Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Why the occasional reminder (and she will probably do it again)

I can see my wife put up another reminder about the stuff I've written previously.  I can tell you why she did that.
Some folks presume that a brief post contains all of an idea that I have spent many pages setting out a full explanation for elsewhere.  They comment, challenge, criticize or contradict in a reply comment as if the whole of what I have to say about some topic is contained in the briefest of posts.  It is apparent that if the person had read what I've written elsewhere they wouldn't be making the comment they make here.

An example is the plural marriage notion.  I've spent pages and given both history and scripture to explain what my explanation is for the position I take in the book Beloved Enos.  There are persons who are obsessed with the whole plural marriage subject, and very well may be practicing plural marriage.  My comments and views probably threaten them, because I do not believe it appropriate to practice plural marriage now that it has been banned by both the law of Utah, law of the United States, confirmed by the United States to be prohibited, and abandoned by the church as a practice.
The keys which allowed the practice are addressed at length in Beloved Enos, and it would be too long a discussion to take the subject up here.  I anticipated that there would be those who practice plural marriage who would read what I have to say, and so I addressed their concerns in that book.  So when they want to have a discussion about the topic, this isn't the forum for that.  I've written my understanding before and it becomes apparent that the person(s) replying do not understand my position because they haven't read it.
I think my wife as Moderator gets somewhat exasperated with these comments, because they are something which she necessarily has to read before putting up and seem so contrary to the intent of doing this blog.  I get vicariously frustrated as well as we discuss it.
I worry that some very good folks, with great comments, are thinking that their comments are not welcomed.  That isn't true, of course.  What is true is that it is unfair and inaccurate to reach a conclusion about what I think or understand based upon the briefest of comments made on this blog.  The comments would need to be read in light of lengthy explanations provided elsewhere and fit into the context of what I've already explained, before it is fair to react as if you understand my position.  Some of you have taken the trouble to read what I've written and do understand a comment made here.  Some clearly have not.  Everyone is welcome to put a comment up in response to a post, but I'm not going to respond to all of them when the explanation is already provided elsewhere.
I hope that clarifies again the reasons behind the periodic reminders put up here.


  1. Denver,

    Please explain what you mean by "Keys to Practice Plural Marriage", I don't understand.

    Do you mean the keys to practice "celestial marriage"? (which I would define as being plural marriage with the promise of an eternal sealing between partners and sanctioned by the Lord).

    Seems to me like "plural marriage" is simply a lifestyle choice that consenting adults decide to live. Are you saying that you believe that by making that choice the adults are inherently living incorrectly or are they living incorrectly only because the action is currently disallowed by the laws of this land? If you agree with that then would you say that if plural marriage were to become de-criminalized that you would see no problem in choosing to live that lifestyle?

    I know this question is almost perfectly what you said in the post you are not interested in discussing but I think getting your viewpoint on it might actually work to slow down the number of comments that others send you, not increase the number.

    By the way, I am not a practicing polygamist and I am a current active member of the church.


  2. Keys to seal multiple wives with the Lord's approval. They aren't in use today.

    Should they decriminalize bigamy (which is probably inevitable at some point) and people decide to have multiple spouses, that would still not be the same thing as a celestial marriage, no matter who and how they arranged their relationship.


What Say You?