- Stephen Fleming on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “My apologies for being dismissive of women, PWS. That wasn’t my intention. The blog does seem to be disproportionately male, and we would certainly like to be engaging and inviting to more women.” Oct 30, 11:51
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “I’m guessing that Jack and Nibley are correct as far as they go. It’s just that they don’t go far enough. I don’t think any of us really know about the circumstances of our afterlife. I don’t think we can know–it’s beyond our limited mortal ability to comprehend. We are all just doing the best we can, based on what we individually like most about our lives here. As to the topic in general, it’s very telling that the conversation is all mostly men talking to men. When a woman does weigh in, her input is easily and lightly dismissed.” Oct 30, 11:37
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “And thanks for your contributions, DaveW. This certainly is a tricky subject, and I agree that those elements of what is often a standard narrative leave a lot of questions.” Oct 30, 07:35
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Thanks for those quotes, Chad. The Utah period isn’t my specialty, but I remember Tom Alexander saying in my Utah history class many years ago that it was standard for Utah church leaders to interpret DC 131:1-4 as being about polygamy. That is, there are different degrees in the Celestial Kingdom and polygamy was required for the top degree. These quotes seem to suggest a similar point of view. Non-polygamists can get into the Celestial Kingdom but there seems to be advantages to polygamists. Cougar, thanks for looking. I get the need to be able to seal female ancestors to multiple spouses since death of spouses has been common throughout history. I do wonder how long the caveat about Mormon women who’d been sealed in life being able to have living relatives seal them to other spouses after they die has been in place. Jack, I’m guessing you and Nibley are correct. Unconvinced, the topic of this post was about what I see as the difficulties polygamy creates for the church. I asked at the end if allowing women to be sealed other husbands if the first dies would help with the problem at all. You claim that shared marriage “is not as sexist and unfair to women,” so I guess you do see such an allowance as an improvement.” Oct 30, 06:12
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “The only way your proposed shared marriage sometimes called polyamory makes polygamy more palatable is that it is not as sexist and unfair to women. It doesn’t resolve anything because the doctrine and history still stand the same, Unrehabilitated. Why try? It was a bad doctrine that hurt people and the church and drags down the current church. Let it go. Don’t try to justify it or reform it. Since it was wrong from the start.” Oct 30, 04:23
- on Latter-day Saint Apologetics Tier List: “As I’ve aged I’ve concluded that the BofM multiple, remarkably concise, mini-treatises on the extraordinarily demanding principle of “equality” – in the spheres of religious belief, the political arena, religious organizations, and interpersonal relationships – is without equal. People get so easily hung up on the “white/black” skin color deal that they miss the essence of the teachings of the Book . We once asked our parents about the white/black skin color changing deal – their answer “use the brains the good Lord gave ya, you already know people don’t go around changing colors – so we’re not catching something- don’t worry about it… the point is what? steer clear of people who ignore their covenants – and you can see ‘em a mile away because the “light’s “ gone out of their countenance”… That served me well the last 70 years – light on, or light off!! No more complicated than that . When I met AfroLatino members on my mission in South America pre-‘78 .. their countenances burned bright as could be with the light of the Spirit, those erroneously denied the priesthood. We warmed our hearts by the light of their extraordinary faith burning so bright we could pick them out of a crowd though we’d never met them… Anyway ruminations of a very old Mormon” Oct 30, 01:02
- on Church Education Expansion Under Ernest Wilkinson: “Thank you I’ve always been fascinated by the idea of LDS run schools. The Church has the money now and pathways does seem like the most valuable response now. At the same time it’s fun to think of an official Church school in Texas or a country in Africa. I love the Primary and HS type Church schools in the South Pacific and would love to see those expand in other areas.” Oct 29, 18:37
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “I agree with Nibley–that marriage is different in the afterlife than it is in mortality. It is certainly similar typologically–but different in ways that only exalted beings can experience.” Oct 29, 16:24
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Stephen, a quick Google search suggests that the policy of sealing a deceased woman to all of the men to whom she was married in life indicates the First Presidency issued a policy letter in December 1988 to that effect and that the Handbook was updated in 1989 to implement it and that there were further updates in 1991. I’ll caveat all of this by saying I haven’t been able to pull up the source documents themselves so I can’t verify those statements. If anyone else can get to them to verify or debunk the above, I’d be grateful.” Oct 29, 13:28
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “I’m feeling very famous today. I’ll try not to let it go to my head. I think what makes polygamy such an important topic for so many is how it touches our daily lives. I spend more time with my wife than any other person. My marriage is the single largest influence on my day-to-day life. The idea of fundamentally changing that would up-end my life more than just about anything else I can think of. Messing with our personal lives on that level, whether in this life or the next, is a *big thing*. Polygamy is a deeply personal practice that is hard to keep emotional distance from. Polygamy also has a lot of details available to us. Many of us have ancestors who were in plural marriages. We’ve read their journals. We’ve heard stories, both good and bad. We know the specifics. And then we have standard narratives that are so very vague. If polygamy was to be practiced “for a short time”, why 60(ish) years? (People were living in plural marriages well into the 1900s.) Why not one guy with two wives, check the box and move on? Why did some church leaders have dozens of wives? With huge age gaps? (The questions could go on and on and on . . . .)” Oct 29, 12:36
