Polygamy justification?

[SeattleUte]

I for one kind of like the fact the LDS religion doesn't bend to every idea that mankind could present to them to make it *better*.

Did you forget your TIC here? They always bend, alright. LDS leaders are like most insurance companies; tough and hard line until the pain or risk becomes too great, then an abrupt cave in.

[SeattleUte]

In my college and law school days I was on the Sunstone board. (This is a verifiable fact. You can see me on the masthead as "Special Projects," or something like that.) I was a terrible board member and did little, I'm afriad. I did get the U. of U. bookstore to take the magazine on consignment and put it on the store's shelves.

What finally caused me to quit altogether were repeated statements exactly like yours. So many people on that board were so convinced that because they were smart, they were special, and thus had more worthy ideas about what the Church should to than the leaders did. It just got to be too much for me. It still is.

I'm as mystified by those guys as you are. They should just leave.

[wuapinmon]

I feel pretty safe in saying the LDS church is going to be led by *prophets* who are approaching their later years in life, for the foreseeable future. Not very hip I know, but pretty safe way to ensure that you have leadership that will not get to crazy in leading the church.

As we are constantly reminded, the Church was restored to a boy. I think age and wisdom are a good thing; that's why you have a Quorum, but.........you still get bad decisions.

Merrill J. Bateman as president of BYU was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen.

[All-American]

See what I mean? I totally could have written this post.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...440#post105440

You're on.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Why don't you come back and start the revolution?

Meanwhile, I will keep quiet on Sundays and not be branded a troublemaker.

You should try being a troublemaker every now and then. It is educational

[UtahDan]

I don't believe God was "working through" any character in the Bible. In fact, I think most of them are essentially of not purely literary characters. The Bible is in many ways unmatched as a work of literature, however. Mormonism is totally derivative of the Bible's norms, but that does not support its claims.

No, I don't claim it does. But it is a response to your argument which only falls apart if the critic also believes the Bible to be fiction, but if the gulf is that wide then we are talking about an issue much larger than whether the Mormon church has a prophet or not.

[Jarid in Cedar]

No, I don't claim it does. But it is a response to your argument which only falls apart if the critic also believes the Bible to be fiction, but if the gulf is that wide then we are talking about an issue much larger than whether the Mormon church has a prophet or not.

Every argument is set by what assumptions/biases the participants bring to the table.

[UtahDan]

Every argument is set by what assumptions/biases the participants bring to the table.

Well when I talk to SU I assume I am talking to the internet equivalent of this:



He sounds pretty good until someone half intelligent joins the discussion.

[SeattleUte]

No, I don't claim it does. But it is a response to your argument which only falls apart if the critic also believes the Bible to be fiction, but if the gulf is that wide then we are talking about an issue much larger than whether the Mormon church has a prophet or not.

Well, I think I've made myself clear that I critique Mormonism from outside the Judeo-Christian tent. Mormonism happens to be my own immediate religious heritage, so it's often my frame of reference, but probably not as often as for most who participate in the religion forum here. Beyond this, I think Mormonism suffers from the same shortcomings as any creed that interprets scripture literally rather than allegorically; that sees it as a historical record of a people who really were "God's chosen people."

I see the Bible as an important means, along with others including but not limited to Greek philosophy, by which we have arrived at a more enlightened satus, with republcan government, equal rights between races and women, etc. Clearly, it's a but for cause of who we are, for better or worse.

Nevertheless, the Bible contains many norms that are simply backward, indeed reflections of a primitive tribal society. Polygamy, divinely madated bigotry or racism, and slavery are examples. Clearly the Bible has also impeded human progress. Moreover, there is much purported history in the Bible that no rational modern person can credit. The Creation Story (indeed every element of it including such things as all Arabs descended from Ishmael), Noah's Ark, and Jonah are examples. No modern scholar views the discrete stories in the Bible as "history." They are stories. (The Bible IS a valuable historical artifact and record to aid or enable understanding broad sketches of certain ancient historical developments such as, for example, the Babyonian captivity of the Jewish peoples.)

So you say that if Abraham can take Hagar for a concubine and then treat her and his child by her so beastly, or if David can effectively commit murder to conceal his adultery with Bathsheba and secure her for his wife, or if Lot can screw his daughters, and these men still remained God's annointed, what's the big deal about Joseph's Smith's lie about the Book of Abraham, or his polyandry or Brigham Young's racism? Well, all due respect, but I think that's an immature way to judge Joseph Smith. As a society the West long ago moved beyond the Bible being the sine qua non of right and wrong. It's your Biblical literalism that provides the model for such a thing as a "prophet"; and it's your literalism that uses the Bible to reationalize his reprehenisble behavior (there are many aspects of Joseph Smith I do admire; he's my favorite Mormon prophet by far).

