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

Are you stating this as fact, or as opinion?

I have a similar question. So this response is really more for Her Amun.

So Her Amun, to help dig down to clarity/bedrock, I'll parse your statement(s) down to the following sound byte, to avoid conflating all the various assertions into a confusing, tangled mass:

The most important thing TBM's MUST AGREE on is that Thomas S. Monson is the "one" who has the keys

Here's a scenario:

If someone were to say they couldn't, in good conscience, agree to the above statement, would that mean they weren't true? Weren't Mormon? Weren't a true Mormon?**

Or none of the above?

And if so to *any* of those questions, on precisely what basis? Please be very specific.

And for the record, while I genuinely respect your right to an opinion, and am interested in what that opinion might be based on, methinks Joseph is the best arbiter of who and what a "true Mormon" is.

** I don't see how the "blue" part of being TBM is relevant/important - so if you don't mind too much, I'll discard that portion of the TBM title without much ado - and hopefully without causing offense to Cougars whose blood runs pure blue. - That said, I'm bracing for a possible reaction to that from a small handful of board members anyway...human nature being what it is... :0)

Share this post


Link to post

The command of the Lord to institute plural marriage was the command. The law of the Lord is that when the Lord gives a man wives, they may have them lawfully in His sight. Jacob quotes the Lord as saying that it was His will that the Nephites not engage in plural marriage. If the Lord wishes to implement it to raise up seed, as He did with Abraham and others, He will command His people; otherwise, they will have but one wife. "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none," the Lord said.

Why did the Lord forbid multiple wives? My guess is that the Nephites found themselves in a land with other people, and that the Lord did not want them to intermarry for the purpose of raising up seed. Whatever the reason, it was clear that the Lord was establishing a law that the Nephites lived by until their destruction.

Can you point to a particular time in this dispensation when the Lord stopped giving plural wives to men, or decided to "command otherwise", though?

I would assume that the wickedness of the Nephites was why they weren't allowed to live plural marriage. The Lord actually alluded to plural intermarriage in an 1831 revelation to Joseph Smith, so I don't think that would've been a reason.

The revelation regards the sealing power. If the Lord gives more than one wife to a man, then the sealing power extends to those wives. If a man marry only one wife, the same sealing power applies. Either way, the Lord leaves the matter in His hands. When He revoked plural marriage, He did not revoke the sealing power. Even today, if a man marries one wife and she passes on, he may take another wife and be sealed to her as well. The revelation itself is not solely about plural marriage, but about the sealing power that binds men, women and families.

D&C 132 isn't just about the sealing power, but also about how it is applied, which happens to include celestial plural marriage. "When He revoked plural marriage..."? Do you think the Lord would tell John Taylor that he would not revoke that law, and then turn around and revoke it?

As previously mentioned, part of the order and organization of the premortal house of God was the establishment of laws-the eternal laws and the principles of the plan of redemption. We know these laws were in force in premortal realms because the Lord taught the Prophet Joseph Smith concerning "all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations" that are part of the "new and everlasting covenant" of the restored gospel: "For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.... Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name? Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed? And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?" (D&C 132: 4, 5, 7, 9-11, italics added; see also D&C 130:20-21.) Later in the same revelation, Joseph was told that the Lord would give to the Saints "the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was" (D&C 132:28). Earlier the Lord had commanded Joseph to build a temple "that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was....

For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world." (D&C 124:38, D&C 124:41.) The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught that the laws, principles, and ordinances of the gospel were ordained and established before the earth came into existence.

--Brent L. Top, The Life Before, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988, pgs. 86-87.

Elder George Teasdale, of the Quorum of the Twelve, bore this testimony in 1884:

I bear my solemn testimony that plural marriage is as true as any principle that has been revealed from the heavens. I bear my testimony that it is a necessity, and that the Church of Christ in its fulness never existed without it. Where you have the eternity of marriage you are bound to have plural marriage; bound to; and it is one of the marks of the Church of Jesus Christ in its sealing ordinances.

--George Teasdale, JD 25:21.

Not at all. As for the second anointing, I don't know why it was "hardly given" during the 30s-40s, nor do I know that such records are made public. I'm not doubting you, I just don't know whether such records are available. One of the general authorities told the son of a friend of mine who died several years ago, "It's too bad we didn't arrange for his second endowment." I don't know how often it happens today, but from his comment, it apparently does.

