Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

kamenraider

The Law Of Plural Marriage -- Suspended? Or Revoked?

  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. The priesthood law requiring plural marriage was...

    • suspended.
    • revoked.
    • neither suspended nor revoked -- only the practice of it was suspended by the Church.
    • I don't believe there is such a law.
    • Other (explain below)


Recommended Posts

Just to balance Kamenraider's D&C posts:

But I'm sure someone will soon quote one verse from Jacob. Namely Jacob 2:30.

Hopefully those who read the rest of Jacob will see how polygamy really affects women. And if this was the "law given unto Abraham", funny that the Nephites knew nothing about that. But I'm realistic, and await more scriptural gymnastics.

There is something that needs to be clearly distinguished here. It's a dimension that rarely is brought into the discussion about polygamy. But, it is most needful.

First if all, the bedrock has to be established. One item is that if a man is looking upon a woman to lust after her he is committing adultry, period. Who is he committing adultry against? His Lord! Christ doesn't want to see our backs while we are chasing after girls. This is spiritual adultery and under God's law the penalty is death. Only this is spiritual death because it is spiritual adultery. This is why Jesus said a man must take up his cross and deny himself these things because otherwise his soul would be cast into hell. Hell is spiritual death, the second death. Serious stuff here. A man who has a disposition or mentality or propensity of any kind to willfully attempt to garner the attention, attraction, affection, etc. of a woman is OUT OF LINE. This has NOTHING to do with whether or not a man has zero, one or many wives. This is the core issue. This is the abomination that the Lord is referring to that the men were committing in days of old and this is what was developing in the hearts of the Nephite men that gave the Lord cause to have Jacob shut them down.

If the details are looked into, David was given wives by the prophet Nathan. Either you believe this was good, holy and proper or you are going to be saying Nathan was a false and corrupt prophet. I assure you he was a prophet of God and was a true servant of the Lord. Where David went astray is he looked upon, lusted after, and took wives without them being given to him by Nathan the prophet. This is the abomination the Lord was referring to. This is what Jesus clarified as spiritual adultery of a man to his Lord.

Another place in scripture that reveals this adulterous perspective is what God did concerning the Sons of God who went among the daughters of men and TOOK wives, even those that THEY DID CHOOSE. According to Jesus what did they do? They committed adultery. Their fate? To be bound up in hell or spiritual death. Under God's Law men are to be pure and virgin of heart towards their Lord, who is Christ. As the sealing ordinance attests, men are merely to RECEIVE a woman who GIVES herself to him. This may only happen with the aprobation and confirmation of the Lord. To the extent that any of these factors is absent or out of order the Holy Spirit of Promise will not ratify the union. There are very deep cutting implications when a man realizes the only thing appropriate for him to do is to receive. There should be no looking, no baiting, no advertising, etc. and most of all there should be no taking.

Fundamentalists, are you listening? If in any manner you took a wife you should get down on your knees before her and confess your adultery before the Lord and put her at liberty. They are going to remove themselves from you in time anyway, if they are anything worth having, so you just as well turn away from your evil covenants now while there is yet time. If you go to your grave with the premise and/or fruits of taking wives then that which you think is yours won't be because your spirit is headed for the second death. God does not appreciate his holy laws being mocked, perverted and abused. The reproach you have brought on His holy laws will be put upon you and crush your souls to death unless you repent.

This is why the Lord so delights in the chastity of women. Women should not be doing anything to try and garner the looks of men. For them to be unchaste they facilitate men also being unchaste to their Lord. It turns the entire spiritual orderliness on its head. When men's hearts are into getting wives, all kinds of loyalties and priorities get turned around and men become susceptible to all kinds of corruption. Seed of this kind of union bears a Cain instead of an Abel.

Another dimension to look at is the wife of a man and how that man is behaving affects her. Does this spiritual adultery of a man against his Lord affect the existing wives? I believe it does very much so. If that man has absolutely no energy that is oriented to seek out another wive vs. a man who is constantly on the "lookout" provides a very different spiritual context for his wife to live in. There is a message that a man on the "lookout" is sending. You are not good enough, I want more, etc. Women are sensitive enough that they will sense whatever is going on in the heart and mind of her husband. If a man thinks he can keep his activities to garner another woman's affections a secret from his wife he is sorely mistaken. His wife may not be able to put a finger on it, but her heart will indeed be broken toward her husband and she will discontinue giving him her full affection and devotion. The consequences of this spiritual adultery is the broken heart of the wife or wives and children of the man. This also will lead his soul to death rather than life.

So, it is quite clear there is a line men should not cross. I distinguish this subject of plural marriage between whether or not the man is practicing multiplication of wives or Celestial Plural Marriage. Multiplying of wives has been and always will be revoked under God's Law. It is abhorent in his sight. Celestial Plural Marriage is everlasting, because it has to do with whether or not the Lord can give a man another wife or not. There isn't a one of us who can say whether or not the Lord can or cannot give a wife to a man if He deems it appropriate. To even suggest this could be suspended or revoked is ludicrous!

