Jump to content

Archived

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

cinepro

Dante'S Polygamy

Recommended Posts

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false." - Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:28

I am not the best person to make comments. I am a member for 7 years only. But I will tell you how I understand this little quote. I see this quote for the first time by the way.

So, Joseph F. Smith said that some people think that doctrine of plural marriage is not essential for exaltation. According to what he said it is essential. But I don't see that he would say that it is necessary. He said that those who have more than one wife will have GREATER and MORE GLORIOUS exaltation. Some people according to J.F.S. think that those who have one wife will have THE SAME EXALTATION.

So, both will have exaltation but the one who is with more than one wife will have greater exaltation.

Once again, I am not the best person to explain but I understand from what I have learned in Church in my 7 years is that our posterity and our kingdoms that we will build it is a measure of our GLORY AND EXALTATION. Those who have more than one wife will always have more children and worlds than those who have one wife. They will be ahead all the time.

I may be wrong but this is how I understand this quote.

He defenetly didn't say that those who have only one wife will not be exalted. To have only one wife is enough to be exalted.

Share this post


Link to post

Edited to say: Danged forum software lost my entire erudite and amazing post. Grrrr.

Share this post


Link to post

inquiringmind:

As Saints we have covenanted with God to obey the WoW. For us to knowingly violate that covenant will bring judgement upon us.

I've never smoked, not even before I was a member of the Church. But I would not have been held responsible by God for not doing something I never agreed not to do.

Share this post


Link to post

1 Samuel 15:22 "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."

What does that mean? Doctrine doesn't change. Practice in how to implement the doctrine changes and always has.

It sounds like you believe plural marriage was a "practice" rather than a doctrine. In other words, you believe Joseph F. Smith (as well as the rest of the church well into the 20th century) was mistaken. How are we to distinguish "practices" from "principles" and "doctrines" if our own prophets, seers, and revelators even appear to be confused on this point?

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like you believe plural marriage was a "practice" rather than a doctrine. In other words, you believe Joseph F. Smith (as well as the rest of the church well into the 20th century) was mistaken. How are we to distinguish "practices" from "principles" and "doctrines" if our own prophets, seers, and revelators even appear to be confused on this point?

There is Doctrine of Celestial marriage. Plural marriage is principle I think.. But it can be practiced or not practiced. Or how we practice it can be changed. It doesn't affect doctrine. Doctrine is still eternal.

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like you believe plural marriage was a "practice" rather than a doctrine. In other words, you believe Joseph F. Smith (as well as the rest of the church well into the 20th century) was mistaken. How are we to distinguish "practices" from "principles" and "doctrines" if our own prophets, seers, and revelators even appear to be confused on this point?

The doctrine expressed in D&C 132 is the New and Everlasting Covenant. After that the subsequent verses talk about the Law of Abraham which falls under the N&EC. It is doctrine as part of the Covenant but it is strictly practiced only at certain times. The N&EC isn't only plural marriage but plural marriage is part of the Covenant when called upon the Lord to practice it.

Share this post


Link to post

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false." - Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:28

The doctrine expressed in D&C 132 is the New and Everlasting Covenant. After that the subsequent verses talk about the Law of Abraham which falls under the N&EC. It is doctrine as part of the Covenant but it is strictly practiced only at certain times. The N&EC isn't only plural marriage but plural marriage is part of the Covenant when called upon the Lord to practice it.

What's your take on the quote above?

Share this post


Link to post

What's your take on the quote above?

I don't have a take. I don't know the mind of JFS at the time, though I expect it was because plural marriage was a commandment at the time and being such a great challenge and requiring additional faith would indicate a greater degree of obedience and overcoming of selfish needs that one would by its practice become more celestial.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have a take. I don't know the mind of JFS at the time, though I expect it was because plural marriage was a commandment at the time and being such a great challenge and requiring additional faith would indicate a greater degree of obedience and overcoming of selfish needs that one would by its practice become more celestial.

Do you believe that faithful Latter-day Saints will practice plural marriage in the afterlife? Do you believe that the early saints who practiced plural marriage will also practice plural marriage in the afterlife? Do you believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ practice plural marriage?

