19th Century Mormonism - Would you do it?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you wouldn't personally practice those things.  But would you leave the Church, even if not required to practice them?  Free agency respected.

I'm not sure. If it were just me, and I could choose not to participate in some of those things without any undue pressure to conform, maybe I'd stick around. But, I'm a parent, and I don't particularly like the idea of raising my child in a church that practices polygamy. So as a single person, maybe. As a parent, I think I would have to part ways with the church. That's not to say that I would find every 19th century practice problematic.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure. If it were just me, and I could choose not to participate in some of those things without any undue pressure to conform, maybe I'd stick around. But, I'm a parent, and I don't particularly like the idea of raising my child in a church that practices polygamy. So in that case I still might leave.

Do you believe the polygamous sealings of the 19th century are valid sealings and will result in eternal polygamous families?

I don't understand members who claim "polygamy" is entirely in the past.  If it's a valid practice then it will be a part of our society forever, even if not every member practices it.
 

[Avatar4321]

I think this question is too hypothetical with no specifics.

I would love to unquestionably follow the Lord and what He reveals. But as I have a non member wife I know that decisions that affect the family life would need unanimous consent. I'm not sure if immediate Implementation of any new revelation is possible despite any desire on my part.

It depends

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, 2PairsofCletes said:

I will say this, I would at least feel like the church would be living once again, what was restored. I can help be see that what is lived now in the 21st century does not resemble 19th century, but more of main stream protestantism, which troubles me

You are so realistic..would you be able to take another wife??  Or give freely of property and all that you have?  You are definitely interesting.

[Jeanne]

Another reply...your wives get to have a say...do they not?  Is anyone willing to lose family if all of this were to be prophesied? 

 

[Rock_N_Roll]

My first reaction would be to ask “why?”.  Which is the reaction I have with any revelation, modern day or not.  If the only answer is “cuz God sez so”, then my gut usually tells me it’s not a real revelation and I ignore it.  If there are good reasons that make sense to me, I’ll pray about it and let God tell me himself that “He sez so”.

But since this is a hypothetical, and I don’t have any of the above information, my gut would say:

Polygamy – probably not.  Doesn’t make mathematical nor relationship sense. (Ever watch Sister Wives or Escaping Polygamy?  Uhh...no)

United Order – only if I was assured that everyone else in the community was “all in”.

Full length garments – Nope – doesn’t make sense.  Completely impractical.  Even today's g’s could be made to be more like normal undies.  (in fact, I just heard there was a change in this direction for the women’s?).

Law of Adoption Sealing – Why? Doesn’t make sense.

Political Power of the Church – only if Christ is the head of the political party. In other words, Christ would be King. 

Priesthood restriction – Nope.  You’d have to give me a good reason, because I can’t think of one.

Calling & Election – Sure, why not?

What about viewing the WoW the way they did in the 19^th Century?  I don’t believe it was a temple recommend requirement back then.

[pogi]

The witness of the prophet would not be enough for me to follow, I would require the second witness of the spirit.

Would I be willing if the spirit revealed it to me personally?  I want to believe that I would be willing to sacrifice all for the Lord... but history has taught me that is not always the case.  I am a weak man in many regards, but my heart is always leaning towards the Lord, to do His will before my own. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you believe the polygamous sealings of the 19th century are valid sealings and will result in eternal polygamous families?

I don't understand members who claim "polygamy" is entirely in the past.  If it's a valid practice then it will be a part of our society forever, even if not every member practices it.
 

The Holy Spirit of Promise has to ratify any sealing in order for it to persist in the exalted world, and He won't ratify that which is not in accordance with the desires of the consenting agents and God. That is as true now as it was then, no matter how the principle is expressed in practice.

Thus, valid practices within a dispensation or prophetic administration may or may not be a part of the saints’ society forever. While different orders might exist in the same earthly kingdom, as in the priesthood heads and offices, various units of organization, eligibility for ordinances and other ecclesiastical involvement, etc., it seems to me that only one order will exist within the society of the Church of the Firstborn. I think the “sociality” that Joseph Smith refers to in D&C 130:2 is our capacity for developing and perpetuating human relationships, whatever form they may take in the eternal world.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

21^st century less 19^th century = 2^nd century… 😊

 

Joseph Smith’s statement still holds true: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these [appendages], we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”

 

I take the items on your list to be appendages, and in some cases even appendages of appendages. None of the appendages, then and now, merits the status of stumbling block. We’ve lost nothing by living according to the covenants and teachings currently in place any more than the saints of the 19^th century lost anything by living according to those in place in their time, or even those Christians living in the apostasy. The light shone in darkness all along, and they cannot be saved without us nor us without them.