The Lord reserves the right at any time to give a woman to a man in union. That's why it was called the New and Everlasting Covenant. It was new to the saints because there hadn't been a Lord's Anointed servant in recent times until the restoration. But, it has always been the Lord's prerogative and is therefore Everlasting as well. There will only ever be one man at a time who can speak for the Lord in this matter so that there will be no confusion and also to prevent the lusts of men from usurping the Lord's position. If a man does not have the gift of the Oracles such that he receives revelation from the Lord in first person then he is a fraud no matter what keys he may claim a successionary right from. Either they are the Lord's Anointed and truly speak for the Lord or they are a fraud who has usurped a place they have no business in. Fundamentalists, again, are you listening?

JBug

Share this post


Link to post

There is no law that requires polygamy.

There are blessings, the receipt of which are predicated on obedience to that law. The truth of this statement can neither be denied nor gainsayed and should be self-evident.

Joseph F. Smith, one of your ancestors IIRC, said in JD 20:31:

It is a glorious privilege to be permitted to go into a Temple of

God to be united as man and wife in the bonds of holy wedlock for time and

all eternity by the Authority of the Holy Priesthood, which is the power

of God, for they who are thus joined together "no man can put asunder," for

God hath joined them. It is an additional privilege for that same man and

wife to re-enter the Temple of God to receive another wife in like manner

if they are worthy. But if he remain faithful with only the one wife,

observing, the conditions of so much of the law as pertains to the

eternity of the marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the

benefits, blessings and power appertaining to the second or more faithful

and fuller observance of the law, he never will receive, for he

cannot. As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the

observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does,

nor can he secure to himself the fulness of any blessing without he

fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the

benefit of the law he obeys. This is just and righteous.

The standards set forth in the Book of Mormon make it clear that polygamy as a lifestyle here on earth which can be an abomination in the sight of God.

Any type of marriage can be an abomination in the sight of God when not done correctly. But "nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11).

It is only allowed if authorized by the ACTING Prophet of the CofJCofLDS church--so it doesn't matter if there is a letter written by John Taylor or Joseph Smith or Benjamin Johnson or Lorin Woolley saying whatever.

When my wife and I were sealed, the sealer told the story about how he had been set apart and given authority to perform sealings by the Prophet. That Prophet had died by the time we were sealed. Nevertheless the sealer was still acting according to authority that had been given him at that time. The current Prophet at the time knew nothing about us being sealed. It was done via priesthood authority that had been given long before.

Also, a letter written by someone (I'm not sure what that might be referring to) is quite a different thing than a "thus saith the Lord" revelation, such as the one given to John Taylor in 1886.

Right now--It is considered an abomination. If any LDS people practice this lifestyle here on earth at this time, they will be condemned for it in the next, because they were to follow the prophets in their day, not dead prophets--and when they stand to be judged for their choices, they will suffer the consequences for their disobedience.

I don't see any difference between the views of living prophets and dead prophets concerning polygamy as a general principle, but only regarding the Church allowing it to be practiced as a lifestyle right now, and we know why that is. Polygamy really publicly stopped in March of 1887 when the Edmunds-Tucker Act was passed. That was a mere 6 months or so after the revelation was given that I posted a pic of above. It's odd indeed that that theme would be hit so hard and insistently by the Lord (who of course is omniscient) immediately before the practice was publicly stopped. OD 1, the manifesto of 1890, was just an announcement to try to convince the public of our seriousness regarding giving it up (privately though I think they thought they could get away with it still, on a limited scale and in other countries that weren't fighting its practice). It was based on a revelation to Wilford Woodruff that it was pointless to try to continue living polygamy when the U.S. Government was destined to forcibly put a stop to it anyway, and when the majority of members weren't that interested in living it (which should've been obvious anyway), but it wasn't a revelation itself. I think that if the law regarding it has not been revoked, then that is significant fact, with possible implications for the future.

Share this post


Link to post

...

Celestial Plural Marriage is everlasting, because it has to do with whether or not the Lord can give a man another wife or not. There isn't a one of us who can say whether or not the Lord can or cannot give a wife to a man if He deems it appropriate. To even suggest this could be suspended or revoked is ludicrous!

....

JBug

Hi JBug,

When I read D&C 132 is is clear that correct plural marriage, in other words Celestial Marriage, can only come by the will of God. The idea that somehow God is afraid of the United States government, and must cater to it, is not very faith promoting. One should worry about what the Lord has said, and not what is currently politically correct.