Share this post


Link to post

Do you believe that faithful Latter-day Saints will practice plural marriage in the afterlife? Do you believe that the early saints who practiced plural marriage will also practice plural marriage in the afterlife? Do you believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ practice plural marriage?

You're not asking me this question, but I will give you my answer. Simply put: Yes.

Now, as to the marital state of Jesus in this mortal life I have no knowledge. There have been some (and not only LDS I believe) who have speculated that the marriage in Cana that Jesus attended and turned water into wine at was his own marriage -- though I've also heard speculation that it might have been the marriage of one of his brothers, since Mary their mother seemed to have some amount of primacy at the event, something which has been cited as persuasive evidence that it might have been Jesus's marriage. However, I personally do not believe that this was Jesus's wedding, if he had one in his mortal life. Whether Jesus, as a member of the Godhead, has a wife or wives in his present state, well, there's no doctrine on that and it remains a topic for speculation only. Whether he had a wife or wives in his mortal state is likewise a matter of extra-doctrinal speculation. In my personal opinion, discussion on the matter has pretty much the same level of pointlessness as arguing how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. If the subject was not judged essential to convey in the many doctrinal sources of information that we have from both ancient and modern sources, then I'd say God doesn't judge it to be worth our while discussing it.

As far as plural marriage in the afterlife is concerned, that's eminiently doctrinal. D&C 132 makes it extremely plain that marriages enacted in this life under the authority of the sealing power of the priesthood, and not otherwise forfeited by the covenant partners, will continue in the next life as well. This necessarily means that all wives that a man is sealed to here will continue with him in the next life.

I caution you that some other LDS might disagree with me on that last paragraph. Those would be they who think that Joseph Smith was a true prophet in all ways except for D&C 132, which I guess they believe he made up. I guess they think that Section 132 was Joseph's very own Satanic Verses.

Share this post


Link to post

You're not asking me this question, but I will give you my answer. Simply put: Yes.

Now, as to the marital state of Jesus in this mortal life I have no knowledge. There have been some (and not only LDS I believe) who have speculated that the marriage in Cana that Jesus attended and turned water into wine at was his own marriage -- though I've also heard speculation that it might have been the marriage of one of his brothers, since Mary their mother seemed to have some amount of primacy at the event, something which has been cited as persuasive evidence that it might have been Jesus's marriage. However, I personally do not believe that this was Jesus's wedding, if he had one in his mortal life. Whether Jesus, as a member of the Godhead, has a wife or wives in his present state, well, there's no doctrine on that and it remains a topic for speculation only. Whether he had a wife or wives in his mortal state is likewise a matter of extra-doctrinal speculation. In my personal opinion, discussion on the matter has pretty much the same level of pointlessness as arguing how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. If the subject was not judged essential to convey in the many doctrinal sources of information that we have from both ancient and modern sources, then I'd say God doesn't judge it to be worth our while discussing it.

As far as plural marriage in the afterlife is concerned, that's eminiently doctrinal. D&C 132 makes it extremely plain that marriages enacted in this life under the authority of the sealing power of the priesthood, and not otherwise forfeited by the covenant partners, will continue in the next life as well. This necessarily means that all wives that a man is sealed to here will continue with him in the next life.

I caution you that some other LDS might disagree with me on that last paragraph. Those would be they who think that Joseph Smith was a true prophet in all ways except for D&C 132, which I guess they believe he made up. I guess they think that Section 132 was Joseph's very own Satanic Verses.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. I think the belief that polygamy continues in the afterlife is dwindling among church members, and this is particularly true with the younger generation. In fact, I think the group you referred to in the last paragraph (who believe or are willing to consider the idea that polygamy was not sanctioned by God but was actually a mistake) is growing into a very substantial minority. It goes without saying that the church's history with polygamy is not much of a selling point with new converts and investigators. Since I see the church first and foremost as a self-interested organization, I find talk of a restoration of polygamy incredibly preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. I think the belief that polygamy continues in the afterlife is dwindling among church members, and this is particularly true with the younger generation. In fact, I think the group you referred to in the last paragraph (who believe or are willing to consider the idea that polygamy was not sanctioned by God but was actually a mistake) is growing into a very substantial minority. It goes without saying that the church's history with polygamy is not much of a selling point with new converts and investigators. Since I see the church first and foremost as a self-interested organization, I find talk of a restoration of polygamy incredibly preposterous.

