Polygamy justification?

[Non Sequitur]

That's my whole point: the 500 pound gorillas are really 25 pound baby chimps in a funhouse mirror.

Granted, compared to burning heretics at the stake, polygamy isn't much of an issue, but if polygamy was instituted in the Mormon Church solely as means to cover up Joseph Smith's philandering -- as can be intelligently argued -- doesn't that merit at least a 200 pound Orangatan?

[Rosebud]

That's my whole point: the 500 pound gorillas are really 25 pound baby chimps in a funhouse mirror.

Yes... there certainly are some baby chimps that get exaggerated into 500 pound gorillas. On the other hand, there's also a chance that the animals I'm thinking about REALLY ARE a different species than the animals you're thinking about.... .

[Jarid in Cedar]

That's my whole point: the 500 pound gorillas are really 25 pound baby chimps in a funhouse mirror.

But who is holding the mirror, the questioner or the questionee?

[SeattleUte]

Wuap's right. I know from personal experience that this statement is flat-out, embarrassingly wrong. Do you even know any Evangelicals very well at all?

I don't know any Evangelists very well. My impression is mostly based on what I read. Evangelism strikes me as more a matter of self-definition and choice, like Orthodox Judaism, than Mormonism. There's only one denomination of devout Mormons, unlike Protestants. George Bush Sr. became an Evangelist after being a mainline Protestant much of his life. Did he have to get baptized again? Did this cause personal or familial trauma? In other words, Evangelists strike me as non-skeptics by definition. Once you're a skeptic you're something else, and will probably start going to church someplace else. Is it possible to be an Evangelist and regard the Bible as anything other than literal truth, to believe anything other than the NT is history and Adam and Eve were the first humans?

[SeattleUte]

I agree with Indy that no one should choose to be a Mormon or not based on discrete issues like polygamy, the Book of Abraham scrolls, or Book of Mormon anachronisms. That's a pretty limited horizon.

[ERCougar]

I think I could handle most anything but that. The second the prophet asks if he can marry my wife, I apostatize on the spot.

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.

[ERCougar]

Could a prophet commit adultery and not be a "fallen prophet"?

I'm not speaking of weakness of the flesh as much as I am of advocating a false doctrine.

[Rosebud]

Faith and fear are opposites

This was the conclusion that I came to. I can't explain it otherwise. But to ignore/deny things that are well documented, comes across as disgenuine.

Agreed... and here's a spiritual take on it:

I believe in God. I pray often -- usually in my heart but sometimes even on my knees. The more I pray the more I feel like I understand God. Of course He is far from comprehensible to me, but at least praying helps me understand that He loves me, loves the other people around me and wants what is best for all of us. With His love in mind, I do my best to align my thoughts and my actions to what I believe He would want them to be. This is very simple, but its simplicity is what makes it powerful in my life. Over time I have developed "faith" in God being defined as something that I believe in that is not seen but is true (Alma 32:21).

Somewhat ironically, however, the more faith I gain the less fear I have of the 500 pound gorillas. The more I understand God's love for me and for all of us, the less afraid I am to look at problems without their fun-park mirrors. I believe that there is a God, that He is good, and that He wants what is best for us. We can't make things any better for ourselves, our church, our communities, our children... or whatever it is that we care about if we're too afraid to face our problems directly. The gorillas are real and they don't just disappear as we ignore them.

Faith and fear are opposites.

[ERCougar]

The reason that the areas of dissonance receive the importance that they do is that many times they are the primary division between many of the Christian faiths. The majority of all religions teach the importance of family, service, striving to be a better man, and faith, and all of the Christian faiths preach the importance of repentance. So to me the dissonance does not distract from those things, and likely do not distract the majority of people from these things.

The real questions asked deal with faith and belief in a specific religion, and in this case, the LDS church. The dissonance for me occurs with specific tenents, practices, and dogma that conflict with my faith and belief of God's purpose for us, and how he would wish us to treat our fellow man/woman. The real dissonance for me occurs from the tension between the spiritual relationship with Jesus( the promptings I receive, the feelings that alter or support actions) and the religious relationship with Jesus(How he is worshipped). Intellectually, I have never been able to resolve that dissonance. As you so well put it(not sarcastic so please don't take it that way) "a great deal of peace with intellectually accepting the fact that resolution is not always going to happen and then get about the business of trying to become more like the Savior". I stopped trying to resolve that conflict, accepted the fact that I was not a believer in the LDS church, and more specifically a believer in Joseph Smith, and have been at peace because of this. I have been able to move beyond the struggle of whether to believe in a specific religion, and move towards being more Christ-like in my life.

I agree with much of what you are saying, I simply see it from a different angle.