There are two main times when plural marriage is commanded by D&C 132: one when the Lord specifically commands it, and that could happen on a day by day basis if one sincerely believes this is true revelation. The other time is based on D&C 132:44-- when a woman already in the covenant loses her husband to adultery (or to any apostacy and also to death I believe). Then she must be allowed to remarry in the covenant-- even if it means plural marriage.

So I simply cannot see how the LDS are really living by the spirit of D&C 132 as long as they place a total ban on any plural marriage ever. I actually believe it was correct for President Woodruff to temporarily stop practicing it in the US. And it could have been practiced independent of the church by the Priesthood as it had been done before Brigham Young made it a church practice. I do not believe President Woodruff intended his Manifesto to overrule what D&C 132 teaches, or any other revelation on the matter.

Plural marriage is part of Patriarchy. Righteous women are asked by God to submit to the government of their husband as long as he follows the government of Christ. When a woman living under a God ordained patriarchy loses her husband to death or adultery or apostacy, then she must have the right to remarry in the covenant, as she cannot live the covenant if her husband is not a believer. So plural marriage is sometimes necessary for such a woman. One should read the Bible Book of Ruth to feel the correct spirit of this kind of plural marriage. Boaz, who for sure was already married, was inspired by the Lord to also marry Ruth who had lost her husband, and through this union eventually came King David and eventually Jesus.

The correct principle behind the plural marriage of Ruth and Boaz still exists. Those who will not live by correct principles will not reap the blessings.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Revelation to Pres. John Taylor, Sept 27, 1886:

. . . .

"I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen."

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

From the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter-day Saints

Reprint from The Deseret News, Church Section, June 17, 1933

The First Presidency have recently received letters making inquiry concerning the position of the Church regarding the contracting of polygamous or plural marriages. It is evident from these letters, as well as from certain published material-some of it distributed during our last General Conference-that a secret and, according to reputation, an oath-bound organization of misguided individuals is seeking to lead the people to adopt adulterous relations under the guise of a pretended and false polygamous or plural marriage ceremony.

. . . .

The members of the Church are reminded that the practice of polygamous or plural marriage is not the only law whose suspension has been authorized by the Lord and adopted by the people. The law of animal sacrifice, in force in ancient Israel, has been suspended, but the Prophet Joseph asserted it would be again restored, and such is the effect of the statement made by John the Baptist when restoring the Aaronic Priesthood. The law of the United Order has likewise been suspended, to be re-established in the due time of the Lord. Other laws might be mentioned.

The members of the secret and (by reputation) oath-bound organization referred to in the first paragraph of this statement, make many false allegations, two of which-as being those without which all the others they make must necessarily fall-may be noted here by way of cautioning the membership of the Church against the teachings and practices of this organization.

It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this same organization.

As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.

Furthermore, so far as the authorities of the Church are concerned and so far as the members of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its terms, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.

The second allegation made by the organization and its members (as reported) is to the effect that President John Taylor ordained and set apart several men to perform marriage ceremonies (inferentially polygamous or plural marriage ceremonies), and gave to those so allegedly authorized the further power to set others apart to do the same thing.

There is nothing in the records of the Church to show that any such ordination or setting apart was ever performed. There is no recollection or report among the officers of the Church to whom such an incident would of necessity be known, that any such action was ever taken.

Furthermore, any such action would have been illegal and void because the Lord has laid down without qualification the principle that "there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred." The Lord has never changed this rule.

Moreover, four years after the date when it is alleged this pretended revelation was given to President John Taylor, and four years after the date of the alleged ordaining and setting apart of these men by President Taylor, to perform marriage ceremonies (presumably polygamous or plural), the Church in General Conference formally approved the solemn Declaration offered to the Conference by Lorenzo Snow, then President of the Council of the Twelve, that President Wilford Woodruff was "the only man on the earth at the present time (1890) who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances." This statement would have been an unmitigated falsehood if the allegation of the organization were true. President Lorenzo Snow did not falsify.

Finally, without direct revelation from the Lord changing the principle that there is never but one man on the earth at one time who holds the keys of the sealing power-and we solemnly affirm that there is not now and there has not been given any revelation making any change in that principle-any such act of ordination by President Taylor as that seemingly alleged by the members of this organization would be completely null and void. No one better knew this principle regarding authority for this sealing power than President John Taylor and he would not have attempted to violate it. It is a sacrilege to his memory-the memory of a great and true Latter-day Saint, a prophet of the Lord-that these falsehoods should be broadcast by those who professed to be his friends while he lived.

. . . .

The keys of the sealing ordinances rest today solely in President Heber J. Grant, having so passed to him by the ordination prescribed by the Lord, at the hands of those having the authority to pass them, and whose authority has never been taken away by the Lord, nor suspended, nor interfered with by the Church. President Grant is the only man on the earth at this time who possesses these keys. He has never authorized any one to perform polygamous or plural marriages; he is not performing such marriages himself; he has not on his part violated nor is he violating the pledge he made to the Church, to the world, and to our government at the time of the Manifesto.