Well, talk of a restoration of it is probably preposterous now, though I would contend it is so due to something other than the self-interest, but in the Millenium I think that there may be a different set of circumstances.

So, you think that the belief that polygamy continues in the afterlife is dwindling. Do you have any basis for that thought? Given what I've seen of your posts, you do not strike me as an active, believing member of the LDS church, and thus your idea of what beliefs are dwindling among the Saints might possibly be not all that sound, from an observational point of view. You may correct me on that, if you wish.

I don't think that polygamy has been much of a selling point with new converts and investigators for a good hundred years, if not longer. If that goes without saying, why are you saying it? :rolleyes: The funny thing is that a recent new member of this forum, and a fairly recent convert, Alla, reported that polygamy was one of the factors that convinced her there might be something to check out about the LDS Church. Which kind of flies in the face of your assertion. Of course, that could be an outlier, but then again there's no set of statistics to be an outlier for, so that's a quandary right there.

Share this post


Link to post

What stargazer said.

I'd like to point out that those who think plural marriage won't exist in the after life don't understand the sealing power. If a man has been sealed to multiple wives here why would that sealing be broken hereafter. Now it is true that there are no marriages hereafter but I expect during the Millennium there will continue to be multiple sealings.

The Lord tells us for example that David fell from his exaltation and his wives were given to another. Not many others but another (one other).

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. I think the belief that polygamy continues in the afterlife is dwindling among church members, and this is particularly true with the younger generation. In fact, I think the group you referred to in the last paragraph (who believe or are willing to consider the idea that polygamy was not sanctioned by God but was actually a mistake) is growing into a very substantial minority. It goes without saying that the church's history with polygamy is not much of a selling point with new converts and investigators. Since I see the church first and foremost as a self-interested organization, I find talk of a restoration of polygamy incredibly preposterous.

I am the finance clerk for our local singles branch, and while I was in the clerk's office there today one of the young men happened to come into the office and after he completed his business I asked him how he understood the principle of plural marriage with respect to the post-life eternity. He told me that in his understanding it meant that as many women who were sealed to a man in this life would accompany him as wives in the eternities, as long as there had not been some cause for nullification of the sealing. Granted that this is hardly a scientific survey, but there's one, at least, with whom it is apparently not dwindling.

Share this post


Link to post

True Religion isn't supposed to conform to the culture, it is supposed to form the culture.

If I was LDS I couldn't care whether the doctrine and history of LDS polygamy is popular. I couldn't care if it turned people away.

If I was searching for truth in religion today, I wouldn't be looking for something current unless it was with a living prophet starting today. It seems impossible that a one true religion, if it has existed for more than a generation, is going to be current. (I am not saying anything against modern revelation. But we have to wait for that, right? Not just condemn the past) I am only saying this because I want Mormons to continue to agree with us Traditional Catholics regarding the role of true religion in society. You mark it down, when members start clamoring for their church to be current, it will follow that they no longer care about the reason the religion was founded. When Mormons don't care if their Latter-day faith in 2011 is compatible with a Latter-day faith less than 200 years past will be the day Mormonism is irrelevant, and the original vision of Restored Christianity is lost.

We have the same things in the Catholic Church. Modernism is rampant in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics don't care these days about the blood of martyrs and their beliefs, of the faith that nourished all the saints. They are interested in their televised 21st Century and want their religion to reflect the beliefs of the evening news. They say the Catholic Church must be updated so we can appeal to modern man. But Tradition denies that modern man and his current fads are revealed from heaven. We can't follow them. We can't care about this ardent desire to conform our beliefs and practices to modern habits and folkways when they seem to be in conflict. We must know that the true faith, when it is properly practised, will properly influence culture. Besides, in 70 years, our grandchildren will have no respect for the norms of this age anyway!

Many people in all religions nowadays don't care about their ancestors in the faith. They do not have any reverence for religious tradition or antiquity. It seems like a particular problem of our age, an arrogant age that thinks it is distinctly better and therefore deserves to be considered as the standard by which any age is measured. Any one true religion stands squarely in the way of such an attitude and says "No. We must look to the past for guidance." There is a reason why the Scriptures include roll after roll of dry genealogies for kings and patriarchs and priests. It is teaching us that that we must have continuity with our Fathers, if we would hope to serve the same Lord the same way.

