Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Polygamy Doctrine = Not In The Bible


ED500

Recommended Posts

ED500,

You've already been given extensive bibical texts which counter your assertions yet you've attempted to deal with only a small portion of them.

Both Leah and Rachel were Jacob (Israel)'s wives- with no reproach- for the scriptures speak of God favoring each of them in turn.

This example and many others from the Bible counter your assertion.

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the contradiction?

David and Solomon did not fail God by having multiple wives- until they began acquiring them without his divine authorization- particularly in the case of Bethsheba. It was not multiple wives that was sinful, but foreign, idolatrous wives who distracted them from their sacred callings and duties.

The reason that SchlieffenPlan and others brought up the statements of Martin Luther and others is because they were, in their day, the preeminent Biblical scholars- and they don't agree with your dogmatic construction. Niether do the scriptures.

You are battling against the tide, hoping to make sand castles that can stand against the raging surf- buttressing your position with arguments that cannot fail to fall against the totality of the scriptures and history.[/i]

"....for the scriptures speak of God favoring each of them in turn.." How did you come up with this conclusion - The whole family drama between the women is a classic example of jealosy-bitterness-rivalry because of multiple women in Jacob's life. God never commanded Jacob to become polygamous. Not everything that happens in the Bible is a commandment from God. Since Judas hanged himself - would you hang yourself also? Since Lot slept with his daughters - would you also do that to your daughters? The Bible states that David ordered the misfortune of somebody's husband - then would you (Selek) do it also because it happened in the Bible? God did not ordered Jacob to have more than one wife. Again you can't find a statement anywhere in the BIble that God commanded or ordered Jacob to become polygamous. What you will see in the Bible (the result of Jacob having more than one woman) is the rivalry among the women that caused strifed, anger, and resentment.

Genesis 30

"............ 3And she(Rachel) said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her................" [not God's plan, AND they obviously haven't learned from Sarah - see my 1st and second post for explaination and references...]

7And Bilhah Rachel's maid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son.

8And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali. [Naphtali = "Wrestling", do you see the ENVY that resulted from having another woman?]

I could go on and on - but you haven't given an honest response in accordance with my first post - where in the Bible does it say that God specifically ordered his people to be polygamous..?

You just throw assumptions on me. I would really like to answer the case about David but it would be a waste of your time and mine. Thank you for your opinion "............You are battling against the tide, hoping to make sand castles that can stand against the raging surf- buttressing your position with arguments that cannot fail to fall against the totality of the scriptures and history.......".

Link to comment

...I could go on and on - but you haven't given an honest response in accordance with my first post - where in the Bible does it say that God specifically ordered his people to be polygamous..?

...

God did command his people to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28) So they are commanded to marry, or how can they fulfill that command? 1 Timothy 4:3 confirms that it is a doctrine of devils to forbid marriage. God may not directly command much polygamy in the Bible (except in the case of marrying a dead brother's widow) but neither does He outright condemn it. Clearly it is fulfilling the Genesis 1:28 command if done in the right way.

"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Exodus 21:10. Here God regulates it, allowing polygyny to be part of the marriage system of Israel. In Exodus 20 God forbids adultery, so how could this be adultery?

Deut 25

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

[Clearly this commandment could mean polygamy since usually the husband's brother will also be married.]

6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

[This is fulfilling the Genesis 1:28 commandment of God. The next several verses go on to allow a way for the husband's brother to get out of this commandment, but it condemns him.]

The Book of Ruth shows the righteousness of Boaz for living by this Deut 25 law and marrying Ruth. Boaz was undoubtedly already married.

I believe 1 Timothy 5:17 is speaking of polygamy when it uses the term, "double honor". Do you want to hear my argument for that?

Here is an argument from a non-Mormon believer in polygamy showing the New Testament commands polygamy:

Here are their arguments that Polygamy is Biblical.

Link to comment

I think its pretty clear that Jacob was a polygamist. Now the scriptures say that Jacob either is or will inherit the kingdom of God. Nowhere do we find God condemning Jacob of his polygamy nor Jacob ever repenting of it. So what I conclude from this is either:

A. God commanded Jacob to practice it.

B. Polygamy simply was not an issue that interest God. It may have not been commanded but it never was condemned. At worst, God remained neutral on it.

C. It was a sin but unrepentant sinners like Jacob still can go to heaven.

I personally think A is more likely than be but B is still plausible. I completely reject C. When we sin we are commanded to repent. Its not a suggestion like "Repent if you feel like it".