Any one making statements contrary to the foregoing is innocently or maliciously telling that which is not true. Any one representing himself as authorized to perform such marriages is making a false representation. Any such ceremony performed by any person so making such representation is a false and mock ceremony. Those living as husband and wife under and pursuant to the ceremonies proscribed by President Smith or the ceremonies performed by any person whatsoever since that proscription, are living in adultery and are subject to the attaching penalties.

. . . .

HEBER J. GRANT, ANTHONY W. IVINS, J. REUBEN CLARK, JR., First Presidency.

5 Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 329

Share this post


Link to post

There is no law that requires polygamy. The standards set forth in the Book of Mormon make it clear that polygamy as a lifestyle here on earth which can be an abomination in the sight of God. It is only allowed if authorized by the ACTING Prophet of the CofJCofLDS church--so it doesn't matter if there is a letter written by John Taylor or Joseph Smith or Benjamin Johnson or Lorin Woolley saying whatever. Right now--It is considered an abomination. If any LDS people practice this lifestyle here on earth at this time, they will be condemned for it in the next, because they were to follow the prophets in their day, not dead prophets--and when they stand to be judged for their choices, they will suffer the consequences for their disobedience.

Hi alter idem,

In my faith, there is coming a "year of cleansing" of the Lord's church to cleanse it of Gentile pollutions. After the church and temples are cleansed, the Lord will again require plural marriage at times of the church members-- in particular in cases where D&C 132:44 applies.

If the above happens, do you intend to leave the church? I would hope not. The main reason plural marriage is so abominable to some is because it is "politically incorrect". But times change, and eventually it may not be so politically incorrect.

I happened to notice that some White Nationalists are advocating plural marriage "like the Mormons" as a means to increase the White race.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=624288

As large non-Christian populations soar, is it not believable that the Lord will also restore plural marriage to raise up more of his people?

Richard

Share this post


Link to post

Plural marriage is an official doctrinal principle of the gospel that hasn't changed. Only the policy governing it's practice has changed and that in accordance with scripture (Jacob 2:30). Plural marriage in and of itself is not a requirement for exaltation. The best indications are that it will be practiced in the CK. For example, there is nothing to say that previous plural marriages will be dissolved in the hereafter.

Share this post


Link to post

I happened to notice that some White Nationalists are advocating plural marriage "like the Mormons" as a means to increase the White race.

...As large non-Christian populations soar, is it not believable that the Lord will also restore plural marriage to raise up more of his people?

I'm guessing you didn't mean this the way it comes across at first blush, but to make sure there is no misunderstanding, can we be very clear that "the White race" was not meant as a direct equivalent of "his people"?

Instead, as in "every kindred, and nation, and tongue, and people..."

Share this post


Link to post

5 Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 329

...The law of animal sacrifice, in force in ancient Israel, has been suspended, but the Prophet Joseph asserted it would be again restored...

Huh. I've always interpreted Joseph's statement about the shedding of blood, and of the sons of Levi as something quite distinct from animal sacrifice - and more along the lines of the self sacrifice of Stephen, Peter, and others, including the martyrdom at Carthage.

Perhaps I've overlooked something. Is there a statement by Joseph that *specifically* mentions animal sacrifice?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm guessing you didn't mean this the way it comes across at first blush, but to make sure there is no misunderstanding, can we be very clear that "the White race" was not meant as a direct equivalent of "his people"?

Instead, as in "every kindred, and nation, and tongue, and people..."

The seed of Israel will be gathered out from among every kindred, and nation, and tongue, and people. This by no means should be taken as the pure seed of Israel is every kindred, and nation, and tongue, and people.

The pure seed of Israel was initially who the Gospel was intended for and given to. This did not change until Peter was shown in vision animals formerly held as unclean were declared clean by the Lord. From that time forward the Gospel was taken to every kindred, and nation, and tongue and people. Paul spoke on this subject in Romans chapter 11.

Paul mentioned that the Gentiles, among whom were the lost sheep of Israel, obtained grace because of the fall of Israel, not because of their own righteousness or works to earn it. He gloried in the way that God used His chosen people to be the means that salvation could be brought to all. But, he also spoke very clearly of a point in time which there would be a fulness of the Gentiles and that if they eventually didn't bear the fruit of the kingdom that God would spare them not, but rather would cut them off and graff back in those who originally had be cut off, the natural branches. Thus, he told the Gentiles to be not high-minded but fear that their period of grace might expire.

There was discrimination based on race prior to Peter's vision and there seems to be every indication that a time would come when there would again be a certain amount of race discrimination if and when the Gentiles failed to bear the fruit of the kingdom and are cut off to make way for the natural branches.

