Polygamy justification?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Reading this thread makes me concerned that polyandry is more abhorrent to all of you than polygamy. Is there any truth to that?

Yes, I think that's a fair statement in my case. Getting sealed to someone else's current spouse seems like a glorified form of adultery. Then you throw in the fact that the husband was typically kept in the dark and the wife was threatened with eternal condemnation if she didn't comply and you have a very disturbing scenario. Far more disturbing than an open (i.e. public) practice of your garden-variety plural marriage.

[Rosebud]

Yes, I think that's a fair statement in my case. Getting sealed to someone else's current spouse seems like a glorified form of adultery. Then you throw in the fact that the husband was typically kept in the dark and the wife was threatened with eternal condemnation if she didn't comply and you have a very disturbing scenario. Far more disturbing than an open (i.e. public) practice of your garden-variety plural marriage.

Of course polygamy was getting sealed to another woman's current husband... also a glorified form of adultery. Then throw in that his first wife was sometimes kept in the dark... and it's really hard for me to see the difference without having the "biology" discussion again. Babs would have to come represent that one.

The threatening of eternal damnation is another SEPARATE but creepy aspect of this animal.

[SeattleUte]

I'm just saying that Evangelical Christianity, which holds no appeal for me, does have an intellectually vibrant subculture. Lots of really smart, thinking people are Evangelicals. Like any faith (including mine) not everyone in that movement is like that, but to call it intellectually "arid" is simply incorrect.

This latest error on your part does not, however, mean that you are not a good person, just wrong. But that's OK. Most people in the world, exceept for me, are wrong. Being right all the time is simply a cross I have to bear.

Is there within Evengelism per se a publication and think tank bearing academic and scholarly trapping serving as an outlet to dissident or skeptical views like Sunstone or Dialogue? Also, you dodged my question. Are your thinking and skeptical Evangelicals Biblical literalists and creationists. You may be confusing my analogy to Sunstone with FARMS.

[TripletDaddy]

For your second point...
I agree that we have unique beliefs. A lot of the questions we discuss relate to those specific beliefs. If we continually dismiss the questions with "It doesn't matter, just try to be good", then we lose our uniqueness and become like every other Christian faith.

I don't think people should leave the Church over these things, although I don't blame them for it if they do. But I think they are interesting things to discuss and talk about. If one doesn't find them interesting, that's completely fine, but I think it's more beneficial to all involved for that perons to simply not participate in the thread.

Amen and exUte.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course polygamy was getting sealed to another woman's current husband... also a glorified form of adultery. Then throw in that his first wife was sometimes kept in the dark... and it's really hard for me to see the difference without having the "biology" discussion again. Babs would have to come represent that one.

That's a fair point. I guess I could argue that with polyandry there were two spouses being kept in the dark, not just one.

[Jarid in Cedar]

What if the prophet came to you and asked if she could be sealed to him? No sexual relationship involved, and your eternal marriage (and sealing) remains intact, but your wife would then receive significant eternal blessings (whatever that means...but aren't we all hoping for somewhat vague eternal blessings?...) as a result.

Which is why I consider the fact that JS consummated these marriages to be an important one. With the exception of the priesthood ban (and I'm not sure I could join the Church as an AA...), all of the other objections are somewhat theoretical. This one strikes home.

Well said. These two topics were the catalyst for me, the priesthood ban and polygamy. They never settled very well

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't exclude the possibility that I could find this same thing in another Church, but I was born in this one, and this is the moral language that I speak. In the end, the Church is a tool for me to draw closer to God, and it's the best one that I know of.

This I absolutely agree with. Many people are born into a faith and that is their outlet to come closer to God and understand. I think that the important thing for everyone is to develop that relationship and understand the importance fo beling Christlike. The "one true religion" mantra is a very divisive/antagonistic view that too many people in all faiths take in their interactions with each other.

I ask the question to many people "Which church with Jesus visit when he returns to Earth?" My answer is that we will all leave our churches and follow him.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Reading this thread makes me concerned that polyandry is more abhorrent to all of you than polygamy. Is there any truth to that?

They are both fairly abhorrent to me.

[JohnnyLingo]

Reading this thread makes me concerned that polyandry is more abhorrent to all of you than polygamy. Is there any truth to that?

Abhorrent? In cases where all involved are willing participants and fully aware of all the details, I don't see anything abhorrent about either.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Of course polygamy was getting sealed to another woman's current husband... also a glorified form of adultery. Then throw in that his first wife was sometimes kept in the dark... and it's really hard for me to see the difference without having the "biology" discussion again. Babs would have to come represent that one.

The threatening of eternal damnation is another SEPARATE but creepy aspect of this animal.

That along with threatening that an angel was going to kill Joseph Smith if he didn't establish polygamy on the Earth comes across as some sort of spiritual blackmail.

[wuapinmon]

If we have a situation where a man (X) is married to a woman (Y) and he then has 'married' sex with woman (Z) who is married to man (A), then we have both polygamy and polyandry because two of the four have sex with two different people.