Well, I admire the Bible, as I said. But I most emphatically reject your model. We truly are on different spheres. My sphere contains the Western democracies, their universities and other major insitutions, including many of its religions, yours contains Islam, Evangelicals, Mormons, maybe Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.

[SeattleUte]

Actually, Danny Boy, you're in good company. See the last sentence of post no. 24:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...t=26162&page=3

(BTW, everyone, I'd like to see more of the kind of tone and decorum we see in the linked thread here.)

[wuapinmon]

Actually, Danny Boy, you're in good company. See the last sentence of post no. 24:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...t=26162&page=3

(BTW, everyone, I'd like to see more of the kind of tone and decorum we see in the linked thread here.)

I know the guy is loved/lamented over here, but having read tons of threads over there now, I think he's a bully, and I hope he never comes here, in spite of my naive attempt to facilitate that in the past.

[SeattleUte]

I know the guy is loved/lamented over here, but having read tons of threads over there now, I think he's a bully, and I hope he never comes here, in spite of my naive attempt to facilitate that in the past.

UtahDan ate his lunch.

[SeattleUte]

For you UtahDan and for all others who rationalize thier leaders' bad behavior based on bad behavior of 3,500 year old "prophets." BTW, this guy comes closer to my own view of religion than the neo-atheists by far. I'll have to get this book.

In sharp contrast to many contemporary secularists, Wright is bullish about monotheism. In “Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny” (2000), he argued that there is a moral direction to human history, that technological growth and expanding global interconnectedness have moved us toward ever more positive and mutually beneficial relationships with others. In “The Evolution of God,” Wright tells a similar story from a religious standpoint, proposing that the increasing goodness of God reflects the increasing goodness of our species. “As the scope of social organization grows, God tends to eventually catch up, drawing a larger expanse of humanity under his protection, or at least a larger expanse of humanity under his toleration.” Wright argues that each of the major Abrahamic faiths has been forced toward moral growth as it found itself interacting with other faiths on a multinational level, and that this expansion of the moral imagination reflects “a higher purpose, a transcendent moral order.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/bo...w/Bloom-t.html

[UtahDan]

Sorry for ignoring you SU. When I get back from my run tonight I will respond, notwithstanding the very, very hurtful comparison you have made about me.

[UtahDan]

Well, I think I've made myself clear that I critique Mormonism from outside the Judeo-Christian tent. Mormonism happens to be my own immediate religious heritage, so it's often my frame of reference, but probably not as often as for most who participate in the religion forum here. Beyond this, I think Mormonism suffers from the same shortcomings as any creed that interprets scripture literally rather than allegorically; that sees it as a historical record of a people who really were "God's chosen people."

I'm glad my little comment has given you a spring board to emote once again. We don't hear you make this particular point often enough.

I think that you are right that there is still a tendency to put a literal gloss on the garden story, Noah, Jonah, etc. Still, I don't think it is a pillar of belief or required at all. One of the fundamental tenants of Mormonity is the apostacy and the idea that the Bible is either translated incorrectly or omits much that is important. I think the ethos that has grown around that gives a lot of room to believe that many things in the Bible (though not the BOM or POGP) are allegorical. And my own experience tells me there are a great many people in the church who believe in the allegory approach or at least allow that it is possible even if they say they don't know. Still, you are right to say that the large arc is a believe that God has dealt with a chosen people, thought that may simply mean chosen to do the work or even chosen to suffer, at various points in history.

I see the Bible as an important means, along with others including but not limited to Greek philosophy, by which we have arrived at a more enlightened satus, with republcan government, equal rights between races and women, etc. Clearly, it's a but for cause of who we are, for better or worse.

I think that is all true.

Nevertheless, the Bible contains many norms that are simply backward, indeed reflections of a primitive tribal society. Polygamy, divinely madated bigotry or racism, and slavery are examples. Clearly the Bible has also impeded human progress. Moreover, there is much purported history in the Bible that no rational modern person can credit. The Creation Story (indeed every element of it including such things as all Arabs descended from Ishmael), Noah's Ark, and Jonah are examples. No modern scholar views the discrete stories in the Bible as "history." They are stories. (The Bible IS a valuable historical artifact and record to aid or enable understanding broad sketches of certain ancient historical developments such as, for example, the Babyonian captivity of the Jewish peoples.)