As I understand it the natural branches are more pure remnants of the people of the House of Israel. God both scattered and mixed the children of Israel among all kindreds, nations, tongues and peoples of the world. Those scattered but not mixed will yet bear all of the characteristics of the natural seed of Israel. It is quite indisputable that these characteristics are most prominant in the Caucasian peoples. That is where the exiles out of Israel went. Also, there are many of Zarah (son of Judah) who scattered even prior to that in Greece, Iberia, and so on, that were fair skinned, etc.

So, while you have tried to acquire for yourself an emotionally based position for the upper hand, you have injected emotions into a context that they do not belong in. This is an issue of what the scattered natural branches are and the fact that these are the "Cinderella" figure that in the end of time the Savior will come among and establish them into a mighty kingdom that will fulfill their role and destiny, of which the USA was a mild precursor to only.

The difference in the discrimination before compared to the discrimination that will happen when this new phase kicks in, as Paul foretold, is that the blood of Israel will also have been heavily mixed among the people. So, even though a good many peoples recessive traits of Israel are overshadowed by the dominant traits of the Gentile blood, they will be allowed to become a part of all that Zion offers instead of being rejected without consideration.

But, those who do not have the signs of the pure scattered-only blood of Israel must seek out their blessings and righteously press their way in. The gathering spoken of in Genesis 49:10 that Shiloh will perform will be specifically directed to the natural branches to bring them back in. There will be racial discrimination in his efforts because it is only the House of Israel he is called to gather.

So, you can call me a racist, you can call me a bigoted fool, you can try as you might to make me feel guilty, but, you have no basis. Not in God's Word and not in history, to prove me anything but vindicated.

The worst thing the natural branches of Israel can do is to continue to stand idly by and watch while the Gentiles and Edom (the fake Jews) continue to abuse and usurp the role and responsibility God has destined His People to exercize for the benefit of the world, which is to rule and reign in such a way that people can live as sovereigns under God's Law and be fully protected in their unalienable individual rights. God's Word tells them exactly how they must come together and prevail and it is to gather to and build up Zion, the real one. Not the counterfeit Esau has going in the State of Israel.

The natural branches who lost their true identity, the Caucasian peoples, are the only people who have shown that they are capable to resist the temptation to employ tyranny over men in that they were the founding fathers of the Constitution of the United States that had such grand provisions. This is why when Jesus Christ returns to the earth as the King-Messiah his standard and ensign raised to the nations will be to proclaim LIBERTY to the captives! He comes as the great Deliverer of Sion and saves the natural branches of Israel and all others who value them and the work that they perform and assist them in building it up. There is no other people on this entire planet the world can look to that will provide liberty as I have stated. None.

So, get off your high-horse about race discrimination! If you are a natural branch of Israel then give up the idea you are nobody special and quit leaving your job to others who are wholly unqualified. Is looking like a "nice guy" really worth watching this world go to hell because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings?

It's time Israel understood the kindest thing we can do for the world is to stand up and do our job!

JBug

Share this post


Link to post
Revelation to Pres. John Taylor, Sept 27, 1886: "I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen."

The revelation was concerning, not plural marriage, but the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage. Here it is:

My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant, how far it is binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord, All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority. And how can I revoke an everlasting covenant? For I, the Lord, am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments? And yet have I borne with them these many years, and this because of their weaknesses, because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change, and my word and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph, All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law, and have I not commanded men that if they were Abrahamâ??s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham? I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so, Amen.

The Lord gives His laws and He revokes them not. Whether a man has one wife, or ten, it still comes under the new and everlasting covenant. When He commands that men take more than one wife and they do, then it is justified. When He commands otherwise, they are obligated to stop.

Jacob said the law of the Lord was to have but one wife, unless He commanded otherwise. But if you read D&C 132, you see what the Everlasting Covenant is:

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Now note the language:

Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

Thus the covenant refers to the sealing power, not the number of wives.

If the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage was plural marriage, then we would have little need of temples today.

It was the exception rather than the norm? Could this have been due to the wickedness of the people?

We don't know. Joseph Smith was preaching and publishing one man to one wife in Nauvoo. He was only permitted to expand the "principle" only to a few. Those to whom he revealed it to were called to live it. But for the rank and file of the church, they were not. Had Joseph revealed it to the entire church, I would have said YES.

People are strange. When it was first revealed, no one wanted to live it. When the Lord stopped it, no one wanted to stop. We lost good people when it was started and when it was stopped. The lesson that Joseph learned and which he tried to drill into our heads is this: "When the Lord commands, do it!"

Share this post


Link to post

The correct principle behind the plural marriage of Ruth and Boaz still exists. Those who will not live by correct principles will not reap the blessings.

Richard

Please cite the scripture that states that Boaz had a living wife at the time he married Ruth.

Share this post


Link to post

The seed of Israel will be gathered out from among every kindred, and nation, and tongue, and people. This by no means should be taken as the pure seed of Israel is every kindred, and nation, and tongue, and people.

