liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 One of my concerns regarding D&C 132...is that Heavenly Father states that if Emma refuses to accept Joseph entering into polygamy that she will be destroyed.That doesn't allow for agency or choice. Obviously, Emma wanted to do the right thing.
charity Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 liz, choosing to follow or not follow the Lord's commands IS choice. And we are all required to make that same choice. We will all be "destroyed" in the sense that we will not live with Heavenly Father if we don't do as He commands. But it is our choice.People think that agency means we can choose the consequence of our actions. We can't. Those consequences are decreed by eternal law and follow naturally.
liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 liz, choosing to follow or not follow the Lord's commands IS choice. And we are all required to make that same choice. We will all be "destroyed" in the sense that we will not live with Heavenly Father if we don't do as He commands. But it is our choice.People think that agency means we can choose the consequence of our actions. We can't. Those consequences are decreed by eternal law and follow naturally. I absolutely agree. I was not contesting that at all.The point I was trying to make was that it has been stated that no one would be forced to live plural marriage in the next life. If the first wife didn't approve, there would be no subsequent wives. I was pointing out that that is not really the case. If Heavenly Father commands that a couple practice plural marriage, they will practice it, whether that first wife "approves" or not. If she chooses not to follow this commandment, then she will no longer have the blessing of that marriage. Plural Marriage is an eternal law.Now...as to whether all of us will be called to practice it....no one really knows. But if you are called to practice it, if you want to maintain the blessings of your eternal marriage to that man, you will practice it, or you will be "destroyed" or "cut off from God's presence".This is a concept that is troubling for many women, myself included. Charity, it is obvious that you have gained a solid testimony of the principle. I admire you for that. I guess what is frustrating for me is that you refuse to at least empathize with those of us who are not there yet, and validate our feelings.
Dale Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I do not believe D.&C. 132 a true revelation so I doubt Emma has anything to fear. I believes us Community of Christ/RLDS were right in rejecting it.
liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 I do not believe D.&C. 132 a true revelation so I doubt Emma has anything to fear. I believes us Community of Christ/RLDS were right in rejecting it. Dale,Thank you for posting here and adding your view. How does the Community of Christ Church reconcile D&C 132 not being a valid revelation, but the rest of the D&C being valid. Where do you believe the revelation came from, or how was it made up?I'm not that well versed on the Community of Christ or the RLDS Church in this way. Do you use the rest of the D&C as cannon?
onelowerlight Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 One of my concerns regarding D&C 132...and forgive me ahead of time because I'm at work and don't have scriptures easily available so this is not an exact quote...is that Heavenly Father states that if Emma refuses to accept Joseph entering into polygamy that she will be destroyed.That doesn't allow for agency or choice. Obviously, Emma wanted to do the right thing. It is obvious that she supported Joseph and loved the Lord. Her choice was either to accept it or be destroyed.I think this scripture is what has caused the most angst for me...and, I believe for Allannasaunt as well. This negates the idea that there is really choice involved for the first wife approving of other wives. I think I see - that the discomfort comes in plural marriage as a command, not just an option. The all or nothing situation with this commandment can put a person in a very difficult place.I think that it's very important for our spirituality today, as modern LDS, to realize that plural marriage is still a principle that we believe in (though we are not actively practicing it) and to seek to obtain a testimony of it, even though it doesn't seem like something that's relevant anymore. I see some LDS who have a "that was then, this is now" mindset that makes them gloss over the doctrine of plural marriage, thinking that they can just ignore it. However, I think that if we don't get a testimony of this principle, one day it will come back to haunt you.
liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 I think I see - that the discomfort comes in plural marriage as a command, not just an option. The all or nothing situation with this commandment can put a person in a very difficult place.I think that it's very important for our spirituality today, as modern LDS, to realize that plural marriage is still a principle that we believe in (though we are not actively practicing it) and to seek to obtain a testimony of it, even though it doesn't seem like something that's relevant anymore. I see some LDS who have a "that was then, this is now" mindset that makes them gloss over the doctrine of plural marriage, thinking that they can just ignore it. However, I think that if we don't get a testimony of this principle, one day it will come back to haunt you. Thank you! Thank you for understanding where I'm coming from with this!Actually this thread has enabled me to do a lot of my own soul-searching and assisted me in the process of baby steps toward gaining a testimony of this principle, which is something I thought I could never do.And, yes, it has haunted me for years.I really do appreciate this forum. It has helped me, and I hope others as well.I still have questions, which I am obviously still raising... To those of you who have come to terms with this principle and are at peace with it....thanks for being patient with those like me who aren't.