There's a chart with temple ordinance totals in the book Mysteries of Godliness by David John Buerger on pg. 156. It shows that for the period ending in 1930 there were 2,048 second anointings, and for the next decade long period ending in 1940 there were only 8. Interestingly, I think that part of the reason for this was due to the end of plural marriage. They had been accustomed to usually giving second anointings to people who believed in and lived plural marriage. Then these sort of people started becoming scarce in the decades after 1890. There also must have been concern about giving that level of authority to anyone who might be sympathetic to the fundamentalist cause, as had happened with Joseph Musser. In the midst of this, some (idiotic) guy in Idaho who had had his second anointing got up in a meeting and mentioned it, and that all the other people there should have theirs too. That explains the big drop.

As was the higher priesthood also generally withheld at first. The Lord apparently wanted to give the priesthood freely to the people during Moses' time, but the people rejected the Lord and Moses. I think things now are on the right track. As for the majority of people wanting to live it when it was revealed, I don't know of one. Neither Brigham Young nor Joseph Smith wanted to.

You think things are on the right track now? On pg. 339 of Solemn Covenant by B. Carmon Hardy we read: "Another survey taken in the 1960's found that not only do contemporary Church members overwhelmingly disapprove of polygamy but only two in five said they would enter the principle if commanded by the prophets. Nearly half said they would not practice it under any circumstances." Seems to me that there's plenty of room for improvement there.

You're right. Those who had already entered into it wanted to continue in it, and there were many who were convinced that Wilford Woodruff was a fallen prophet. Seems every time the Lord changes direction, people fall off the wagon. Even so, the vote was in sustaining the prophet of the Lord, not in whether plural marriage continued or not.

There were "many who were convinced that Wilford Woodruff was a fallen prophet"? What leads you to believe that? Any particular journal or other historical record that you'd point me to?

Share this post


Link to post

Priesthood Keys shifted from out of 'the Church' into 'the Kingdom' where it is still practiced.

The LDS Church has nothing to do with polygamy today. But certain men outside of the Church-- beyond the authority of the First Pres. of the LDS Church--- in the Kingdom of Mormonism-- a larger division of Mormonism overall-- still hold the keys and practice it today.

Share this post


Link to post

Priesthood Keys shifted from out of 'the Church' into 'the Kingdom' where it is still practiced.

The LDS Church has nothing to do with polygamy today. But certain men outside of the Church-- beyond the authority of the First Pres. of the LDS Church--- in the Kingdom of Mormonism-- a larger division of Mormonism overall-- still hold the keys and practice it today.

Do you believe that priesthood keys shifted out of the Church? When do you believe this shift occurred?

Share this post


Link to post
Can you point to a particular time in this dispensation when the Lord stopped giving plural wives to men, or decided to "command otherwise", though?

Well, it began winding down sharply with the Manifesto in 1890. Wilford Woodruff held the sealing keys of authority, and when the Lord says to stop, it would come through him.

I would assume that the wickedness of the Nephites was why they weren't allowed to live plural marriage. The Lord actually alluded to plural intermarriage in an 1831 revelation to Joseph Smith, so I don't think that would've been a reason.

I don't know, but I believe it wasn't the wickedness of the Nephites, but perhaps the wickedness of the civilizations in Mesoamerica. Of course there would be nothing restricting Laman and Lemuel, since they no longer were believers. As soon as Nephi and the others had left them, they were left to their own devices. The Lord specifically told Jacob that the Nephite were not to engage in plural marriage.

D&C 132 isn't just about the sealing power, but also about how it is applied, which happens to include celestial plural marriage. "When He revoked plural marriage..."? Do you think the Lord would tell John Taylor that he would not revoke that law, and then turn around and revoke it?

No, but I think the Lord was referring to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, which can NEVER be revoked. Plural marriage is simply an appendage to that law. If the Lord was going to give a man wives, to whom could He reveal it except him who had the keys of the kingdom? Had Wilford Woodruff been a fallen prophet, or if he'd been in violation, in whom would the Lord go to rectify the situation? To someone who was not known to the church to have authority?

The church's path has been laid out in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine & Covenants, and there is nothing in them that indicate that the marriage issue would be a problem. Elder Teasdale may have said that "plural marriage is as true as any principle that has been revealed from the heavens," and he would be correct. He also would be correct in saying "it is a necessity." But he's wrong in saying that the Church of Christ in its fulness "never existed without it" as it was practiced before the Manifesto. He said, "Where you have the eternity of marriage you are bound to have plural marriage," and this is true, too, for if one man's wife dies and he marries another, this is plural marriage, is it not?

There's a chart with temple ordinance totals in the book Mysteries of Godliness by David John Buerger on pg. 156. It shows that for the period ending in 1930 there were 2,048 second anointings, and for the next decade long period ending in 1940 there were only 8.

