the wives)
I think there's a false comparison inherent to the situation you present. Your scenario only works as a comparison if we assume men and women are equal in all respects, but they are not; they are complimentary. The man sends out and the woman receives. To imagine a woman, a receptor, having multiple husbands give her seed has an unnatural aura. If woman was the dominant sex and disposed toward governance and blessing man with seed, then my mind can comprehend the comparison and I would admit nothing strange to it. But this is not the nature of men and women.

Misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the sexes is another worldly precept that must be shed to see polygyny as the sacred institution it was designed to be.
Also, what your answer is saying here is that you have not allowed yourself (often enough) to empathize with your wife's feelings, because in your mind it is never even a possibility for you to be in her shoes. Criticizing NeveR, by saying her post is "telling" because it shows somehow her weakness in thinking about sex in a "carnal" way, means nothing if you haven't even put yourself in your wife's place to imagine how it would feel if roles were reversed.
My wife and I talk about polygamy quite frequently and with no reservations. I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are.

As for NeveR’s telling response, it was telling exactly because it revealed an assumption that I have found is present in 95% of people I talk to about polygamy. People view sex in a worldly way and it inhibits understanding. This is actually my wife’s talking point when we have these conversations with others.
In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. It's a mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by diligently seeking »

Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 8:48 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 7:38 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 4:25 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:41 pm

I think there's a false comparison inherent to the situation you present. Your scenario only works as a comparison if we assume men and women are equal in all respects, but they are not; they are complimentary. The man sends out and the woman receives. To imagine a woman, a receptor, having multiple husbands give her seed has an unnatural aura. If woman was the dominant sex and disposed toward governance and blessing man with seed, then my mind can comprehend the comparison and I would admit nothing strange to it. But this is not the nature of men and women.

Misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the sexes is another worldly precept that must be shed to see polygyny as the sacred institution it was designed to be.
Also, what your answer is saying here is that you have not allowed yourself (often enough) to empathize with your wife's feelings, because in your mind it is never even a possibility for you to be in her shoes. Criticizing NeveR, by saying her post is "telling" because it shows somehow her weakness in thinking about sex in a "carnal" way, means nothing if you haven't even put yourself in your wife's place to imagine how it would feel if roles were reversed.
My wife and I talk about polygamy quite frequently and with no reservations. I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are.

As for NeveR’s telling response, it was telling exactly because it revealed an assumption that I have found is present in 95% of people I talk to about polygamy. People view sex in a worldly way and it inhibits understanding. This is actually my wife’s talking point when we have these conversations with others.
In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. Its mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒
Sarah, I would encourage you to believe the Lords clear healing words regarding the feelings of your hurting heart found in the book of Jacob.

Do you believe He was just selective with his expressions, and that he was going to change his truth of compassion toward woman as found in tje BoM so that he could accommodate the new order of Brigham’s polygamy?

If you believe the Book of Mormon containes the fullness of the gospel as Jesus and his servants told us it does— I would encourage you to show your belief by dismissing outright the deceptive false hoods peddled by Brigham and crew too include the modern day celestial marriage proponents of it.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

diligently seeking wrote: March 10th, 2022, 9:10 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 8:48 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 7:38 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 4:25 pm

Also, what your answer is saying here is that you have not allowed yourself (often enough) to empathize with your wife's feelings, because in your mind it is never even a possibility for you to be in her shoes. Criticizing NeveR, by saying her post is "telling" because it shows somehow her weakness in thinking about sex in a "carnal" way, means nothing if you haven't even put yourself in your wife's place to imagine how it would feel if roles were reversed.
My wife and I talk about polygamy quite frequently and with no reservations. I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are.

As for NeveR’s telling response, it was telling exactly because it revealed an assumption that I have found is present in 95% of people I talk to about polygamy. People view sex in a worldly way and it inhibits understanding. This is actually my wife’s talking point when we have these conversations with others.
In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. Its mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒
Sarah, I would encourage you to believe the Lords clear healing words regarding the feelings of your hurting heart found in the book of Jacob.

Do you believe He was just selective with his expressions, and that he was going to change his truth of compassion toward woman as found in tje BoM so that he could accommodate the new order of Brigham’s polygamy?