Link to comment

I think its pretty clear that Jacob was a polygamist. Now the scriptures say that Jacob either is or will inherit the kingdom of God. Nowhere do we find God condemning Jacob of his polygamy nor Jacob ever repenting of it. So what I conclude from this is either:

A. God commanded Jacob to practice it.

B. Polygamy simply was not an issue that interest God. It may have not been commanded but it never was condemned. At worst, God remained neutral on it.

C. It was a sin but unrepentant sinners like Jacob still can go to heaven.

I personally think A is more likely than be but B is still plausible. I completely reject C. When we sin we are commanded to repent. Its not a suggestion like "Repent if you feel like it".

I think you've summed it up pretty well. Another aspect of Jacob's polygamy that i find compelling is that God used Joseph (a son from a polygamous wife) to save Jacob's entire family from famine. This, along with the obvious teachings concerning the covenants made with each one of jacob's 12 sons (most of which were from polygamous wives) shows, to me, that God was an acknowledged partner in ALL of Jacob's marriages.

:P

Link to comment
Magical Alma writes:

It should be pretty clear that polygamy is THE most spiritual and sacred marriage in existence from accounts in the Bible and other external sources. Therefore, the question you should be asking yourself is: how can I learn to love polygamy?

No. There is at least a few questions you could ask yourself before you salute Polygamy as high and holy. The questions you should be asking yourself go along these lines:

Where in the world did the origination of this doctrine come to Joseph Smith,

What is the context of said origination,

How did the "restorer" of this doctrine practice it?

I think that is a better place to start rather than just jumping into some anti-think tank that does not invite skepticism. good grief.

That is a hard question, but I believe that you must first WILL yourself to love the concept, then you will receive confirmation that you love it. If you continue to throw a cold shoulder, there is no doubt in my mind that you will reject it's premise forever.

Magical Alma. I do appreciate your enthusiasm for the doctrine of polygamy. May I have permission to quote you on another board I frequent? I promise it is not RFM, I don't post there anymore. I'll understand if you say no.

If you study it inside yourself and pray about it, you'll understand that it is absolutely necessary to gain another wife or more, in order for God's kingdom to continue to peacefully thrive. My wife had a hard time accepting this as well, but the Emma Smith D&C passages helped her along through her pride...

Yikes. You must have a very agreeable spouse.

I talked to my stake president and he said that you do not have to practice it to enter into the celestial kingdom.

yep. He is telling you the current situation on plural wifery. But to become a god, that's when your mind expands and polygamy becomes glorious and you will accept it openly as will your wife. The Mormon God concept encapsulates multiple wives.

I know that in the past the church taught that we must practice polygamy to be exalted, but we have not taught that for over 100 years. I personally dont think that doctrine is an eternal truth.

You don't? If Mormonism is true, then that means, per Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, that every good deed you do inches you closer to being crowned a perfect god being with multiple wives. Like Magical Alma said, don't sweat it. You'll receive a supportive witness from the spirit that allows you to live that way. BUT make no mistake, polygamy is your destiny if you qualify that is.

I think people can choose whether they want an eternal marriage with one or more people but both can inherit the highest degree in the celestial kingdom.

How very cafeteria style of you. I do think that you might want to re read the actual Doctrine and Covenants section 132 and reference the teachings that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young expounded on it. I cannot read that canonized scripture and conclude that Jesus Christ was laying polygamy out as a temporary law. The first 6 verses of section 132 lay it out pretty clearly.

Supposedly, Jesus Christ himself said this:

And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

what is the new and everlasting covenant? Plural Marriage. In verse 4, Jesus tell you:

...for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

I think, if Mormonism is true, that Jesus meant what he said. No mincing of words there.

Noggin

Link to comment

what is the new and everlasting covenant? Plural Marriage.

Noggin

I don't read the new and everlasting covenant to be plural marriage. I believe it to be eternal marriage. One where a marriage has been sealed for both time and eternity. It can apply to situations where there are one wife and where there are multiple wives. If you read further into that section it only need apply to a one wife situation.

A muslim who practices polygamy is not under the new and everlasting covenant of marriage simply because he has 4 wives. What you are suggesting is he is because he practices plural marriage. What determines a marriage is under that covenant is the sealing power, and not the number of wives a man has. D&C 132 simply show that the sealing power can be used in situations of one man and one wife or one man and multiple wives.