Traditional Mormons stick to your guns and I'll be a Tradional Catholic sticking to mine. By doing so, you and I will have more in common with each other than disgruntleds of both our faiths who won't start their own religions, but want to change ours.

3DOP

Share this post


Link to post

"No. We must look to the past for guidance."

Traditions are men made things. I don't have to stick to old traditions. Unless if I want to. I can stick to new(modern) traditions as long as they are good ( not evil) in eyes of God.

Men made things(like traditions) can change. There is nothing wrong in that.

Share this post


Link to post

Traditions are men made things. I don't have to stick to old traditions. Unless if I want to. I can stick to new(modern) traditions as long as they are good ( not evil) in eyes of God.

Men made things(like traditions) can change. There is nothing wrong in that.

Well, traditions aren't necessarily man-made things, if the tradition is a matter of sound doctrine. Of course, men can make traditions out of cultural items completely outside of religious doctrine (e.g. the traditional Thanksgiving Day meal of roast whole turkey and "all the trimmings"). And then the hereric the person that has Chinese food on T-Day!

Share this post


Link to post

Traditions are men made things. I don't have to stick to old traditions. Unless if I want to. I can stick to new(modern) traditions as long as they are good ( not evil) in eyes of God.

Men made things(like traditions) can change. There is nothing wrong in that.

I think I wasn't as clear as perhaps I could have been Alla. But I also doubt if you correctly understand the meaning of the word "tradition". Of its very nature tradition cannot be new.

Anyway, I am Catholic and I cannot sweep away 2,000 years of teachings and practices and remain Catholic. I cannot suddenly declare myself divorced from Eucharistic adoration, indulgences, an exclusive male priesthood, holy water, the Traditional Latin Mass and say the Catholic Church is renewed now AND the one true church. If the Catholic Church was wrong about these things that modern Catholics seek to "correct", they lose the option of claiming to have the continuity necessary to be the one true church.

Likewise, I am suggesting that you or anyone else is welcome to "new traditions" that are in conflict with your church. Latter-day Saints can condemn their own fathers whose religion was formed according to the Life and Times of Joseph Smith, but if you go too far, if you condemn what Latter-day revelation says about polygamy, or accept the non-LDS interpretation of the restriction of priesthood to blacks, or insist that it is mere sexism and not wait for revelation to open the priesthood to females, you no longer care about claims to be the one true church. Your agenda ceases to be a vision of Restoration to what was taught by the Apostles, and is a mere drive to reform the Restoration after a modern image, that is so changable that it is doubtful if any religion could stay current, but certainly not a "one true church".

That was my entire point. You isolated a statement that I attribute to the "one true churches". This concept of one true church, distinct to a few, including the Catholic and LDS, does not admit the liberty to easily change. Some of us see that as a wonderful thing, insulating the Church against sudden fads that come and go. Two hundered years from now, maybe women will have seen the beauty of motherhood again and will look in horror at families where both parents are working. One true churches continue to try to insist on "traditional" roles for men and women even against the resistance of society. A one true church cannot afford to adapt its teachings and morals or sacraments and worship to the whims of human fancy. Without further light from heaven, clear revelation, there can be no acceptance of "modern tradition". That is the sense in which I say that those who care about "one true church" can never abandon the past.

Company is coming. I hope I have been clearer. By no means did intend to imply that all tradition is good and true. Assuredly not. I do not accept LDS Tradition. You do not accept Catholic Tradition. But we should be in agreement that we cannot ignore those upon whose shoulders we stand in regard to the foundation of our mutual churches. We can agree regarding certain principles. I even think that the brighter among those who disagree with me about what way the religions should go can see the principle at work. I don't want change. But that is because I want one true church. Those who WANT change should be able to agree that it is this concept, which I am defending, the one true church concept that chiefly stands in the way of modernizing the Catholic and LDS religions.