If you believe the Book of Mormon containes the fullness of the gospel as Jesus and his servants told us it does— I would encourage you to show your belief by dismissing outright the deceptive false hoods peddled by Brigham and crew too include the modern day celestial marriage proponents of it.
I appreciate your concern. Thank you 😊

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by diligently seeking »

Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 9:20 pm
diligently seeking wrote: March 10th, 2022, 9:10 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 8:48 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 7:38 pm

My wife and I talk about polygamy quite frequently and with no reservations. I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are.

As for NeveR’s telling response, it was telling exactly because it revealed an assumption that I have found is present in 95% of people I talk to about polygamy. People view sex in a worldly way and it inhibits understanding. This is actually my wife’s talking point when we have these conversations with others.
In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. Its mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒
Sarah, I would encourage you to believe the Lords clear healing words regarding the feelings of your hurting heart found in the book of Jacob.

Do you believe He was just selective with his expressions, and that he was going to change his truth of compassion toward woman as found in tje BoM so that he could accommodate the new order of Brigham’s polygamy?

If you believe the Book of Mormon containes the fullness of the gospel as Jesus and his servants told us it does— I would encourage you to show your belief by dismissing outright the deceptive false hoods peddled by Brigham and crew too include the modern day celestial marriage proponents of it.
I appreciate your concern. Thank you 😊
Trust in the Lord—truly see it as his concern. Chanel / believe in his concern, choice Sister. 🙏🙌

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Baurak Ale »

Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 8:48 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 7:38 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 4:25 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 3:41 pm

I think there's a false comparison inherent to the situation you present. Your scenario only works as a comparison if we assume men and women are equal in all respects, but they are not; they are complimentary. The man sends out and the woman receives. To imagine a woman, a receptor, having multiple husbands give her seed has an unnatural aura. If woman was the dominant sex and disposed toward governance and blessing man with seed, then my mind can comprehend the comparison and I would admit nothing strange to it. But this is not the nature of men and women.

Misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the sexes is another worldly precept that must be shed to see polygyny as the sacred institution it was designed to be.
Also, what your answer is saying here is that you have not allowed yourself (often enough) to empathize with your wife's feelings, because in your mind it is never even a possibility for you to be in her shoes. Criticizing NeveR, by saying her post is "telling" because it shows somehow her weakness in thinking about sex in a "carnal" way, means nothing if you haven't even put yourself in your wife's place to imagine how it would feel if roles were reversed.
My wife and I talk about polygamy quite frequently and with no reservations. I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are.

As for NeveR’s telling response, it was telling exactly because it revealed an assumption that I have found is present in 95% of people I talk to about polygamy. People view sex in a worldly way and it inhibits understanding. This is actually my wife’s talking point when we have these conversations with others.
In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. It's a mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒
That was a bit rambling and incoherent relative to my preceding comments, and it sounded a bit defensive at the end. I do not feel comfortable with the judgements you seem to be making on me and my wife. You don’t know us at all. To say that I have become entitled and selfish in our relationship, even if limited only to my views on plural marriage, is an unfair and mean thing to read into somebody. And then to say that our sex act mirrors this? It’s a bit bizarre (and again shows that you really don’t know us).

Maybe you didn’t mean to apply those things to me, per se, but it sure seemed to read that way—as much of it as I could follow at least.

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by diligently seeking »

Knowing how the Lord thought about Emma being “an elect lady” and how Brigham thought about Emma being the “most wicked person on earth”. Any one else find it just a little curious that in D&C 132 which entered the scene 8 years after Joseph’s death —-that straight from Brigham’s safe keeping — the members in SLC learned that Emma is to be destroyed / dammed if she does not get in line with the new order of celestial marriage? Curious expressions, right? Also, how bout that David and Solomon not being sanctioned to take on wives which we learn this in the BoM but in “132” they were given the green light to practice polygamy. 🤔And of course the 2 different ways in which polygamy is authorized one way contained within BoM and one entirely different way found in 132? it is more than safe to say, I think we all could agree, If God is the same yesterday today and forever either 132 has been edited / changed and is wrong or the Book of Mormon was not translated correctly and is wrong —-Meaning either 132 is the mind and will of the Lord or the BoM is the mind and will of the Lord.