Nighthawke Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I interpret it to mean that if she failed to accept it, she would not be able to be with Joseph in the next life.What is your interpretation? Firstly, I interpret it the same way. But I also feel that for Emma to refuse it would not only have eternal implications for her but both temporal and eternal consequences for others. Helen Mar Whitney wrote that plural marriage was a blessing in disguise for her. I wonder if it was so for many others. The Saints were commanded to practise plural marriage temporally, that is, for a particular time and while yet alive in the flesh. It follows that one reason (of many) would be because it would be a blessing to the Saints at that time/place. Secondly, since the thread continues to be civil I'll add the following thought which I've never voiced before--because polygamy threads have been so disrespectful in the past--which is this: Is it possible that one of the many reasons for plural marriage was because the Saints failed in establishing/living a united order type "ideal community?" Someone mentioned that widows, fatherless women, et cetera could and should have been looked after easily by the Relief Society, their neighbours, bishops and so forth instead of having to resort to a plural marriage but in the early years of establishment in Utah there was no Relief Society and the neighbours were equally destitute. Plural wives--both young and old--did better than women who chose to remain single. Plural wives were also a blessing to many men and to many young children who lost their first wives/mothers. How many Saints were blessed because they were part of a plural family?
Nighthawke Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I do not believe D.&C. 132 a true revelation so I doubt Emma has anything to fear. I believes us Community of Christ/RLDS were right in rejecting it. Dale,Thank you for posting here and adding your view. How does the Community of Christ Church reconcile D&C 132 not being a valid revelation, but the rest of the D&C being valid. Where do you believe the revelation came from, or how was it made up?I'm not that well versed on the Community of Christ or the RLDS Church in this way. Do you use the rest of the D&C as cannon? Note also that the Community of Christ has NO temples. No temple work is done either for the dead or for the living. What are the marriage vows for the CofC? 'Til death do you part?
Nighthawke Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Now...as to whether all of us will be called to practice it....no one really knows. But if you are called to practice it, if you want to maintain the blessings of your eternal marriage to that man, you will practice it, or you will be "destroyed" or "cut off from God's presence". Depending on what has been revealed to you. What you're neglecting here is how much did Emma know about plural marriage? My understanding is that Joseph shared almost everything with Emma and he probably talked to her about polygamy early on. Emma went to the hill Cumorah with him, she helped translate, she was a believer in Joseph's revelations. How much was revealed to Emma re: plural marriage? I can understand someone who has not had a personal witness having difficulty, I find it difficult to believe that Emma, if section 132 is a revelation, would be threatened with destruction unless she had received a personal witness of plural marriage and denied it.
liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 I interpret it to mean that if she failed to accept it, she would not be able to be with Joseph in the next life.What is your interpretation? Firstly, I interpret it the same way. But I also feel that for Emma to refuse it would not only have eternal implications for her but both temporal and eternal consequences for others. Helen Mar Whitney wrote that plural marriage was a blessing in disguise for her. I wonder if it was so for many others. The Saints were commanded to practise plural marriage temporally, that is, for a particular time and while yet alive in the flesh. It follows that one reason (of many) would be because it would be a blessing to the Saints at that time/place. Secondly, since the thread continues to be civil I'll add the following thought which I've never voiced before--because polygamy threads have been so disrespectful in the past--which is this: Is it possible that one of the many reasons for plural marriage was because the Saints failed in establishing/living a united order type "ideal community?" Someone mentioned that widows, fatherless women, et cetera could and should have been looked after easily by the Relief Society, their neighbours, bishops and so forth instead of having to resort to a plural marriage but in the early years of establishment in Utah there was no Relief Society and the neighbours were equally destitute. Plural wives--both young and old--did better than women who chose to remain single. Plural wives were also a blessing to many men and to many young children who lost their first wives/mothers. How many Saints were blessed because they were part of a plural family? This is a very interesting line of thinking. Charity actually started a post on the United Order that poses some of these questions as well.I had actually never quite looked at it in that context, Nighthawke. That may also be why the Lord saw fit to discontinue the law when he did. He could see that the orgranization of the Church was going to improve the capacity of being able to "take care of our own".It's like a lightbulb went off! Thanks for that insight!