Regards,

3DOP

Share this post


Link to post

Likewise, I am suggesting that you or anyone else is welcome to "new traditions" that are in conflict with your church. Latter-day Saints can condemn their own fathers whose religion was formed according to the Life and Times of Joseph Smith, but if you go too far, if you condemn what Latter-day revelation says about polygamy, or accept the non-LDS interpretation of the restriction of priesthood to blacks, or insist that it is mere sexism and not wait for revelation to open the priesthood to females, you no longer care about claims to be the one true church. Your agenda ceases to be a vision of Restoration to what was taught by the Apostles, and is a mere drive to reform the Restoration after a modern image, that is so changable that it is doubtful if any religion could stay current, but certainly not a "one true church".

Thanks for your explanation. I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post

True Religion isn't supposed to conform to the culture, it is supposed to form the culture.

If I was LDS I couldn't care whether the doctrine and history of LDS polygamy is popular. I couldn't care if it turned people away.

If I was searching for truth in religion today, I wouldn't be looking for something current unless it was with a living prophet starting today. It seems impossible that a one true religion, if it has existed for more than a generation, is going to be current. (I am not saying anything against modern revelation. But we have to wait for that, right? Not just condemn the past) I am only saying this because I want Mormons to continue to agree with us Traditional Catholics regarding the role of true religion in society. You mark it down, when members start clamoring for their church to be current, it will follow that they no longer care about the reason the religion was founded. When Mormons don't care if their Latter-day faith in 2011 is compatible with a Latter-day faith less than 200 years past will be the day Mormonism is irrelevant, and the original vision of Restored Christianity is lost.

We have the same things in the Catholic Church. Modernism is rampant in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics don't care these days about the blood of martyrs and their beliefs, of the faith that nourished all the saints. They are interested in their televised 21st Century and want their religion to reflect the beliefs of the evening news. They say the Catholic Church must be updated so we can appeal to modern man. But Tradition denies that modern man and his current fads are revealed from heaven. We can't follow them. We can't care about this ardent desire to conform our beliefs and practices to modern habits and folkways when they seem to be in conflict. We must know that the true faith, when it is properly practised, will properly influence culture. Besides, in 70 years, our grandchildren will have no respect for the norms of this age anyway!

Many people in all religions nowadays don't care about their ancestors in the faith. They do not have any reverence for religious tradition or antiquity. It seems like a particular problem of our age, an arrogant age that thinks it is distinctly better and therefore deserves to be considered as the standard by which any age is measured. Any one true religion stands squarely in the way of such an attitude and says "No. We must look to the past for guidance." There is a reason why the Scriptures include roll after roll of dry genealogies for kings and patriarchs and priests. It is teaching us that that we must have continuity with our Fathers, if we would hope to serve the same Lord the same way.

Traditional Mormons stick to your guns and I'll be a Tradional Catholic sticking to mine. By doing so, you and I will have more in common with each other than disgruntleds of both our faiths who won't start their own religions, but want to change ours.

3DOP

Amen! Well said!

Share this post


Link to post

The issue of Joseph Smith's polygamy is covered in well-referenced detail in Todd Compton's book In Sacred Loneliness. Each chapter is an biography on one of Joseph Smith's wives. He substantiates each of these claims by quoting primarily friendly contemporary sources (most importantly the women themselves, of whom the vast majority were faithful church members until death). I believe cinepro is referring to Marinda Johnson Hyde and Sarah Pratt in the sixth point, Emily and Eliza Partridge in the seventh point.

@TAO Helen Mar Kimball's own account of events leading up to her marriage to Joseph Smith makes it clear that conditional promises were made regarding her's and her family's salvation. Also see Sarah Ann Whitney and the Partridge sisters.

To be honest, cinepro's nine points are quite conservative. I would include as a tenth point that Joseph engaged in sexual relations with many if not all of his plural wives (including those who were married to other men). This is perhaps best documented by Joseph F. Smith's interviews with many of Joseph Smith's plural wives done ironically to counter RLDS claims that Joseph Smith didn't practice plural marriage.

I think most church members don't have knowledge of any more than the first point.

Post some of it, so I can see it please. Thanks.

Even if it is true, as bomtruth, I wouldn't have any problems with it. But I do need you to provide an actual reference... I cannot go out and buy the book, sorryz =P.

