p. 5. If it is the current prophet’s words that matter, and you think the current prophet is fallen, or not fulfilling his calling, or without authority (or that there is no current prophet),
I can agree with your assessment on the tone of this section – but a common concern [that we’ve seen] for a potential tribal-convert is their relationship to the LDS church
..” come from? Is that from something in the chapter – or something from the nature of this blog in general – etc.?
Have you https://besthookupwebsites.org/local-hookup/los-angeles/ read the alternate view of the keys post and its explanation of how the keys of the church [or tribe] are what authorize or make valid the keys of the priesthood? I believe that post is in either the “G” or the “E” section [which will come before the continual use of consent as a legitimizing device in the “M” section] – does that affect the point you were raising at all?
p. 39. This section seems very confrontational and antagonistic, which doesn’t seem like the best way to start out a tribe.
So – I like the idea of a post that answers the concern about what can be done, without a person who still wants to be plugged-into their LDS ward feeling like they have to lie.
If the Book of Mormon says that polygyny was revoked, then remarks no further on the subject, it doesn’t automatically mean that it was reinstated.
I think LDSA’s point on the reinstatement of polygamy had to do with the language in 4 Nephi [on p. 6] – which I’d admit is still debatable, just not on the grounds of “lack of evidence being evidence”.
I do not believe that this arrangement will appeal to most people brought up in the world and church today.
I think that this matter is still a toss-up in my mind. As I’ve spent more time on this idea – I’ve come across more people who feel detached from a sense of connectivity and community with their fellow-human-being. But I can see how ingrained aversion to plural marriages could lead people who “like the idea” to just form their own tribe – rather than intermarry to form a single tribe.
I have also thought that this model will have more success outside of other LDS than it would among other members – but at the same time, as we’ve talked with more fellow church-members, I’ve been surprised by how many women my wife has told me have expressed interest in polygamy in general [without even getting into tribalism/community, which has its own appeal].
I believe similar to you with respect to receiving the rights of the priesthood – but I don’t know how that would affect stewardship relationships
And on the Facebook discussion group – two of the best worded statements on polygamy and building a Zion-like community I’ve read were posted by two women.
I think the real issue [among LDS] won’t be polygamy or tribes – but will be (1) the taboo against members doing things on their own without Salt Lake organization and sanction, and (2) male-resistance to polyandry.
Yeah, the typos were corrected in the updated file. And thanks for the feedback. We will take it all into consideration as the book gets finished.
I should point out, I suppose, that I believe that a woman holds the priesthood by virtue of the temple, so I also don’t really buy the stewardship/concern sex division.
The EQ president is the steward of all the male elders – the bishop is the steward of all members [male and female] – the husband is the steward of his wife[ves] and their children [male and female].