The pure seed of Israel was initially who the Gospel was intended for and given to. This did not change until Peter was shown in vision animals formerly held as unclean were declared clean by the Lord. From that time forward the Gospel was taken to every kindred, and nation, and tongue and people. Paul spoke on this subject in Romans chapter 11.

Paul mentioned that the Gentiles, among whom were the lost sheep of Israel, obtained grace because of the fall of Israel, not because of their own righteousness or works to earn it. He gloried in the way that God used His chosen people to be the means that salvation could be brought to all. But, he also spoke very clearly of a point in time which there would be a fulness of the Gentiles and that if they eventually didn't bear the fruit of the kingdom that God would spare them not, but rather would cut them off and graff back in those who originally had be cut off, the natural branches. Thus, he told the Gentiles to be not high-minded but fear that their period of grace might expire.

There was discrimination based on race prior to Peter's vision and there seems to be every indication that a time would come when there would again be a certain amount of race discrimination if and when the Gentiles failed to bear the fruit of the kingdom and are cut off to make way for the natural branches.

As I understand it the natural branches are more pure remnants of the people of the House of Israel. God both scattered and mixed the children of Israel among all kindreds, nations, tongues and peoples of the world. Those scattered but not mixed will yet bear all of the characteristics of the natural seed of Israel. It is quite indisputable that these characteristics are most prominant in the Caucasian peoples. That is where the exiles out of Israel went. Also, there are many of Zarah (son of Judah) who scattered even prior to that in Greece, Iberia, and so on, that were fair skinned, etc.

So, while you have tried to acquire for yourself an emotionally based position for the upper hand, you have injected emotions into a context that they do not belong in. This is an issue of what the scattered natural branches are and the fact that these are the "Cinderella" figure that in the end of time the Savior will come among and establish them into a mighty kingdom that will fulfill their role and destiny, of which the USA was a mild precursor to only.

The difference in the discrimination before compared to the discrimination that will happen when this new phase kicks in, as Paul foretold, is that the blood of Israel will also have been heavily mixed among the people. So, even though a good many peoples recessive traits of Israel are overshadowed by the dominant traits of the Gentile blood, they will be allowed to become a part of all that Zion offers instead of being rejected without consideration.

But, those who do not have the signs of the pure scattered-only blood of Israel must seek out their blessings and righteously press their way in. The gathering spoken of in Genesis 49:10 that Shiloh will perform will be specifically directed to the natural branches to bring them back in. There will be racial discrimination in his efforts because it is only the House of Israel he is called to gather.

So, you can call me a racist, you can call me a bigoted fool, you can try as you might to make me feel guilty, but, you have no basis. Not in God's Word and not in history, to prove me anything but vindicated.

The worst thing the natural branches of Israel can do is to continue to stand idly by and watch while the Gentiles and Edom (the fake Jews) continue to abuse and usurp the role and responsibility God has destined His People to exercize for the benefit of the world, which is to rule and reign in such a way that people can live as sovereigns under God's Law and be fully protected in their unalienable individual rights. God's Word tells them exactly how they must come together and prevail and it is to gather to and build up Zion, the real one. Not the counterfeit Esau has going in the State of Israel.

The natural branches who lost their true identity, the Caucasian peoples, are the only people who have shown that they are capable to resist the temptation to employ tyranny over men in that they were the founding fathers of the Constitution of the United States that had such grand provisions. This is why when Jesus Christ returns to the earth as the King-Messiah his standard and ensign raised to the nations will be to proclaim LIBERTY to the captives! He comes as the great Deliverer of Sion and saves the natural branches of Israel and all others who value them and the work that they perform and assist them in building it up. There is no other people on this entire planet the world can look to that will provide liberty as I have stated. None.

So, get off your high-horse about race discrimination! If you are a natural branch of Israel then give up the idea you are nobody special and quit leaving your job to others who are wholly unqualified. Is looking like a "nice guy" really worth watching this world go to hell because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings?

It's time Israel understood the kindest thing we can do for the world is to stand up and do our job!

JBug

Please take your white supremacy smut to another board. I'm sure the skinheads would love to hear your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

Huh. I've always interpreted Joseph's statement about the shedding of blood, and of the sons of Levi as something quite distinct from animal sacrifice - and more along the lines of the self sacrifice of Stephen, Peter, and others, including the martyrdom at Carthage.

Perhaps I've overlooked something. Is there a statement by Joseph that *specifically* mentions animal sacrifice?

The third Jewish Temple will be rebuilt and then dedicated by the sacrifice of a full red heifer. The Jews will practice animal sacrifice once the Temple is rebuilt. This will happen before Christ comes back.

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously?

Yeah, I am serious. It is the only way for me to get my arms around how it was practiced.