Where they are both so opposite especially in connection with the Lord being unchanging —one has to be wrong and one has to be right. Right? Which would you say is the safe right selection? Or maybe Jesus wants us to be all nuanced and mental gymnastics / heart conflicted about this issue? Maybe Jesus wants amidst all this contradiction and war of opinions and “tender hearts broken maybe he wants us to find our own solution / form of pacification about the whole polygamy issue?


Not even remotely likely, right?



The only time Jesus was not plain was because of the ‘whited seplecure religious elite who with their ears chose not hear or with their eyes they would not see or with their hearts chose not to understand lest he should heal and convert them. With great reassurance We know that the BoM was a gift for us in these last days for us to know truth from error and that through Jesus found with in its pages more so than any other pages in any other book we were meant through belief and repentance of unbelief meant to healed and converted and know truth plainly etc as a result — Nephi set the standard with the spirit of plainness when the BoM was being written through the spirit of Christ’s mind and will being clearly known. Every subsequent American continent writer after Nephi also wrote and gloried in plainness so that their children / we would understand. Any one else through your own BoM experience are you too solidly in the fullness of the gospel containing Book of Mormon camp—with the Lord’s mind and will concerning polygamy?

Or are the traditions of our fathers tricky business with their hold on us? Pray for the scales to fall and for our confidence to wax strong and our hearts to sing with his truth is my hope and prayer for all of us. 🙏 🙌

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Baurak Ale »

You set up a false dichotomy at almost every turn here. See my responses below:
diligently seeking wrote: March 10th, 2022, 11:40 pm Knowing how the Lord thought about Emma being “an elect lady” and how Brigham thought about Emma being the “most wicked person on earth”. Any one else find it just a little curious that in D&C 132 which entered the scene 8 years after Joseph’s death —-that straight from Brigham’s safe keeping — the members in SLC learned that Emma is to be destroyed / dammed if she does not get in line with the new order of celestial marriage? Curious expressions, right?

God does not change in his attributes but as men change his opinion of them is bound to reflect their use of agency good or bad. When Hyrum was called to become a counselor to Joseph the Lord said that he would "be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery" (D&C 124:95). There are other examples in the D&C of people who at one time had the favor of God and were called great things by him but who by and by failed to live up that calling and the Lord called them "fallen" (see D&C 118:6). That Emma could have at one time been an 'elect lady' and later "money had become her God" is no surprise to those familiar with human nature, something Joseph learned by "sad experience" (D&C 121:39). That anyone, a wife not excepting, should be damned for not obeying a command of the Lord should not be surprising in the least.

Also, how bout that David and Solomon not being sanctioned to take on wives which we learn this in the BoM but in “132” they were given the green light to practice polygamy. 🤔

The Bible does not say that they were not sanctioned to take on wives. If it does then the prophet Nathan was sorely misinformed when he promised David more wives if he had continued in righteousness. From the perspective of the prophets during Old Testament, D&C 132 is in perfect accord with their understanding, having God's green light on polygamy. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi gave his children a commandment not to practice polygamy and yet Jacob had to contend with them on the subject. Why? Because they were justifying immorality by way of the scriptures. Jacob says the Lord viewed David and Solomon's wives as an abomination, but he doesn't specify which wives, for, according to the Bible, many were good in God's sight. That the principle itself cannot be categorically rejected as an abomination is evident in verse 30 where God says he himself—despite being holy—may require it! (omitting the fact that it is part and parcel of the Melchizedek fulness). As Orson Pratt once observed:

JOD 13:183
Because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's domestic relations. The same God that commanded one branch of the House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, 'For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;' that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I gave unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by Him."


And of course the 2 different ways in which polygamy is authorized one way contained within BoM and one entirely different way found in 132?

Assuming that here you actually refer to Jacob 2:30 ("I will command my people"), then what is different from D&C 132, where it says, "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it" (D&C 132:34 – 35)?

Perhaps you are scripturally uninformed, in which case I present the above verses to clarify the matter for you. In both cases marriage is a commandment from God (this is true of monogamy too).


it is more than safe to say, I think we all could agree, If God is the same yesterday today and forever either 132 has been edited / changed and is wrong or the Book of Mormon was not translated correctly and is wrong —-Meaning either 132 is the mind and will of the Lord or the BoM is the mind and will of the Lord.