I agree that the Bible is a mixed bag of things that the modern mind alternatively views as good or bad. Our own constitution codified that slaves were not fully human as well. Fortunately, most people, even the mullahs of the church, aren't clinging to slavery, racial bigotry or polygamy. I don't even think most would attempt to defend it with anything other than "we don't know why" or "they were obviously imperfect" or "the record is imperfect" or 100 other reasons that would not attribute the bad things to God or else recognize one's own inability to resolve the question. Many of us are comfortable with Paradoxes SU. I said jokingly in another thread that I am a Svyazhky Mormon. It is not a perfect description, but there is some merit in the idea.

So you say that if Abraham can take Hagar for a concubine and then treat her and his child by her so beastly, or if David can effectively commit murder to conceal his adultery with Bathsheba and secure her for his wife, or if Lot can screw his daughters, and these men still remained God's annointed, what's the big deal about Joseph's Smith's lie about the Book of Abraham, or his polyandry or Brigham Young's racism? Well, all due respect, but I think that's an immature way to judge Joseph Smith. As a society the West long ago moved beyond the Bible being the sine qua non of right and wrong. It's your Biblical literalism that provides the model for such a thing as a "prophet"; and it's your literalism that uses the Bible to reationalize his reprehenisble behavior (there are many aspects of Joseph Smith I do admire; he's my favorite Mormon prophet by far).

You are all over the place here. First, I don't say that, for example, "God can command anything, so why not polyandry" which seems to be your suggestion. What I say is that there is Biblical precedent for prophets getting things wrong or doing what seems inexplicable. Whether this indicates that God is inexplicable or that people are imperfect, I don't claim to know. Part of all Christian belief is the idea that "my ways are not thy ways", that is, that while God is accessible He is not fully comprehensible. Also the idea in almost every Christian Church that there are mysteries. To be Christian is to accept paradox and mystery.

This creates a lot of wiggle room, but this leads into the next point you make which is, fine, that maybe well for Christianity but the Bible is no longer the measuring stick or right and wrong. Here again we move into a much larger discussion on two levels. First is the right and wrong aspect. What do you suggest as your rule of recognition? What makes polyandry wrong and bad? The answer seems to be public opinion. Nothing wrong with that but public opinion shifts all around, particularly on the issue of what sorts of unions adults ought to be allowed to enter into.

Your other examples are BY's racism, which no one defends, and the BOA which is really on the second level of do you accept any religious claim that you can't touch, taste, hear, see or smell. If you don't, there really isn't any common ground to discuss that issue because like most religious claims, probably all, it cannot be proved by a resort to reason. The skeptic will win that debate every time and still not convince the believer who will say that he has the benefit of other supernatural proofs and can in any event rely on faith. This is where people just begin to talk past one another. It is where you begin to talk past a lot of people here. It is the reason that some like me who is skeptical by nature can accept much of your reasoning but not be compelled to rejection as a result. I know that is a mystery to you, but again, it is unique neither to me nor to Christianity nor to any religion. In fact, it is the essence of religion because it is faith.

Well, I admire the Bible, as I said. But I most emphatically reject your model. We truly are on different spheres. My sphere contains the Western democracies, their universities and other major insitutions, including many of its religions, yours contains Islam, Evangelicals, Mormons, maybe Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.

You admire the Bible as literature and because it is influential, which is fine. I think you are attributing a model to me that is not mine but rather what you imagine the typical Mormon model to be. Hopefully I have given you more detail on what I actually think. I agree that your sphere is not a sphere of faith but I think you are quite wrong to make easy distinctions about to where that sphere does in fact extend. I also think it is possible to place one foot in the sphere or reason and evidence and the other in that of faith and live in a paradoxical state. Think this is in reality what most "religious" people do to one degree or another. I don't fault you for choosing the logically cleaner position of a single sphere, nor really do I fault those who chose only the sphere of faith though I think such persons for the most part are rare. But choosing a path of paradox is not illogical nor without precedent. I think I have some pretty good company much smarter than I am.

UtahDan ate his lunch.

What does that expression mean? Is that compliment or insult? I liked Waters over on CG, less so now that it is apparent that Robin's comment that he was more interested in us as decorations at his party than people to be engage has been shown to be manifestly correct. I don't have his creative spark but his inability to focus or follow an argument in a thread allowed me to turn him into a pretzel more than once.