bluebell

Merry Christmas!

I agree. I think if the church went into apostasy there would have to be another restoration. Maybe that’s one of the reasons we are promised. It won’t go into apostasy again. Maybe there’s not enough time before the second coming for another restoration.

From my perspective, I don't think it implies infallibility. Especially when considered in light of D&C 1. 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

That's a perfect way to put it.

I agree. I've always leaned toward 'leading astray' meaning leading into apostasy, because that is the one place the scriptures teach God's church will not go in the last days. But that certainly isn't an authoritative take on it.

I think it depends on how someone defines 'astray'. Obviously it can mean 'won't let the president make mistakes' because we don't believe in an infallible prophet. So it has to mean something else. It would probably be most helpful to know how Pres. Woodruff defined or understood the word, since he is the one who used it. I'm not sure we have access to his thoughts on the matter though.

Just wanted to clarify that this is true except in primary. The primary presidency is always women and they are over all the male primary teachers in their ward. Elders are never over women in a ward unless an elder is called as a ward mission leader or in a Sunday school presidency. A male is always over females, but that male is rarely an elder. Most of the time it’s a high priest.

Right.

Not to argue, but where did you get the distinctions between the definitions for plural marriage and polygamy? It’s something I’ve never heard before and when you look up plural marriage in Webster’s dictionary it’s the same definition as the one for polygamy. I’m just wondering if you read it in a church source somewhere?

If they’ve been dead long enough, it doesn’t have to be a close family member. Just a family member. But since not all people follow the rules, we can probably guarantee it’s not 100%.

Ah, yeah. That clarifies. I thought you were talking about his son. No one should’ve done his parents names without his written permission (or that of any siblings if he has them) since he would be there closest living family member.

It wouldn't ever be eligible unless Navidad provided written permission to a family member who was going to do the work (and it had been 30 days since he died). Because Navidad is his closest living relative, his son's work cannot be done without his written permission, which the family member trying to do the work would have to submit to Family Search. Edit to add: by 'ever' I mean until his immediate family members are all gone because he passed away so long ago that getting permission isn't relevant anymore. But even then his name is supposed to be submitted by a family member and not just a random person. Even indexed names don't go directly to the temple, as I understand it. They are added to a searchable database where family can find them while doing their own family history and then submit them. I can't think of anyway that Navidad would have to worry about his son's work being done for the foreseeable future unless someone seriously broke rules and flat out lied to do it. And even when the possibility eventually exists, it would have to be a family member who does the work and not just a well-meaning member (barring serious rule changes in the next few decades of course).

The rule used to be no ordinances for a year after death, but now it’s 30 days for immediate family members. But the rule of no submitting names you aren’t related to has been strengthened. The new handbook changes removed the word “generally” from the rule, taking away the previous perception of a loophole. Even if the name was put into family search it still wouldn’t be eligible for any ordinances unless Navidad gave written permission to a family member who could do the work.

I was saying that if they were already done the person broke the rules to do them.

You'd be proxy for his son and have him baptized?

Speaking only for myself, I think it promotes the idea of agency.

In your opinion, at what level are we asked to affirm it? Sincere question. Like, do you believe every woman who has a temple recommend is affirming the practice, regardless of what she personally believes about it? Or do you mean something else?

I think some (not all) think that God would never ask anyone to sacrifice as much as polygamy requires some to sacrifice. But from the scriptures and journals of the early saints, it seems to me that that level of sacrifice is very much on the table for all of us. I think others (again, not all) think that it's so inherently unfair to women that a God who loves His daughters would never ask such of them. Again, I don't think there's evidence to support that. And for some, it's just the optics. A prophet of God who implements changes to the moral code that allows him to have sex with multiple women and still be considered moral is suspect regardless of anything else. This one makes the most sense to me, but I still find a lot of flaws in it as a reason alone to reject plural marriage. And I'm sure there are other reasons (and combinations of reasons) for why people don't believe it could be condoned or commanded by God. Thankfully, it's a moot point right now so we can all be comfortable in our opinions. From my perspective, the real danger isn't whether or not God commanded polygamy. The real danger is whether or not the church confirming the practice was of God is going to contribute to someone losing their testimony and abandoning their covenants. Some people have left the church over something someone else was asked to do over a hundred years ago. To me, that's the only reason the topic is still relevant. Not because of what we believe about the historical practice but because of how we respond to the historical practice.

This is what it says on Family Search: I'm not sure if a professional genealogist would be able to do the temple work for the people who are paying them but they could certainly to the genealogy part and then leave the ordinances up to the family.

If someone has they broke the rules to do it.

I see it differently and believe it was of God (though I do not believe it was always practiced in a way that God condoned, same as monogamy), but I get why some do not. (Edit to add: For me, a large part of my feelings towards it comes from reading the words of the women who practiced it, and why they did. But I'm glad that we aren't asked to have a testimony of it)

True, there is some interpretation happening with that specific evidence. But even with that possibility it wasn't Joseph and Emma that day, the historical record still shows others were being sealed for eternity that day, and that JS had been teaching about eternal marriage for months or years before he wrote the revelation on plural marriage that was requested by Hyrum for Emma in July 1843.

I think we do have a responsibility to study the scriptures ourselves, and not just get our learning from Sunday school. But, I also think the church failed in many ways with how they used to teach polygamy. I was blessed with a seminary teacher in high school who taught us about all of the different wives of Joseph Smith. But I also heard plenty that polygamy existed to take care of the widows and women that otherwise wouldn’t have husbands. I think for decades and decades the church had a defensive position in regards to teachings on plural marriage, and it really did mess up a lot of members when they learned that the faith promoting perspective was not always an accurate one. I don’t think you should be too hard on yourself for reacting like you did when learning new information that changed the paradigm you grew up with.

Yes, that is what the historical evidence suggests. Joseph Smith and Emma were sealed together on May 28th, 1843. This revelation came July 12th, 1843, so just a few months after they had been sealed. We can learn that Emma was already familiar with the concept of eternal marriage. She and Joseph had already been sealed. Joseph Smith had been teaching the concept of eternal marriage for a number of years.

Eternal sealings were happening before the revelation that is section 132. JS and Emma were sealed months before 132 was received.