Share this post


Link to post

So, get off your high-horse about race discrimination!

Didn't know I even had a horse. Would have settled for a surly squire with a coconut cut in half.

...quit leaving your job to others who are wholly unqualified.

Uh, I have been applying for jobs for most of the last decade. Am beginning to think my efforts in that area are being diverted to power third world nations. :0)

Precisely what job are you talking about?

Is looking like a "nice guy" really worth watching this world go to hell because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings?

Let's be clear. My first two children are Asian. I love their culture. I also think people of other races are simply stunning. Amazing people.

So while I have a deep respect for the culture I was born into, my view of humanity seems to differ somewhat from yours.

Also, although I generally care for people, I don't care a great deal whether people think I'm a nice guy.

(Wanting to BE a nice guy is a different matter entirely.)

Most people I've known apparently think I'm a schmuck. For the most part, I'm OK w/that.

So if you think I'm pandering, think again. What you see is what you get.

It's time Israel understood the kindest thing we can do for the world is to stand up and do our job!

Listening...

Share this post


Link to post

Please take your white supremacy smut to another board. I'm sure the skinheads would love to hear your thoughts.

I have no affiliations with skin-heads. The only way they will like what I said is if they also agree that all mankind should have the opportunity to live free of tyranny of any kind and to enjoy their unalienable individual rights that God gives us per His Law.

Did you actually give my post full consideration?

Did you read Romans 11 where Paul makes clear reference to the "natural branches" being graffed back in?

Before you make such an insulting rend against me, I believe you owe it to yourself to ruminate carefully upon what I have presented.

There is not one spec of smut in ANYTHING I said. All truth based on God's Word and undisputed history.

Have you even looked into where the 10 lost tribes migrated to?

JBug

Share this post


Link to post

Have you even looked into where the 10 lost tribes migrated to?

I have. Extensively.

But as part of a family that is intimately acquainted with the adoption process, I also have a keen appreciation for the nature and power of adoption into Israel.

The one does not trump the other.

Like Zion, being of Israel is as much or more about a state of heart/mind than it is about any bloodline.

Feel free to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't know I even had a horse. Would have settled for a surly squire with a coconut cut in half.

I like your sense of humor.

Uh, I have been applying for jobs for most of the last decade. Am beginning to think my efforts in that area are being diverted to power third world nations. :0)

Precisely what job are you talking about?

I stated it very clearly.

Let's be clear. My first two children are Asian. I love their culture. I also think people of other races are simply stunning. Amazing people.

So while I have a deep respect for the culture I was born into, my view of humanity seems to differ somewhat from yours.

Why presume I think less of other cultures?

God has given His People Israel a job to do for the world. A job that He will support us in doing if we have the faith to do it. It is to give them liberty and enable them to enjoy all of their unalienable rights free of molestation and tyranny. This also means free of socialism, communism, globalism, etc. where man is using force and control and compulsion and preventing people from living God's Law.

I say what I say because I love all of humanity and value them.

Also, although I generally care for people, I don't care a great deal whether people think I'm a nice guy.

(Wanting to BE a nice guy is a different matter entirely.)

Most people I've known apparently think I'm a schmuck. For the most part, I'm OK w/that.

So if you think I'm pandering, think again. What you see is what you get.

Very good to know.

Listening...

Ok, carefully read what I wrote. Read all the scriptures. Study the history. Then, report back here your findings.

JBug

Share this post


Link to post

I have. Extensively.

But as part of a family that is intimately acquainted with the adoption process, I also have a keen appreciation for the nature and power of adoption into Israel.

The one does not trump the other.

Like Zion, being of Israel is as much or more about a state of heart/mind than it is about any bloodline.

Feel free to disagree.

Based on what I have already said, you should know I entirely agree.

Israel has been both scattered and mixed in. It will be important for you to come to understand and appreciate the finer points of how God is going to be conducting the work of gathering in the natural branches and His policy for the Gentile branches that will be cut off. It could make or break a person's acceptance of the Great and Marvelous Work that the King-Messiah will be doing.

Gentiles must seek once their time of grace has expired. They will definitely be adopted if they are worthy.

Israel will be sought out with priority. If they are not worthy, they will be cut off just as any other.

That's what I see very clearly in scripture for this phase of things.

JBug

Share this post


Link to post

I have no affiliations with skin-heads. The only way they will like what I said is if they also agree that all mankind should have the opportunity to live free of tyranny of any kind and to enjoy their unalienable individual rights that God gives us per His Law.

Did you actually give my post full consideration?

Did you read Romans 11 where Paul makes clear reference to the "natural branches" being graffed back in?

Before you make such an insulting rend against me, I believe you owe it to yourself to ruminate carefully upon what I have presented.

There is not one spec of smut in ANYTHING I said. All truth based on God's Word and undisputed history.