 

People never leave because of "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven".  They always leave over the appendages.  This is true of every religion.  Few people that gain a testamony of Christ rarely leave religion because that testimony disappears.  But they often loose that testimony of Christ because of the appendages of organized religion.

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I'll ask my wife about the polygamy part.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohfFOrOAW9GaczHc4/source.mp4

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Could you be a 19th century Mormon if President Nelson was commanded by the Lord to issue such a revelation?

I think so. Nothing mentioned in the list from the OP would be a deal-breaker for me personally if it were truly commanded by the Lord. 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure. If it were just me, and I could choose not to participate in some of those things without any undue pressure to conform, maybe I'd stick around. But, I'm a parent, and I don't particularly like the idea of raising my child in a church that practices polygamy. So as a single person, maybe. As a parent, I think I would have to part ways with the church. That's not to say that I would find every 19th century practice problematic.

As you know, some churches and synagogues ordain females, and allow gay marriage.  Would you be comfortable in such a church?  If the LDS Church allowed same sex marriage, perhaps with gay and female ordination (the RLDS for example), would you as a parent be comfortable raising your children in such a church?

How broad or universalist can a religion be?  How big a tent?

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As everyone here knows, my personal beliefs in Mormonism are that while the Church is true and God's Church I have felt like many of the changes made over the years to beliefs and practices restored by revelation to early prophets may well have been made without revelation (mostly because we have no revelations on these things to reference).
So this got me to thinking today.

At April Conference, what if President Nelson got up and announced he had received a revelation, had presented it to the Apostles, and XYZ doctrine or practice from the 19th Century Church was being established once again?
Would you be willing?  Could you live Mormonism as the early saints did?  When we say we sustain our leaders, do we mean it or would we object to a revelation?

Some possible areas:

• Polygamy (please, not the primary focus of the thread, but the most obvious one)
• United Order (deeding all property to the Church)
• Early temple practices
  • Full length original garments
  • Pre-1990 covenants  (for those in the know)
  • Original initiatory ceremonies (again, for those in the know)
• Law of Adoption sealings
• Theocratic rule or political power of the Church, a re-establishment of the Council of 50 for instance
• An additional restriction on priesthood ordination (not necessarily by race or gender, but any exclusivity restriction)
• More widespread issuance of calling and election ordinances (second anointings)
• Whatever others come to mind...

I don't want this thread to be all about polygamy.  I am more interested in the mindset we carry when it comes to prophetic revelation.  Yes polygamy is the most glaring difference, but there are others.
If we truly sustain our leaders as prophets, would we be able to follow these earlier ideas as our Church forerunners did?

Could you be a 19th century Mormon if President Nelson was commanded by the Lord to issue such a revelation?

How about if President Nelson stood up and said all of the Law of Moses is now the Law of the Church. Stoning for breaking commandments, the ludicrous rules for if your daughter ir raped or you marry a woman that is not a virgin, the dietary issues and on and on.

Why stop the the oddities if 19th century Mormonism?  If you want one why not all?

it is pretty simple for me. Why be ruled by bronze age nomads that were trying to come up with myths to unite their people?  Why be ruled by something 150-175 years ago that was clearly a failed religion and prophecy system that never would have survived had not the successors dropped a lot of things that simply would have killed the LDS Church's ability to grow in a more enlightened time?

[mrmarklin]

Thursday night Sacrament meetings would kill it for me.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

An overstatement I think.
The Church has always allowed its members a degree of agency, so no, they weren't "required".

But in many ways these early principles were taught as required, socially encouraged expectations, and in some cases set as requirements for Church callings.
I don't want to debate whether polygamy was required for exaltation or membership in good standing.  But it was at the very least taught as a law of God and that it should be obeyed.