I don't agree at all. I see the same God throughout both passages, although the Nephite record appears to purposefully omit the rightness of many of David and Solomon's wives and concubines, but this omission makes sense given the actual whoredoms of the Nephite men. That the Lord uses particular wording at times and places and then reveals the true meaning of things later is not unscriptural at all (see D&C 19:4 – 12).

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 11:39 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 8:48 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 7:38 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 4:25 pm

Also, what your answer is saying here is that you have not allowed yourself (often enough) to empathize with your wife's feelings, because in your mind it is never even a possibility for you to be in her shoes. Criticizing NeveR, by saying her post is "telling" because it shows somehow her weakness in thinking about sex in a "carnal" way, means nothing if you haven't even put yourself in your wife's place to imagine how it would feel if roles were reversed.
My wife and I talk about polygamy quite frequently and with no reservations. I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are.

As for NeveR’s telling response, it was telling exactly because it revealed an assumption that I have found is present in 95% of people I talk to about polygamy. People view sex in a worldly way and it inhibits understanding. This is actually my wife’s talking point when we have these conversations with others.
In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. It's a mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒
That was a bit rambling and incoherent relative to my preceding comments, and it sounded a bit defensive at the end. I do not feel comfortable with the judgements you seem to be making on me and my wife. You don’t know us at all. To say that I have become entitled and selfish in our relationship, even if limited only to my views on plural marriage, is an unfair and mean thing to read into somebody. And then to say that our sex act mirrors this? It’s a bit bizarre (and again shows that you really don’t know us).

Maybe you didn’t mean to apply those things to me, per se, but it sure seemed to read that way—as much of it as I could follow at least.
Yes, you are right to suggest that I did ramble on, and I didn't mean to single you out with the comparison to sex, or even to marriage. I said "the husband" as in men in general, not you specifically. I made the comparison in response to your own accusation and judgement call that you made to NeveR about her comment being "telling," judging her (and others) for having concerns about a man having multiple sexual partners/spouses. You judged her no more than I judged you, friend. You're judging those who reject your paradigm of polygamy, for having an incorrect view of sex, when you don't know how they really feel. I pointed out how people's concerns should be validated, based off of what you and your wife's concerns are - that you will not be together in bed every night. Don't you think that is a valid concern for a wife, that she will be alone every night that you are with wife number 2, 3 or 4? You came at NeveR with the assumption that she is only thinking carnally about sex, when we all know there is a lot more to it than that.

User avatar
Sirius
captain of 100
Posts: 552

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sirius »

Darknesstolight, the Lord addressed those with your mindset many times. Even having those same people try and point out to the Savior, that they had DONE many things, even in His name. He let them know they really didn't believe or understand any of those things they had done. Even though they were doing, acting, it ultimately meant nothing, as they never knew Him.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Baurak Ale »

Sarah wrote: March 11th, 2022, 10:39 am
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 11:39 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 8:48 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 7:38 pm

My wife and I talk about polygamy quite frequently and with no reservations. I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are.

As for NeveR’s telling response, it was telling exactly because it revealed an assumption that I have found is present in 95% of people I talk to about polygamy. People view sex in a worldly way and it inhibits understanding. This is actually my wife’s talking point when we have these conversations with others.
In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. It's a mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒
That was a bit rambling and incoherent relative to my preceding comments, and it sounded a bit defensive at the end. I do not feel comfortable with the judgements you seem to be making on me and my wife. You don’t know us at all. To say that I have become entitled and selfish in our relationship, even if limited only to my views on plural marriage, is an unfair and mean thing to read into somebody. And then to say that our sex act mirrors this? It’s a bit bizarre (and again shows that you really don’t know us).