Have you even looked into where the 10 lost tribes migrated to?

JBug

The 10 tribes were relocated to various places North of Israel within the boundaries of the Assyrian Kingdom. The farthest north they would have been sent was Armenia. They were scattered and absorbed into local populations and ceased to be a homogeneous people. This garbage about the "true" Israelites being the original "caucasian" people IS white supremacist propaganda smut. It is not supported by scripture, by archaeology or by genetics. Do you have a single scripture that says that God's chosen people are white skinned caucasians?

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, carefully read what I wrote. Read all the scriptures. Study the history. Then, report back here your findings.

This seems to be a diversion of the OP.

I suggest starting another thread.

Share this post


Link to post

The 10 tribes were relocated to various places North of Israel within the boundaries of the Assyrian Kingdom. The farthest north they would have been sent was Armenia. They were scattered and absorbed into local populations and ceased to be a homogeneous people. This garbage about the "true" Israelites being the original "caucasian" people IS white supremacist propaganda smut. It is not supported by scripture, by archaeology or by genetics. Do you have a single scripture that says that God's chosen people are white skinned caucasians?

Sure. D&C section 113 clearly is speaking of Joseph Smith Jun as the "rod". He was a mixture of the seed of Jesse and of the House of Ephraim. It mentioned no other genetic contributions other than these two. Thus, Joseph Smith Jun. is exemplary of who the natural seed of Israel is.

It is true the 10 tribes did mix in but there were also significant numbers of them wo did not mix in. The scriptures establish a very clear basis for this being fact. There are either the natural branches still in existence or there isn't. God's Word says there is. God's Word also gives clear indication that after the times of the fullness of the Gentiles and they reject the fulness of the Gospel that it would be taken from them and given to the natural branches, which implies Israel's remnant in their purity would be preserved.

All that I am saying is scriptural. So, if you want to continue to insist this is smut, take it to the Lord. He's the one who said it.

JBug

Share this post


Link to post

Sure. D&C section 113 clearly is speaking of Joseph Smith Jun as the "rod". He was a mixture of the seed of Jesse and of the House of Ephraim. It mentioned no other genetic contributions other than these two. Thus, Joseph Smith Jun. is exemplary of who the natural seed of Israel is.

It is true the 10 tribes did mix in but there were also significant numbers of them wo did not mix in. The scriptures establish a very clear basis for this being fact. There are either the natural branches still in existence or there isn't. God's Word says there is. God's Word also gives clear indication that after the times of the fullness of the Gentiles and they reject the fulness of the Gospel that it would be taken from them and given to the natural branches, which implies Israel's remnant in their purity would be preserved.

All that I am saying is scriptural. So, if you want to continue to insist this is smut, take it to the Lord. He's the one who said it.

JBug

You are twisting the scriptures. Are you suggesting that two lines from the middle east of, say, 600,000+ unique ancestors contributed significant enough dna to make Joseph Smith's Irish and English ancestors into pure Israelites? The scripture does not say that and it is laughable to think so. Considering the fact that the people from the British Isles are shown to be descended from people who have been present in Europe since the stone age, that is very unlikely. Of course it is probable that some people related to Israelites eventually made their way all around the world and spread their genes but the European people were around LONG before the Northern Kingdom was deported. We are really getting off topic with this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

You are twisting the scriptures.

No. I'm taking them at exactly what they are saying.

Are you suggesting that two lines from the middle east of, say, 600,000+ unique ancestors contributed significant enough dna to make Joseph Smith's Irish and English ancestors into pure Israelites?

Your premise is totally nonsensical. You are presuming the only way Israelite people could come into those lands was to breed their way in with what was already there. And, you purport this as a sufficient basis to disprove my whole point. If you had logical integrity you would admit it is possible for a group to migrate into a region and maintain its genetic purity. Israel had lived for centuries with the mindset that they should not interbreed with outsiders. You think that all changed when they were ousted from their land? I think not.

The scripture does not say that and it is laughable to think so. Considering the fact that the people from the British Isles are shown to be descended from people who have been present in Europe since the stone age, that is very unlikely.

Of course it is probable that some people related to Israelites eventually made their way all around the world and spread their genes but the European people were around LONG before the Northern Kingdom was deported. We are really getting off topic with this thread.

They were both scattered and mixed.

You are in denial about the implications of that.

I started a thread on this topic. Feel free to continue this discussion there.

JBug

Share this post


Link to post

The third Jewish Temple will be rebuilt and then dedicated by the sacrifice of a full red heifer. The Jews will practice animal sacrifice once the Temple is rebuilt. This will happen before Christ comes back.

Perhaps I should be more clear.

I'm less interested in modern interpretations of what is to happen than I am in what Joseph actually had to say on the matter.

Can you provide a quote from Joseph, with citation, which supports the idea of latter-day animal sacrifice?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...