This is a really good point. Indy-style faith is a fine approach to life and religion, but once you start glossing over these objections, we become very much like every other Christian faith. Which is probably a good thing. IMO, the essentials of life are learning to exercise faith in Christ (not some obscure point about Kolob) and developing a personal relationship with God. I find value in gathering with other people who are trying to do the same thing and in hearing new perspectives, in the same way I like coming here and hearing other people's ideas on things. I learn something every time that I go, as long I'm trying to learn something. In the process, I have to throw out or ignore a lot off silliness (I think Jarid's wife could attest to this, as I usually end up sitting behind her in SS, muttering things to my wife a lot. We have a total jackass for a teacher. I'm not exaggerating--he's literally a donkey. But even there, I can still usually pick up something of use to take home for the week). 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.

[Rosebud]

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

[ERCougar]

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

Not to me. But in a male-dominated board, I wouldn't be too surprised to see that be the case.

[LA Ute]

I don't know any Evangelists very well. My impression is mostly based on what I read. Evangelism strikes me as more a matter of self-definition and choice, like Orthodox Judaism, than Mormonism. There's only one denomination of devout Mormons, unlike Protestants. George Bush Sr. became an Evangelist after being a mainline Protestant much of his life. Did he have to get baptized again? Did this cause personal or familial trauma? In other words, Evangelists strike me as non-skeptics by definition. Once you're a skeptic you're something else, and will probably start going to church someplace else. Is it possible to be an Evangelist and regard the Bible as anything other than literal truth, to believe anything other than the NT is history and Adam and Eve were the first humans?

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.

[LA Ute]

Indy-style faith is a fine approach to life and religion, but once you start glossing over these objections, we become very much like every other Christian faith.

ER, I think your approach is logical, sincere, and well thought-out, although I of course don't share it. Let me just post a minor objection to your reference to "Indy-style faith." Maybe it's just me, but there's a whiff of condescension there. The approach Indy describes may seem unsophisticated to some here, but it is just as logical, sincere, and well thought-out as yours. The evidence of either approach is the integrity with which it is lived.

I look at my religion the same way Indy does, and there is no "glossing over" involved. I don't think there is for Indy either.

As for becoming "very much like any other Christian faith" unless we spend a great deal of time and energy focusing on questions about Joseph Smith, I don't see that at all. The first 6 Articles of Faith, especially 5, and adding in 8 and 9, make us irrevocably different from all Christian faiths. And that's without even talking about temple worship.

I don't mean to go on a mini-rant, just raising some minor objections.

[ERCougar]

ER, I think your approach is logical, sincere, and well thought-out, although I of course don't share it. Let me just post a minor objection to your reference to "Indy-style faith." Maybe it's just me, but there's a whiff of condescension there. The approach Indy describes may seem unsophisticated to some here, but it is just as logical, sincere, and well thought-out as yours. The evidence of either approach is the integrity with which it is lived.

I look at my religion the same way Indy does, and there is no "glossing over" involved. I don't think there is for Indy either.

As for becoming "very much like any other Christian faith" unless we spend a great deal of time and energy focusing on questions about Joseph Smith, I don't see that at all. The first 6 Articles of Faith, especially 5, and adding in 8 and 9, make us irrevocably different from all Christian faiths. And that's without even talking about temple worship.

I don't mean to go on a mini-rant, just raising some minor objections.

You're right--that does come across as a little condescending. I apologize--I really didn't mean it like that. I think it's a little bit in response to the same answers we always get from Indy on these kinds of things--"why do you guys get so worked up over minutiae?", which is a little condescending as well. He may be right--in the end, it may be minutiae, but there are obviously a lot of sincere people who DO care about it, which in my book, automatically raises it above that level of importance. If Indy feels that way about all of this, I just wonder why he keeps jumping in on these threads. I wouldn't put you in the same category, as I sense that you at least appreciate the concern, even if you don't agree with it.

I'll get to your next point in a second--I have a patient.

[ERCougar]

ER, I think your approach is logical, sincere, and well thought-out, although I of course don't share it. Let me just post a minor objection to your reference to "Indy-style faith." Maybe it's just me, but there's a whiff of condescension there. The approach Indy describes may seem unsophisticated to some here, but it is just as logical, sincere, and well thought-out as yours. The evidence of either approach is the integrity with which it is lived.

I look at my religion the same way Indy does, and there is no "glossing over" involved. I don't think there is for Indy either.

As for becoming "very much like any other Christian faith" unless we spend a great deal of time and energy focusing on questions about Joseph Smith, I don't see that at all. The first 6 Articles of Faith, especially 5, and adding in 8 and 9, make us irrevocably different from all Christian faiths. And that's without even talking about temple worship.

I don't mean to go on a mini-rant, just raising some minor objections.

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.