This may be, but where does he get his numbers?

You think things are on the right track now? On pg. 339 of Solemn Covenant by B. Carmon Hardy we read: "Another survey taken in the 1960's found that not only do contemporary Church members overwhelmingly disapprove of polygamy but only two in five said they would enter the principle if commanded by the prophets. Nearly half said they would not practice it under any circumstances."

We're on the right track if the president of the church says we are. It's one thing to ask church members in surveys; it's quite another if it comes from the Lord's mouthpiece. Speaking for myself, I would not like to live it. On the other hand, if commanded to, I would.

There were "many who were convinced that Wilford Woodruff was a fallen prophet"? What leads you to believe that? Any particular journal or other historical record that you'd point me to?

No, I was merely stating a fact. Wilford Woodruff is one of my all time favorite presidents of the church. He was an incredibly gifted man and clearly inspired by the Lord and blessed with many wonderful revelations. We also owe much of what we know of the early church through his journal entries.

What I'm opposed to are these dime-a-dozen "prophets" like the LeBarons, Warren Jeffs and other impostors â?? these guys who operate without any supporting quorums, except those who hang on as "yes" men. If you watch how these guys operate, you can see why the Lord would react as He did to Jacob. Their women are lorded over, abused, treated as cattle and are kept from the outside world. The young men are left with no one to marry because the old patriarchs have snapped up the young, eligible women. As a result, these kids are neglected, ignored and often all but told to beat it and to not let the door bang their butts on the way out.

Share this post


Link to post

The FLDS tell of how Pres. Taylor passed the keys to the Woolleys-

This is an FLDS claim-- but an interesting claim at that-

http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/NEWFILES/PMs1904to1934.htm

I didn't notice anything in there about them receiving keys, but rather that they received authority to perpetuate the principle of plural marriage. Maybe I'm missing something.

Share this post


Link to post

..If the Lord was going to give a man wives, to whom could He reveal it except him who had the keys of the kingdom?

If one reads the section with care, one might see that some of the keys to such things are distributed more widely than one might initially think.

While other necessary keys appear to be even more restrictive than popular belief suggests.

But that's just my take on things.

Assumptions are persistent things. (When pressurized, very few of them can still hold water).

Share this post


Link to post

As I understand it, while it is true that few were required to follow the law of polygamy on Earth, the law is a higher law which all of us will be required to follow in the CK.

Polygamy still exists in a certain form in Mormonism. Men can have 2 or more women sealed to them and they are bound in Heaven.

I would say I agree in part what you are saying here.

Almost wrote the same except for the required for everyone part.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it began winding down sharply with the Manifesto in 1890. Wilford Woodruff held the sealing keys of authority, and when the Lord says to stop, it would come through him.

From Solemn Covenant by B. Carmon Hardy, pg. 317:

solemncovenantchart2.jpg

No, but I think the Lord was referring to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, which can NEVER be revoked. Plural marriage is simply an appendage to that law.

AN EPISTLE FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY 10/6/1885

Upward of forty years ago the Lord revealed to his church the principle of celestial

marriage. The idea of marrying more wives than one was as naturally abhorrent

to the leading men and women of the church, at that day, as it could be to any

people. They shrank with dread from the bare thought of entering into such

relationship. But the command of God was before them in language which no

faithful soul dare disobey,

â??For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not

that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be

permitted to enter into my glory.â?

MFP 3:32-33.

Had Wilford Woodruff been a fallen prophet, or if he'd been in violation, in whom would the Lord go to rectify the situation? To someone who was not known to the church to have authority?

Were the people who solemnized plural marriages in the early 1840's (when the Church as an institution wasn't practicing plural marriage), known to the Church as having authority to do so? What would necessitate Joseph Smith appearing to John Taylor in 1885 and 1886 (which is also attested to in non-fundamentalist sources, btw)? What were they planning? Could it have been a solution to the problems they were facing at that time? What was the main problem then? (Remember that Church leaders were then on the underground, in hiding from federal marshals?)

The church's path has been laid out in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine & Covenants, and there is nothing in them that indicate that the marriage issue would be a problem. Elder Teasdale may have said that "plural marriage is as true as any principle that has been revealed from the heavens," and he would be correct. He also would be correct in saying "it is a necessity." But he's wrong in saying that the Church of Christ in its fulness "never existed without it" as it was practiced before the Manifesto. He said, "Where you have the eternity of marriage you are bound to have plural marriage," and this is true, too, for if one man's wife dies and he marries another, this is plural marriage, is it not?