There are only three unions:
XY
XZ
ZA

If we had a YZ, then it would be polyamory. There are two people who are married to two others. This wouldn't constitute polyamory, and it's not polyfidelity, because one, perhaps, two of the four were not aware of the relations amongst the others. Maybe we could call the relationship polykrybtheogkekrimenosamory (pron. fɪ.ˈlæn.dɝ.ɝ) (multiple hidden god-approved love).

[SeattleUte]

I don't exclude the possibility that I could find this same thing in another Church, but I was born in this one, and this is the moral language that I speak. In the end, the Church is a tool for me to draw closer to God, and it's the best one that I know of.

Have you considered the possibility that your very definition or conception of "God" and "worship" are prisoners of your upbringing in the Mormon church? Why do you feel you need a conventional American Protestant-type church (generally, I share Harold Bloom's fascination with religious literature and disappointment in American Protestantism) to approach God?

It's ironic how skeptical Mormons will default to saying "Mormonism is the best tool I know to approaching God, that's all I know," and then talk about how 99% of the time they spend in a Mormon meetinghouse is an empty, boring experience. ER, you do both of these things in this same post!

I wonder what percentage of devotees to any particular religion were once devoted to another religion? Of the miniscule percentage that you could say yes about in respese to that question, I wonder how many converted not because they were following a spouse's faith? Subtract from the remainder any mentally unstable people and I wonder what percentage remains. Ultimately, devotion to a faith seems to be an accident of birth subject to only exceptional circumstances. I know I baptized a lot of people on my mission; they were all rootless in terms of religion. I always found the active Catholics or Evangelists or JV's to be inaccessible.

[Rosebud]

Have you considered the possibility that your very definition or conception of "God" and "worship" are prisoners of your upbringing in the Mormon church? Why do you feel you need a conventional American Protestant-type church (generally, I share Harold Bloom's fascination with religious literature and disappointment in American Protestantism) to approach God?

Seattle... hope it's OK if I ask a personal question: How do you approach God?

[Gidget]

Have you considered the possibility that your very definition or conception of "God" and "worship" are prisoners of your upbringing in the Mormon church? Why do you feel you need a conventional American Protestant-type church (generally, I share Harold Bloom's fascination with religious literature and disappointment in American Protestantism) to approach God?

It's ironic how skeptical Mormons will default to saying "Mormonism is the best tool I know to approaching God, that's all I know," and then talk about how 99% of the time they spend in a Mormon meetinghouse is an empty, boring experience. ER, you do both of these things in this same post!

I wonder what percentage of devotees to any particular religion were once devoted to another religion? Of the miniscule percentage that you could say yes about in respese to that question, I wonder how many converted not because they were following a spouse's faith? Subtract from the remainder any mentally unstable people and I wonder what percentage remains. Ultimately, devotion to a faith seems to be an accident of birth subject to only exceptional circumstances. I know I baptized a lot of people on my mission; they were all rootless in terms of religion. I always found the active Catholics or Evangelists or JV's to be inaccessible.

I am in that miniscule amount. I spent the first 17 years of my life not LDS. I attended church regularly, participated in weekly youth group and other church related activities. I was really devoted, this was all I knew. I read scripture, prayed often and felt the Spirit. Though you might think I was too young to be a real "devotee" as you say. I would disagree. I feel like I have been very sensitive to the Holy Spirit my whole life and had two of my most moving experiences with it before I ever even considered being Mormon and when I belonged to this other church/form of religion. I did not follow a spouse's faith (as I was not married), and I was not mentally unstable, and I was not born into the LDS Church, and I wasn't rootless. I know my devotion now as a LDS member is not because of any of the factors you mentioned.

I write all this because I feel like I am not rare. Now I am not saying my situation or circumstances are common, but you make it sound so rare that is almost impossible. That is how it sounded to me, as if it was near impossible. But I think that is a stretch.

[I.J. Reilly]

I am in that miniscule amount. I spent the first 17 years of my life not LDS. I attended church regularly, participated in weekly youth group and other church related activities. I was really devoted, this was all I knew. I read scripture, prayed often and felt the Spirit. Though you might think I was too young to be a real "devotee" as you say. I would disagree. I feel like I have been very sensitive to the Holy Spirit my whole life and had two of my most moving experiences with it before I ever even considered being Mormon and when I belonged to this other church/form of religion. I did not follow a spouse's faith (as I was not married), and I was not mentally unstable, and I was not born into the LDS Church, and I wasn't rootless. I know my devotion now as a LDS member is not because of any of the factors you mentioned.

I write all this because I feel like I am not rare. Now I am not saying my situation or circumstances are common, but you make it sound so rare that is almost impossible. That is how it sounded to me, as if it was near impossible. But I think that is a stretch.

I was going to leave SU's claims alone, but since you want to address them, I'll just put in some facts here. His gut feeling or intuition or whatever is completely off. According to the latest Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life study, 44% of religious adults do not belong to the faith of their childhood. You can read about it here. LAUte posted about this a month or two ago, but the thread didn't get a whole lot of attention. Anyway, SU's thought on this is totally off base.

Just wanted to let you know that you are not alone, Gidget. A good portion of the U.S. religious population has swapped faith.