Link to comment

How very cafeteria style of you. I do think that you might want to re read the actual Doctrine and Covenants section 132 and reference the teachings that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young expounded on it. I cannot read that canonized scripture and conclude that Jesus Christ was laying polygamy out as a temporary law. The first 6 verses of section 132 lay it out pretty clearly.

Supposedly, Jesus Christ himself said this:

And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

what is the new and everlasting covenant? Plural Marriage. In verse 4, Jesus tell you:

...for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

I think, if Mormonism is true, that Jesus meant what he said. No mincing of words there.

Noggin

It would be nice if you actually responded to posts rather than just repeat your claims while ignoring what you don't want to deal with.

From my post directly above yours:

You are required to demonstrate that in 132 plural marriage is equivalent to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and not just that plural marriage must take place under the covenant of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. The New and Everlasting covenant is discussed in the first part, the principle of plural marriage is discussed in the second part. It is not the only section that discusses different, but related principles.

According to Dallin H. Oaks, a marriage between a man and a woman is what the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is: "The ultimate and highest expression of womanhood and manhood is in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. Only this relationship culminates in exaltation." http://www.lds.org/pa/library/0,17905,4931-1,00.html

Noggin:

what is the new and everlasting covenant? Plural Marriage.
That is wrong.

The New and Everlasting Covenant is the fulness of the Gospel:

The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 66: 2). It is new every time it is revealed anew following a period of apostasy. It is everlasting in the sense that it is Godâ??s covenant and has been enjoyed in every gospel dispensation where people have been willing to receive it. The new and everlasting covenant was revealed again to men on earth by Jesus Christ through the prophet Joseph Smith. It contains sacred ordinances administered by priesthood authorityâ??such as baptism and temple marriageâ??that provide for manâ??s salvation, immortality, and eternal life. When people accept the gospel and promise to keep Godâ??s commandments, God covenants to give them the blessings of his new and everlasting covenant.

I will establish my covenant between me and you, Gen. 17: 7. He shall have the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, Num. 25: 13. The people changed the ordinances and broke the everlasting covenant, Isa. 24: 5 (D&C 1: 15). I will make an everlasting covenant with you, Isa. 55: 3 (Jer. 32: 40). It shall be an everlasting covenant, Ezek. 37: 26. The Lord made a new covenant, and the old passed away, Heb. 8: 13. Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant, Heb. 12: 24 (D&C 76: 69). This is a new and an everlasting covenant, D&C 22: 1. I have sent my everlasting covenant into the world, D&C 45: 9 (D&C 49: 9). The Lord sent the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, D&C 66: 2 (D&C 133: 57). In order to obtain the highest degree in the celestial kingdom, a man must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, D&C 131: 1-2. The new and everlasting covenant was instituted for the fulness of the Lordâ??s glory, D&C 132: 6, 19.

Guide to the Scriptures: New and Everlasting Covenant

Please stop telling LDS what they believe and do some actual research on it.

Link to comment

An actual teaching of BY:

President Brigham Young said: "All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the Devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, . . . that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 62-63).

Gospel Principles:

The New and Everlasting Covenant

The fulness of the gospel is called the new and everlasting covenant. It includes the covenants made at baptism, during the sacrament, in the temple, and at any other time. The Lord calls it "everlasting" because it is ordained by an everlasting God and because the covenant will never be changed. He gave this same covenant to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and other prophets. In this sense it is not new. But the Lord calls it "new" because each time the gospel is restored after being taken from the earth, it is new to the people who receive it (see Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 37:26).

When we accept the new and everlasting covenant, we agree to repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, receive our endowments, receive the covenant of marriage in the temple, and follow and obey Christ to the end of our lives. As we keep our covenants, our Heavenly Father promises us that we will receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom (see D&C 132:20-24; see also chapter 47 in this manual).

Eternal Marriage does not equal Plural Marriage: Eternal Marriage and Look Forward with an Eye of FaithNo talk about the need for multiple partners.

To be exalted in the highest degree

and continue eternally in family relationships, we

must enter into “the new and everlasting covenant

of marriage” and be true to that covenant. In other

words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining

the highest degree of celestial glory. (See D&C

131:1–4.) All who are worthy to enter into the new

and everlasting covenant of marriage will have that

opportunity, whether in this life or the next.

From Principles of the Gospel
The Prophet Joseph Smith said this meant that those who were

married in the new and everlasting covenant and were true to

their covenants, that after they passed through the resurrection

they would be able to live together again as husband and wife and

have what he calls here, a continuation of the seeds.