Zakuska Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Liz,I think this might add a little to the conversation.He could see that the orgranization of the Church was going to improve the capacity of being able to "take care of our own".1 Tim. 5: 1616 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 I can understand someone who has not had a personal witness having difficulty, I find it difficult to believe that Emma, if section 132 is a revelation, would be threatened with destruction unless she had received a personal witness of plural marriage and denied it. I guess that's another piece of this puzzle that has caused me angst. Obviously, Emma of all people, who should have understood the importance of the principle was as human as the rest of us and had an extremely difficult time accepting it...even to the point where she threw the written revelation in the fire! And, Joseph KNEW that Emma felt this way. He is quoted as saying that his love for her extends to the point that he would "travel into Hell to bring her back" if necessary! Thanks for the recommendation on the books. I will definitely look into them!
Nighthawke Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 However, I think that if we don't get a testimony of this principle, one day it will come back to haunt you. I'll have to disagree with you on this one. There have been many instances of people getting a testimony of the principle of the plurality of wives who have then gone on to practise it. This happened in Manti in the 1990s for example when James Harmston began to teach that the LDS Church was in apostasy having abandoned plural marriage. Within a few years he had over 300 converts to the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days (TLC).
onelowerlight Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 QUOTE (onelowerlight @ May 17 2006, 10:53 AM) However, I think that if we don't get a testimony of this principle, one day it will come back to haunt you. I'll have to disagree with you on this one. There have been many instances of people getting a testimony of the principle of the plurality of wives who have then gone on to practise it. This happened in Manti in the 1990s for example when James Harmston began to teach that the LDS Church was in apostasy having abandoned plural marriage. Within a few years he had over 300 converts to the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days (TLC). Certainly it does not help to get a testimony of the principle of plural marriage if you don't also have a testimony that the practice was revoked by God's command. And the only way I'd ever practice polygamy was if the first presidency and quorum of the twelve were to unanimously come out and say that the practice has been brought back. Even then, it would have to become more than just an option for me before I chose to practice - it would have to be an obligation.However, my personal opinion is that there are only really two reasons why we aren't practicing the principle as a church right now:1) many world governments are intolerant of the practice and would inhibit the church from fulfilling the threefold mission through government persecution, and2) the main body of the saints simply aren't at a place spiritually where they could handle the doctrine - the "line upon line" qualifier.Since I see plural marriage as a principle that we still, essentially, believe, I don't see it as a temporary measure.However, I have no tolerance for people who practice polygamy outside of the authority of the church. I tend to believe that polygamy, like consecration, is something that requires true conversion as a prerequisite. If you set yourself up against the authority of God, you are not converted and not in a place where you can successfully practice plural marriage in a way that pleases God.
liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 However, I have no tolerance for people who practice polygamy outside of the authority of the church. I tend to believe that polygamy, like consecration, is something that requires true conversion as a prerequisite. If you set yourself up against the authority of God, you are not converted and not in a place where you can successfully practice plural marriage in a way that pleases God. I agree with you completely on this one. And, I think it's fairly safe to say that the active participants of this thread also concur. That's why I specifically stated that the "off-shoot" groups were not going to be a focus of this thread. Our focus here is on how plural marriage would/should be lived in a true LDS society.However, my personal opinion is that there are only really two reasons why we aren't practicing the principle as a church right now:1) many world governments are intolerant of the practice and would inhibit the church from fulfilling the threefold mission through government persecution, and2) the main body of the saints simply aren't at a place spiritually where they could handle the doctrine - the "line upon line" qualifier.Since I see plural marriage as a principle that we still, essentially, believe, I don't see it as a temporary measure.Both of these points are very valid. I suppose on point 2, I fall into the second category, and it's obvious I'm not alone.