I disagree. Wilford Woodruff said:

The law of the Patriarchal order of marriage belongs to this dispensation, and after

it was revealed to the Prophet Joseph he was commanded to receive it. If he and

the people had rejected it, the Church and Kingdom of God would have advanced

no further and God would have taken it from them and given it to another people.

Wilford Woodruff Journal, July 22, 1883.

This may be, but where does he get his numbers?

From the Salt Lake Temple Ordinance Book, and also from a report of George F. Richards to the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles of August 18, 1949.

We're on the right track if the president of the church says we are. It's one thing to ask church members in surveys; it's quite another if it comes from the Lord's mouthpiece. Speaking for myself, I would not like to live it. On the other hand, if commanded to, I would.

You were the one that said: "I think things now are on the right track." When did the president of the Church say that?

No, I was merely stating a fact. Wilford Woodruff is one of my all time favorite presidents of the church. He was an incredibly gifted man and clearly inspired by the Lord and blessed with many wonderful revelations. We also owe much of what we know of the early church through his journal entries.

Stating a fact? Were you around in 1890? When you made the statement that "there were many who were convinced that Wilford Woodruff was a fallen prophet", I assumed that you could point to a place where you got that information from, in support of the statement.

What I'm opposed to are these dime-a-dozen "prophets" like the LeBarons, Warren Jeffs and other impostors â?? these guys who operate without any supporting quorums, except those who hang on as "yes" men. If you watch how these guys operate, you can see why the Lord would react as He did to Jacob. Their women are lorded over, abused, treated as cattle and are kept from the outside world. The young men are left with no one to marry because the old patriarchs have snapped up the young, eligible women. As a result, these kids are neglected, ignored and often all but told to beat it and to not let the door bang their butts on the way out.

I agree.

Just because some people are unable to live the principle righteously though doesn't mean that it can't be done.

Share this post


Link to post

What would necessitate Joseph Smith appearing to John Taylor in 1885 and 1886 (which is also attested to in non-fundamentalist sources, btw)?

? This is news to me.

Do you have more info?

Share this post


Link to post

? This is news to me.

Do you have more info?

John Taylor and company, including Geo. Q. Cannon, clerk L. John Nuttall and others, stopped at the residence of Wm. H. Hill in Mill Creek for about three weeks, going there from the residence of Bro. White or Carlisle, and before he went to Centerville, John W. Woolley's house. While at the Hill house he dedicated the place as one of safety for Bro. and Sister Hill and family, and their posterity; and while there he was visited at least once by Joseph Smith the Prophet.

--Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph White Musser, pg. 24.

Went to the High Priests meeting held in the Font house. Philo Dibble spoke of this being the resurrection day. And that Joseph Smith had been to Pres. John Taylor and conversed with him in his body about this crusade against us, and that he felt grieved at the course his son Joseph was taking.

--John Moon Clements Journal, July 31, 1886.

The last time I met Pres. Taylor he said to me: "I may never see you again and I want to tell you that I have seen the Prophet Joseph who said the Lord did not want his people to be concerned about the raid or inquire when it would cease. 'It will stop in mine own due time,' said the Lord. Joseph, however, said it made him sad to see his own son (Joseph Smith...[iII] , who was then traveling through the territory preaching against this Church) trying to tear down what he had given his life to establish."

--Abraham H. Cannon Journal, July 7, 1891.

Joseph Smith III was in Utah preaching against the Church from June 17 to December 21, 1885 so that would mean that the appearance of Joseph Smith to John Taylor took place some time during that space of time.

As early as 1897 Lorin Woolley was telling of the appearances to John Taylor that took place in his father's house, for we read this in the journal of Spencer W. Kimball's father (who was Lorin Woolley's mission president):

Elder Woolley testified that he knew that the prophets Joseph, Brigham, and Heber lived for he had seen them as they appeared to Pres. John Taylor in Bro. John Woolley's house.

--Andrew Kimball Journal, January 25, 1897.

Lorin's missionary companion recorded this a couple of months later as well:

We all attended Sunday School at 10 A.M. and studied during the day. I fasted until 5 P.M. and in the evening we attended Church. Elder L. C. Woolley spoke of the power and authority of the Priesthood bearing a great testimony to the people of the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, saying that he had seen him personally since his, the Prophet's death.

--Byron H. Allred Journal, March 28, 1897.

So why did these important appearances of deceased Church leaders take place, in 1885 and late 1886, prior to the public cessation of plural marriages in March of 1887?

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...