Maybe you didn’t mean to apply those things to me, per se, but it sure seemed to read that way—as much of it as I could follow at least.
Yes, you are right to suggest that I did ramble on, and I didn't mean to single you out with the comparison to sex, or even to marriage. I said "the husband" as in men in general, not you specifically. I made the comparison in response to your own accusation and judgement call that you made to NeveR about her comment being "telling," judging her (and others) for having concerns about a man having multiple sexual partners/spouses. You judged her no more than I judged you, friend. You're judging those who reject your paradigm of polygamy, for having an incorrect view of sex, when you don't know how they really feel. I pointed out how people's concerns should be validated, based off of what you and your wife's concerns are - that you will not be together in bed every night. Don't you think that is a valid concern for a wife, that she will be alone every night that you are with wife number 2, 3 or 4? You came at NeveR with the assumption that she is only thinking carnally about sex, when we all know there is a lot more to it than that.
NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 11th, 2022, 11:17 am
Sarah wrote: March 11th, 2022, 10:39 am
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 11:39 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 8:48 pm

In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. It's a mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒
That was a bit rambling and incoherent relative to my preceding comments, and it sounded a bit defensive at the end. I do not feel comfortable with the judgements you seem to be making on me and my wife. You don’t know us at all. To say that I have become entitled and selfish in our relationship, even if limited only to my views on plural marriage, is an unfair and mean thing to read into somebody. And then to say that our sex act mirrors this? It’s a bit bizarre (and again shows that you really don’t know us).

Maybe you didn’t mean to apply those things to me, per se, but it sure seemed to read that way—as much of it as I could follow at least.
Yes, you are right to suggest that I did ramble on, and I didn't mean to single you out with the comparison to sex, or even to marriage. I said "the husband" as in men in general, not you specifically. I made the comparison in response to your own accusation and judgement call that you made to NeveR about her comment being "telling," judging her (and others) for having concerns about a man having multiple sexual partners/spouses. You judged her no more than I judged you, friend. You're judging those who reject your paradigm of polygamy, for having an incorrect view of sex, when you don't know how they really feel. I pointed out how people's concerns should be validated, based off of what you and your wife's concerns are - that you will not be together in bed every night. Don't you think that is a valid concern for a wife, that she will be alone every night that you are with wife number 2, 3 or 4? You came at NeveR with the assumption that she is only thinking carnally about sex, when we all know there is a lot more to it than that.
NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.
I think whatever you and your wife have going in your own business, and I'm sure you are both sincere. I was just giving my commentary for this statement of yours:

"I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are."

You volunteered the information about you and your wife's relationship, and I observed that you both think not sleeping together would be hard, and I observed that it would be harder for your wife than for you, which you seem not to agree with.

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by diligently seeking »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 11th, 2022, 9:45 am You set up a false dichotomy at almost every turn here. See my responses below:
diligently seeking wrote: March 10th, 2022, 11:40 pm Knowing how the Lord thought about Emma being “an elect lady” and how Brigham thought about Emma being the “most wicked person on earth”. Any one else find it just a little curious that in D&C 132 which entered the scene 8 years after Joseph’s death —-that straight from Brigham’s safe keeping — the members in SLC learned that Emma is to be destroyed / dammed if she does not get in line with the new order of celestial marriage? Curious expressions, right?

God does not change in his attributes but as men change his opinion of them is bound to reflect their use of agency good or bad. When Hyrum was called to become a counselor to Joseph the Lord said that he would "be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery" (D&C 124:95). There are other examples in the D&C of people who at one time had the favor of God and were called great things by him but who by and by failed to live up that calling and the Lord called them "fallen" (see D&C 118:6). That Emma could have at one time been an 'elect lady' and later "money had become her God" is no surprise to those familiar with human nature, something Joseph learned by "sad experience" (D&C 121:39). That anyone, a wife not excepting, should be damned for not obeying a command of the Lord should not be surprising in the least.

Also, how bout that David and Solomon not being sanctioned to take on wives which we learn this in the BoM but in “132” they were given the green light to practice polygamy. 🤔

The Bible does not say that they were not sanctioned to take on wives. If it does then the prophet Nathan was sorely misinformed when he promised David more wives if he had continued in righteousness. From the perspective of the prophets during Old Testament, D&C 132 is in perfect accord with their understanding, having God's green light on polygamy. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi gave his children a commandment not to practice polygamy and yet Jacob had to contend with them on the subject. Why? Because they were justifying immorality by way of the scriptures. Jacob says the Lord viewed David and Solomon's wives as an abomination, but he doesn't specify which wives, for, according to the Bible, many were good in God's sight. That the principle itself cannot be categorically rejected as an abomination is evident in verse 30 where God says he himself—despite being holy—may require it! (omitting the fact that it is part and parcel of the Melchizedek fulness). As Orson Pratt once observed:

JOD 13:183
Because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's domestic relations. The same God that commanded one branch of the House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, 'For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;' that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I gave unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by Him."