Teachings of Harold B. Lee
Link to comment

IMO when I breaking the term down of a "new and everlasting covenant" would simply be a revealed covenant made between God and man that is everlasting in scope. It does not end but continues. So in the connection to marriage, its a covenant made between man and his wife and God where the covenant made endures beyond death and into the next life. Its not a temporary covenant like most marriages in the world are that end at death.

Link to comment
According to Dallin H. Oaks, a marriage between a man and a woman is what the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is: "The ultimate and highest expression of womanhood and manhood is in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. Only this relationship culminates in exaltation." http://www.lds.org/pa/library/0,17905,4931-1,00.html
Noggin wrote: what is the new and everlasting covenant? Plural Marriage.
Calmoriah wrote: That is wrong.

Please stop telling LDS what they believe and do some actual research on it.

You allow Mr. Oaks to reinterpret what Jesus Christ supposedly laid out in D&C 132. That is fine. Really, it's the only way out for you. Re read the section. And Mr. Oaks graciously leaves the door wide open for any possible future reinstatement of polygamy, btw. I get that in 1890, polygamy was revoked, but men are still practicing a form of the law of polygamy when their first wife dies and they marry another woman for eternity (assuming she is not sealed to another man). That man is therefore sealed, polygamously, to two women... forever.

D&C 132:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubinesâ??

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

Get over your doctrine. It's confusing to see you get irritated about this. Is D&C 132 your scripture or not?

Noggin

Link to comment

Get over your doctrine.

Noggin

Well, well, well Noggin, it hasn't been demonstrated that God is against polygamy, in fact, looking at the OT, it seems that if anything, He was for it, so it's not a matter of us getting over our doctrine, it more of a case of the critics getting over themselves.

Link to comment

Get over your doctrine. It's confusing to see you get irritated about this. Is D&C 132 your scripture or not?

Your definition cannot be supported by the scriptures.

D&C 132: 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto themâ??Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depthsâ??then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Verse 19 doesn't even mention a plurality of wives. As long as a marriage between "a man" and "a wife" is "sealed unto them by . . . him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of the priesthood" that couple will receive "their exaltation and glory in all things . . . which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

The new and everlasting covenant of marriage includes the principle of a plurality of wives but, according to verse 19, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is not solely "plural marriage."

Link to comment

Well, well, well Noggin, it hasn't been demonstrated that God is against polygamy, in fact, looking at the OT, it seems that if anything, He was for it, so it's not a matter of us getting over our doctrine, it more of a case of the critics getting over themselves.

Actually, in fact, looking at the 132nd section of the D&C, your god is completely pro polygamy... to the point that later as the doctrine took foot, your god sends an angel with a flaming sword to enforce Smith's supposed reluctancy to live it (wasn't he already living it since mid 1830's?). Calmoriah appeared to suggest that polygamy is not an eternal law. That's what I got from his writing at least. I refuted that by quoting the first 6 verses of D&C 132.

That is why I suggested he/she get over their doctrine. He/she appeared to have a problem with it being decreed by Jesus Christ (supposedly) himself that it was, indeed, an eternal doctrine/ law/ requirement/ construct of heavenly living.

Noggin

Link to comment

Your definition cannot be supported by the scriptures.

Verse 19 doesn't even mention a plurality of wives. As long as a marriage between "a man" and "a wife" is "sealed unto them by . . . him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of the priesthood" that couple will receive "their exaltation and glory in all things . . . which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

The new and everlasting covenant of marriage includes the principle of a plurality of wives but, according to verse 19, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is not solely "plural marriage."

Nighthawke. Please. The entire section 132 was triggered in response to Smith

hav[ing] inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubinesâ??

Reread the entire section. Take note of careful catch phrases, admonishments, and explanations that Jesus is supposedly saying.

"Do the works of Abraham" right after explaining the how's and why's re: Sarah and Hagar come into play

Also take note of the several locations where Jesus outlines what can and cannot be construed as adultery. If one man was marrying one woman, as you and Calmoriah and many other LDS practitioners claim, why would Jesus Christ need to explain that when a man has ten virgins given to him under this law, he cannot commit adultery?

Noggin

Link to comment

Actually, in fact, looking at the 132nd section of the D&C, your god is completely pro polygamy... to the point that later as the doctrine took foot, your god sends an angel with a flaming sword to enforce Smith's supposed reluctancy to live it (wasn't he already living it since mid 1830's?). Calmoriah appeared to suggest that polygamy is not an eternal law. That's what I got from his writing at least. I refuted that by quoting the first 6 verses of D&C 132.

