25 replies to this topic

[CV75]

kamenraider, on 22 December 2009 - 09:54 AM, said:

I think that's one point of the September 27, 1886 revelation -- that eternal laws can't change, even if the Church's policies can.

Yes--the Lord will honor His word for the plural marriages performed by proper authority prior to the revocation of the command and the practice, but those plural marriages performed since that time cannot be compliant with eternal law and so are illegitimate and not honorable. This is why using the document to justify plural marriage today is an abuse of the document.

[kamenraider]

notHagoth7, on 22 December 2009 - 09:28 AM, said:

What were the differences between the two versions?

I didn't see Bro. Holzapfel present his paper, but I assume that since the published version is co-authored with Christopher Jones, that it was just slightly adapted with his help to be suitable for publication in a book.

[kamenraider]

CV75, on 22 December 2009 - 05:39 PM, said:

Yes--the Lord will honor His word for the plural marriages performed by proper authority prior to the revocation of the command and the practice, but those plural marriages performed since that time cannot be compliant with eternal law and so are illegitimate and not honorable. This is why using the document to justify plural marriage today is an abuse of the document.

Those plural marriages since what time? Since the manifesto? Was there a revocation of that law in 1890 in your view?

[CV75]

kamenraider, on 22 December 2009 - 05:43 PM, said:

Those plural marriages since what time? Since the manifesto? Was there a revocation of that law in 1890 in your view?

I think "event" is actually a better word than "time" for the revocation. The Manifesto does not pinpoint the time and place of this event, but attests that it happened around that time.

That which was revoked is the authoritative performance of the covenant between living people in this world, which covenant is subordinate to its superior commandment, which is subordinate to its superior eternal law, which is subordinate to any applicable governing eternal law, the parsing and execution of which in our behalf is subordinate to God, who embodies all eternal law of every kind.

Subsequent performances of plural marriages were not sanctioned and became as any of the other "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 there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred)..." and they "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."

[kamenraider]

Well CV75, if a revocation of authority to perform plural marriages happened by 1890 then there must be a whole bunch of disappointed GA's of yesteryear on the other side. See THIS THREAD.

[CV75]

kamenraider, on 23 December 2009 - 12:30 AM, said:

Well CV75, if a revocation of authority to perform plural marriages happened by 1890 then there must be a whole bunch of disappointed GA's of yesteryear on the other side. See THIS THREAD.

Naturally, such changes take time. Look at how long it took for the practice to receive official sanction in 1852--some 21 years after Joseph Smith's first revelation about it. Hence the need for the second, 1904 "Manifesto".

It is comforting that Christ will judge those who didn't "get" the memo (could not read, hear, adjust, comprehend, properly interpret, implement, execute, etc).

Some 100 years on we've had plenty of time to adjust plus we have the advantage of repeated clarification. Using the document to justify modern polygamy is an abuse.