Of course it was, but glossing over the extreme difficulty of it, and the fact that even Emma couldn't stand it, is likewise to ignore reality.  A Mormon in good standing is not required to have a temple recommend, and need never have taken out his endowments, or paid a penny of tithing.  His fellow members are going to be very tolerant of that, even if he rarely attends church services.  So, if you are measuring everything by full social acceptance, such issues may be very relevant.   However, social standing may be the least relevant thing in the eyes of God.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

How about if President Nelson stood up and said all of the Law of Moses is now the Law of the Church. Stoning for breaking commandments, the ludicrous rules for if your daughter ir raped or you marry a woman that is not a virgin, the dietary issues and on and on.

Why stop the the oddities if 19th century Mormonism?  If you want one why not all?

it is pretty simple for me. Why be ruled by bronze age nomads that were trying to come up with myths to unite their people?  Why be ruled by something 150-175 years ago that was clearly a failed religion and prophecy system that never would have survived had not the successors dropped a lot of things that simply would have killed the LDS Church's ability to grow in a more enlightened time?

It's a legitimate question.  OT times present a similar option for self reflection.  As do the days of Christ.  Who among us hasn't wondered if we had lived in Christ's day whether we would have followed him or cried for his crucifixion?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, social standing may be the least relevant thing in the eyes of God.

True, but obedience is of the utmost importance to him, even if it makes us uncomfortable.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As you know, some churches and synagogues ordain females, and allow gay marriage.  Would you be comfortable in such a church?  If the LDS Church allowed same sex marriage, perhaps with gay and female ordination (the RLDS for example), would you as a parent be comfortable raising your children in such a church?

How broad or universalist can a religion be?  How big a tent?

I guess as long as I can keep my favorite sins, then I will be ok with others keeping their favorite sins.  But if I have to repent, then everyone else has to repent.  Only fair.

[carbon dioxide]

Polygamy would be very easy for me to live as long as I get to do the following.  Marry the women but that is it.  The women live in their own house and do their own thing while I get to live in my own house and do my own thing.  Getting married is easy.  Its all the stuff that would come after that could drive me to suicide.

[cinepro]

I know you don't want this to focus on polygamy, but there is the small issue of legality that would need to be settled...

The more likely scenario would be for polygamy to be practiced in secret among trusted leaders (say, in conjunction with the Second Anointing).  It wouldn't be announced in General Conference, but instead would be taught in secret by a trusted friend in hushed tones.  So the real question is how we would react to finding out that was the case; that in spite of all the public protests to the contrary, the practice of polygamy had continued in secret to this day!

 

[Avatar4321]

The legality issue will always be problematic. We have received in revelation the command to honor and sustain the law of the land. I doubt that particular command would be revoked

[Gray]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you believe the polygamous sealings of the 19th century are valid sealings and will result in eternal polygamous families?

I don't understand members who claim "polygamy" is entirely in the past.  If it's a valid practice then it will be a part of our society forever, even if not every member practices it.
 

I don't know that I would issue some kind of blanket condemnation. There may be cases where such arrangements work out. But on the whole I think the practice is not wholesome.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As you know, some churches and synagogues ordain females, and allow gay marriage.  Would you be comfortable in such a church? 

Yes, I would.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If the LDS Church allowed same sex marriage, perhaps with gay and female ordination (the RLDS for example), would you as a parent be comfortable raising your children in such a church?

How broad or universalist can a religion be?  How big a tent?

Yes, I'd be comfortable there. But I think monogamous marriage is a wholesome practice, whether the couple is gay or straight, and I think women are equally qualified as men for ordination. But I don't think polygamy, in general (and there may be some exceptions) is a wholesome practice.

I understand that many people feel differently.

[jkwilliams]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure. If it were just me, and I could choose not to participate in some of those things without any undue pressure to conform, maybe I'd stick around. But, I'm a parent, and I don't particularly like the idea of raising my child in a church that practices polygamy. So as a single person, maybe. As a parent, I think I would have to part ways with the church. That's not to say that I would find every 19th century practice problematic.

Thanks for posting this, as you really made me think. My initial response to the OP was that, 15 years ago or so, I absolutely would have lived the way the church said I should, no matter what. It wouldn't have occurred to me to wonder if this was healthy for my family. That's a sobering thing for me to face.

[Amulek]

Addendum: I visited another church last night (a co-worker of mine was speaking and invited me to attend), and it occurred to me that if President Nelson were to announce that we would be abandoning the current hymnal in favor of that folk / pop praise music that is so popular among all the mainstream Protestant churches now, I would really struggle with that. I would probably still stay in the church, but I would probably stop arriving to meetings early as well. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Amulek