Share this post


Link to post

The sixth point is a reference to Joseph's marriage to Marinda Johnson Hyde which probably took place in April of 1842 while Orson Hyde was on a mission, but is only very well-documented by somewhat antagonistic sources which I assume you will not accept under any circumstances. Whatever the case, friendly sources list this marriage as occurring instead in April of 1843 soon after Hyde returned from his mission around which time he was ostensibly taught the 'principle' and began taking plural wives himself.

In regards to the ninth point:

"I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me the principle and asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph who came next morning and with my parents I heard him teach and explain the principle of Celestial marriage - after which he said to me , 'If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that . . . of your fathers household and all of your kindred.' I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." - Helen Mar Whitney Journal, Helen Mar Autobiography, Woman's Exponent, 1881

I hope you would take the time to actually look at Compton's book rather than relying on special pleading to apologist reviews that merely disagreed with his speculation on minor points, but left the major points (including those referred to by cinepro) untouched.

I need the bit of text represented by the '...'

As bomtruth says, there is a lot that is represented between things. I can't remember which verse it was Brigham stated, but there was another thing he may have said, from the JoD, I believe, that I have seen used, that was misinterpreted, because someone put '...' in between. It is important to know the full surrounds of the source.

Have a good week =).

TAO

Share this post


Link to post

What's your take on the quote above?

My friend, the more wives you have when the Lord permits them, the more glory you will have. The more wives you have, the more service you must give them, and the more children you will have. Thus more glory. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

Share this post


Link to post

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false." - Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:28

The above comes from a discourse delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on July 7, 1878. I'm not sure what the occasion was. I do know the Manifesto - the revelation essentially 'repealing' the practice of plural marriage' - was given and published in 1890. As a quick knee jerk reaction to this quote, I am willing to go on record as saying this quote is no different than any other of the numerous quotes from Brigham Young or other early Mormon leaders and prophets at a time when plural marriage was sanctioned by the Lord. It was taught as truth because it was in practice and applicable at the time.

Just like Abraham and his wives. Nyah. :P

Like this:

Before Peter's vision in Acts 10:

Gentiles are unclean. -- Peter, chief Apostle

After Peter's vision in Acts 10:

Nevermind. -- Peter, chief Apostle

Yeah, I'm trying to be funny. I hope it's working. ;) Plural marriage makes me uncomfortable, I don't like it, and it gives me pause the same as any one else who reads these quotes. But I do know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God - and I'm going to ask to indulge your patience with me on the word 'know.' I don't 'know' the same way I know a math proof, or a physics experiment, or any of the other non-religious items that I 'know.' I 'know' because I had an intense and personal experience with the Almighty concerning Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. So I can't answer all the questions about polygamy, why the early Mormons thought it would be the modus operandi forever, or Joseph Smith and polyandry and younger girls - I just plain don't have enough information. But I *do* know (there goes that word again) that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, so I'll wait and have a very hard and difficult conversation with God when the time comes and I'll get my answers.

But until then, I'm staying right where I'm at.

Share this post


Link to post

I am the finance clerk for our local singles branch, and while I was in the clerk's office there today one of the young men happened to come into the office and after he completed his business I asked him how he understood the principle of plural marriage with respect to the post-life eternity. He told me that in his understanding it meant that as many women who were sealed to a man in this life would accompany him as wives in the eternities, as long as there had not been some cause for nullification of the sealing. Granted that this is hardly a scientific survey, but there's one, at least, with whom it is apparently not dwindling.

I actually also did some asking around today, and was surprised to find how many people actually believe they may be required to practice polygamy in the afterlife. I wonder how many believe that ALL exalted beings will be required to practice polygamy. Do any of you believe this?

Having worked extensively with investigators and new converts, I've seen the missionaries completely downplay the issue of polygamy, and certainly never seen them disclose that many LDS believe that polygamy will be practiced in the afterlife. The basic story told is that polygamy was given up by the church over 100 years ago and any church member currently found to practice it is excommunicated.

What is your take on the statement by President Hinckley in the King interview that polygamy is not doctrinal?

Also, do you believe that if laws against polygamy were revoked (granted that no one has been convicted on a polygamy charge for quite some time now) the church would reinstate the practice?

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...