And of course the 2 different ways in which polygamy is authorized one way contained within BoM and one entirely different way found in 132?

Assuming that here you actually refer to Jacob 2:30 ("I will command my people"), then what is different from D&C 132, where it says, "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it" (D&C 132:34 – 35)?

Perhaps you are scripturally uninformed, in which case I present the above verses to clarify the matter for you. In both cases marriage is a commandment from God (this is true of monogamy too).


it is more than safe to say, I think we all could agree, If God is the same yesterday today and forever either 132 has been edited / changed and is wrong or the Book of Mormon was not translated correctly and is wrong —-Meaning either 132 is the mind and will of the Lord or the BoM is the mind and will of the Lord.

I don't agree at all. I see the same God throughout both passages, although the Nephite record appears to purposefully omit the rightness of many of David and Solomon's wives and concubines, but this omission makes sense given the actual whoredoms of the Nephite men. That the Lord uses particular wording at times and places and then reveals the true meaning of things later is not unscriptural at all (see D&C 19:4 – 12).
I believe the BoM is with out wiggle room with explaining doctrine with what it is and what it is not. Polygamy being no exception. either the Book contains the fullness which will produce instructions for exaltation / proper behavior or it does not. Jesus said it contains the fullness. I connect dots differently than you based on my belief in the Lords reassurance about the the fullness of the Gospel contained in it.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: March 11th, 2022, 11:17 am
Sarah wrote: March 11th, 2022, 10:39 am
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 11:39 pm
Sarah wrote: March 10th, 2022, 8:48 pm

In other words, you haven't had to give your wife any empathy because she has been so generous in her expressions of commitment for you, and to this principle. You've been spoiled I would say, if you haven't felt any desire to be generous to her in the same way. When a woman gives of herself generously to be good, and to win the love and approval of her husband, it often leads to a feeling of entitlement in the husband, unless he is matching her amount of giving and accomodation. This happens with the sex act as well, and I would say that the sex act mirrors the marriage potential. Easy for the husband to receive in this life, hard for the wife to get what she needs because her potential for pleasure is often assumed to be not there. Just like marriage potential. It's a mystery to figure out how to give to a wife.
I would suggest you consider the possibility of giving your wife the same opportunity to have those same kind of bonding, close relationships (that have nothing to do with sex) that she has promised to give to you. I don't know why you should assume people are only thinking about the carnal part of sex when people have concerns about the man pleasing himself at the expense of his wives. You pointed out that it is about closeness, and it's going to be so hard for you both not to be together every night. Only difference is that in your world you will have another woman's companionship in bed and she will have none. Sounds really hard for you 😒
That was a bit rambling and incoherent relative to my preceding comments, and it sounded a bit defensive at the end. I do not feel comfortable with the judgements you seem to be making on me and my wife. You don’t know us at all. To say that I have become entitled and selfish in our relationship, even if limited only to my views on plural marriage, is an unfair and mean thing to read into somebody. And then to say that our sex act mirrors this? It’s a bit bizarre (and again shows that you really don’t know us).

Maybe you didn’t mean to apply those things to me, per se, but it sure seemed to read that way—as much of it as I could follow at least.
Yes, you are right to suggest that I did ramble on, and I didn't mean to single you out with the comparison to sex, or even to marriage. I said "the husband" as in men in general, not you specifically. I made the comparison in response to your own accusation and judgement call that you made to NeveR about her comment being "telling," judging her (and others) for having concerns about a man having multiple sexual partners/spouses. You judged her no more than I judged you, friend. You're judging those who reject your paradigm of polygamy, for having an incorrect view of sex, when you don't know how they really feel. I pointed out how people's concerns should be validated, based off of what you and your wife's concerns are - that you will not be together in bed every night. Don't you think that is a valid concern for a wife, that she will be alone every night that you are with wife number 2, 3 or 4? You came at NeveR with the assumption that she is only thinking carnally about sex, when we all know there is a lot more to it than that.
NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.
I would also consider desiring more wives as companions - not for the sex of course - but for companionship and love and children, to be a base desire if you are desiring the privilege while not considering how your wives might also desire companionship, love and children. Did you read the PM I sent you? Anytime we become a taker and not a giver in the same sense, we are acting selfishly.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Preserving the Restoration - Joseph and Polygamy