KevinG Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I concur with the idea that we just don't understand it well enough to actually practice it. I also feel very strongly that we aren't to practice it now because God Himself suspended the practice through His earthly Prophet.I don't feel too strongly about people having to have a testinomy of it now, because we aren't required to practice it, and I do feel that if it were to be restored prior to Christ's millenial reign we would be prepared to receive it as a people. If we overreach by requiring ourselves to have a perfect understanding of all things in this dispensation, we can run into the danger of seperating ourselves from the revelations we do need to live according to our covenants. Certainly if God asks us to ponder and understand a revelation we should try, but I have run into too many struggling Saints who fell away because they had set the bar at earthly perfection, and then failing to obtain it struggled with guilt or hard feelings towards the gospel.
liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 If we overreach by requiring ourselves to have a perfect understanding of all things in this dispensation, we can run into the danger of seperating ourselves from the revelations we do need to live according to our covenants. Certainly if God asks us to ponder and understand a revelation we should try, but I have run into too many struggling Saints who fell away because they had set the bar at earthly perfection, and then failing to obtain it struggled with guilt or hard feelings towards the gospel. Good point! I think it's very easy for those of us who are really striving to live the gospel to the best of our ability to become discouraged and be tempted to fall away when we "don't get it right".I think this is actually Satan's best tool for the faithful. He knows that he can't attack us with the obvious blatant sins such as adultery, Word of Wisdom, etc., but the feeling of being overwhelmed and "not perfect enough" can slowly lead you down the path of destruction.
alannasaunt Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Dad, I appreciate your story and the trust you have in us to open up and share it.
KevinG Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Be of good cheer sister (and I mean this sincerely). The situations with population, spouses, etc. is a mortal one, and we cannot know of what will be required of us in the next life.God's ultimate goal is for us to have a fullness of joy, and of course while this sometimes means that we must go through trials to get there, we will not be condemned to live in unhappiness for all eternity.In other words there is no implied threat to you if you cannot fathom living a law that you have not yet been asked to live. Perhaps the only punishment is the loss of the blessings you would have otherwise had if you could accept it (this is enough to consider it destruction in some cases).Consider the possible meaning of destruction for Joseph and Emma, had they not accepted this law, and in the end Joseph was still martyred, and his posterity limited, they would both have lost a great blessing. As we understand it Brigham saw too it that those promised Joseph were sealed to him, and there is a great posterity that he and Emma will stand at the head of in the next life.For you the situation is different. Perhaps you will be provided a companion of any number of stripes in this life or the next? You will always have choice in the matter because God does not take your agency away. The consequences we cannot see beyond our own understanding, but that God does see, are often the source of our own tests.I have been very angry with God too, and I fight my own childishness constantly through the trials that I face (My mantra is: why doesn't he rescue me from this,I am faithful?)No one has the right to accuse you of faithlessness. You have demonstrated here that you are indeed a very faithful daughter of your father in Heaven. I would contest that your faith, which has driven you to consider even those things that are painful to you, out of obedience to the living God you know, shows greater faith than all of those who would ignorantly criticize you for not having all of the answers that they think they have (and have they been tested as you have? If they are so quick to judge I seriously doubt it. You see it is one thing to say I will obey in all things, and it is another to have God privately have us prove it, in heart and mind. I have been asked to prove it. You appearantly are being asked to prove it. Don't bother one more second over those whos mouths may judge others, but who likely haven't been tested or they wouldn't be so quick to judge you).Well that is my rant for you. The Prophet Joseph Smith made a much more inspiring statement that I'll share. It comforts me when I am bearing a private burden."Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves; be watchful and prayerful, and you shall have a prelude of those joys that God will pour out on that day, (HC 2:309)" Joseph Smith, Jr.
alannasaunt Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Dadof7. I love you...(platonically, of course)... See, I told you, I'd probably come back in comedy mode.