Post by Baurak Ale »

Sarah wrote: March 11th, 2022, 11:29 am
Baurak Ale wrote: March 11th, 2022, 11:17 am
Sarah wrote: March 11th, 2022, 10:39 am
Baurak Ale wrote: March 10th, 2022, 11:39 pm

That was a bit rambling and incoherent relative to my preceding comments, and it sounded a bit defensive at the end. I do not feel comfortable with the judgements you seem to be making on me and my wife. You don’t know us at all. To say that I have become entitled and selfish in our relationship, even if limited only to my views on plural marriage, is an unfair and mean thing to read into somebody. And then to say that our sex act mirrors this? It’s a bit bizarre (and again shows that you really don’t know us).

Maybe you didn’t mean to apply those things to me, per se, but it sure seemed to read that way—as much of it as I could follow at least.
Yes, you are right to suggest that I did ramble on, and I didn't mean to single you out with the comparison to sex, or even to marriage. I said "the husband" as in men in general, not you specifically. I made the comparison in response to your own accusation and judgement call that you made to NeveR about her comment being "telling," judging her (and others) for having concerns about a man having multiple sexual partners/spouses. You judged her no more than I judged you, friend. You're judging those who reject your paradigm of polygamy, for having an incorrect view of sex, when you don't know how they really feel. I pointed out how people's concerns should be validated, based off of what you and your wife's concerns are - that you will not be together in bed every night. Don't you think that is a valid concern for a wife, that she will be alone every night that you are with wife number 2, 3 or 4? You came at NeveR with the assumption that she is only thinking carnally about sex, when we all know there is a lot more to it than that.
NeveR compared a man in polygamy to a woman sitting around eating chocolate, which she specifically called a commandment to "authorize our basest natures." You say I judged her and I agree inasmuch as she told us what she thought of polygamy and it was telling. Whether there is more to it than that or not, I was making a remark based on her own statements. If that is not how she really feels, as you suppose, then let her speak for herself and correct what she already stated. You seem to cast modernistic aspersion on the need for me to judge another, yet it is requisite to logical arguments (let's set aside the progressive and politically correct connotations of being "judged").

You have judged that I do not validate my wife's concerns, among other things, which is not something I directly stated (in contrast to my taking NeveR's exact words as my basis of judgement). Somehow you have come to this conclusion despite my insistence that it is our JOINT concern. We are of one mind in these things. Then you say that my wife's acceptance and understanding of the principle of polygamy must surely be the result of trying to win my approval or some such thing. That could be no further from the truth. I have said that we talk of polygamy fairly often and then you say that I have been spoiled? You seem to be more compatriot with Lilith than with Eve.
I think whatever you and your wife have going in your own business, and I'm sure you are both sincere. I was just giving my commentary for this statement of yours:

"I have not had to extend the olive branch of empathy to her very often because she has assured me repeatedly of her feelings and understanding, which she obtained from heaven. Her biggest struggle (and mine) would be not sleeping in the same bed together every night (and we don’t mean that in a sexual way). That will be a hard thing, as devoted to each other as we are."

You volunteered the information about you and your wife's relationship, and I observed that you both think not sleeping together would be hard, and I observed that it would be harder for your wife than for you, which you seem not to agree with.
Thank you for explaining your position clearly. I will defend myself by saying that I have considered amply how that her sacrifice is different than mine in that regard; that it would be harder, however, is difficult to quantify when the pain we have discussed is not loneliness so much as it is physically being apart from each other. Even if I was with another wife, I would not be with her.

But my wife has said she’d sacrifice in that way to provide companionship and progeny to a worthy sister. She is motivated by the charity she has toward other women. (Conversely there is no need for such charity toward men as the righteous women will always outnumber them.)

Perhaps we’d try a William Clayton arrangement and all sleep in one bed!

Post Reply