KevinG Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Dadof7. I love you...(platonically, of course)... See, I told you, I'd probably come back in comedy mode. Ditto This conversation has probably been as valuable to me as it has to you, beleive it or not. I'd gotten to the point of wondering if I could share some of my innermost thoughts and fears on the subject without being ridiculed.And on that note I'm sharing: A HEARTY AND SINCERE THANK YOU to all of the posters who didn't add to the conversation, even though they had very strong feelings about the subject, out of respect for the direction the thread was going.
liz3564 Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 Be of good cheer sister (and I mean this sincerely). The situations with population, spouses, etc. is a mortal one, and we cannot know of what will be required of us in the next life.God's ultimate goal is for us to have a fullness of joy, and of course while this sometimes means that we must go through trials to get there, we will not be condemned to live in unhappiness for all eternity.In other words there is no implied threat to you if you cannot fathom living a law that you have not yet been asked to live. Perhaps the only punishment is the loss of the blessings you would have otherwise had if you could accept it (this is enough to consider it destruction in some cases).Consider the possible meaning of destruction for Joseph and Emma, had they not accepted this law, and in the end Joseph was still martyred, and his posterity limited, they would both have lost a great blessing. As we understand it Brigham saw too it that those promised Joseph were sealed to him, and there is a great posterity that he and Emma will stand at the head of in the next life.For you the situation is different. Perhaps you will be provided a companion of any number of stripes in this life or the next? You will always have choice in the matter because God does not take your agency away. The consequences we cannot see beyond our own understanding, but that God does see, are often the source of our own tests.I have been very angry with God too, and I fight my own childishness constantly through the trials that I face (My mantra is: why doesn't he rescue me from this,I am faithful?)No one has the right to accuse you of faithlessness. You have demonstrated here that you are indeed a very faithful daughter of your father in Heaven. I would contest that your faith, which has driven you to consider even those things that are painful to you, out of obedience to the living God you know, shows greater faith than all of those who would ignorantly criticize you for not having all of the answers that they think they have (and have they been tested as you have? If they are so quick to judge I seriously doubt it. You see it is one thing to say I will obey in all things, and it is another to have God privately have us prove it, in heart and mind. I have been asked to prove it. You appearantly are being asked to prove it. Don't bother one more second over those whos mouths may judge others, but who likely haven't been tested or they wouldn't be so quick to judge you).Well that is my rant for you. The Prophet Joseph Smith made a much more inspiring statement that I'll share. It comforts me when I am bearing a private burden."Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves; be watchful and prayerful, and you shall have a prelude of those joys that God will pour out on that day, (HC 2:309)" Joseph Smith, Jr. Thanks, Dadof7.I know your words were meant primarily for Allanasaunt, but I have also taken them to heart.*cyber hugs*Allanasaunt stated her concerns very eloquently. Even though I am blessed to be married to a wonderful husband, and have been for the past 20 years with three beautiful children, this is still an issue I have struggled with and has caused personal heartache for me as well...with those who have been able to accept this principle accusing me of many of the same things such as lack of faith, etc.I feel that my concerns are lightweight compared to Allanasaunt, so I'm truly glad that this forum has been able to help. I know it has helped me tremendously. Again, I can't thank everyone who has participated, and continues to participate enough!
Nighthawke Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Dealing with the "choice" issue...at least temporally...on the thread that got closed, someone said Brigham was very liberal giving unhappy PM women divorces. They also discussed a speech BY gave essentially giving the women two weeks to decide to live the law or divorce their husbands. The poster used this to say that the women who remained, did so by choice. I couldn't agree with this. My first impression when I read about BY's speech was to compare it to the man who would drive his date to an isolated, remote location, then tell her to put-out or get-out. What were these women supposed to do? Where were they supposed to go? I'm going to post a short reply because I have to go out soon.Divorce was always an option for plural wives not just during that two week period mentioned by Brigham Young. Fact is many women who did seek a divorce remarried as -- plural wives. Fact is that even when isolation was broken (railroad was built), or means were provided to make it easy for women to leave a plural marriage (for example protestants built a huge mansion in Salt Lake to house plural wives who wanted to "escape"), women did not leave Utah en masse nor did they seek refuge in "homes for plural wives." I have been a member of this Church for forty-nine years, and am one of the women who have been tried and tested, and the angels will bear witness of that today, I am a stronger advocate of "Mormonism" and the celestial order of marriage, and rejoice more exceedingly in the goodness of God to me and my house than ever before. I know that this holy order would prove a blessing to all who would receive and practice it in the way that He designed.- Helen Mar (Kimball Smith) Whitney, Mormon women's protest; an appeal for freedom, justice and equal rights. Great mass meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, Saturday, March 6, 1888. pp 49-53.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.