That is why I suggested he/she get over their doctrine. He/she appeared to have a problem with it being decreed by Jesus Christ (supposedly) himself that it was, indeed, an eternal doctrine/ law/ requirement/ construct of heavenly living.

Noggin

Cal is a she-type person.

What do you think is meant by an eternal law? When you say it, are you saying a law that is always in force?

Also, section 132 was give, IIRC since I don't have any info here right now, was given in the early 1830's.

Link to comment

Cal is a she-type person.

What do you think is meant by an eternal law? When you say it, are you saying a law that is always in force?

Also, section 132 was give, IIRC since I don't have any info here right now, was given in the early 1830's.

Hi Urroner.

Look, I think it was Clamoriah who set me straight about 4 months ago when I was under the impression that in order to gain exhaltation, one had to be polygamous in marriage while polygamy was in effect. Calmoriah told me that they had many pioneer ancestors who were not polygamous and never wrote in their journals how despondent that made them feel for not qualifying for godhood. I thanked that person (her, I gather now) profusely. I am open to making mistakes. No shame in that.

Eternal law, the way I studied it and learned it, means that it is a law whereupon the heavens are governed. As I learned about how polygamy unfolded in the 19th century, I allowed in my mind room for god to push and pull with his creation (earth) as he saw fit to bring to pass his plan for his children. Therefore polygamy could be revoked on earth. But I did not permit that an eternal law, such as Polygamy, could be revoked in the heavens. I fully comprehended that the Mormon god was a polygamist and that all who entered into the highest kingdom of heaven, with their wives, who qualified and thus intended to have their crown of godhood placed upon them, did so with the embracing of polygamy.

Noggin

Link to comment
You allow Mr. Oaks to reinterpret what Jesus Christ supposedly laid out in D&C 132.
You are conveniently ignoring all the rest of the material (and I posted merely a portion of it as it got repetitive quickly) that demonstrates that it is not just Brother Oaks, but everyone else in the leadership that interprets (not reinterprets) the New and Everlasting Covenant as the fulness of the Gospel. Even BY and JS saw it that way.

Plural marriage is a part of that Covenant and is, imo, an eternal principle, but it may not be an essential part just like the WoW is an eternal principle, but since it wasn't required for Saints in all ages, it does not appear to be necessary for exaltation, but rather a willingness to follow all that we are commanded to do...the current commandment with regards to Plural marriage is not to engage in it. Eternal Marriage (as opposed to Plural Marriage) is a necessary ordinance due to the essential nature of the exalted being--man and woman together.

Link to comment

Calmoriah appeared to suggest that polygamy is not an eternal law. That's what I got from his writing at least. I refuted that by quoting the first 6 verses of D&C 132.

That is why I suggested he/she get over their doctrine. He/she appeared to have a problem with it being decreed by Jesus Christ (supposedly) himself that it was, indeed, an eternal doctrine/ law/ requirement/ construct of heavenly living.

Noggin

Then you are not reading all of my posts:

Acceptance of plural marriage if undertaken under the new and everlasting covenant as an eternal principle is likely, imo, required for exaltation. But that does not mean that one must be a participant in a plural marriage, but rather support it.

Link to comment
But I did not permit that an eternal law, such as Polygamy, could be revoked in the heavens.
I would say that an eternal law/principle is not revoked, but that the Lord, who is the one defining these for us, is the one who decides when and where and how they are to be invoked.

Circumscision is taught as an eternal principle that was invoked during a specific period of time for God's people. WoW is taught as an eternal principle that is current active.

Not all eternal principles are required for all people. Some are necessary for exaltation, some are not; but acceptance of them as eternal principles--as commandments from God the Eternal and Everlasting--is a necessary requirement.

add-on: I would also urge caution in assuming a practice of an eternal principle is the actual eternal principle rather than just one of possibly many expressions of that principle.

The principle of tithing is actually an expression of the law of consecration as is the WoW and imo, the law of circumscision and others.

I believe that temple/eternal marriage is an expression of the law of chastity and is seen in both monogamous and polygamous marriage when done in covenant with the Lord.

Aspects of these expressions may also be seen as expressions of other laws/principles such as the law of obedience.

Exalting one aspect of eternal principles over others may actually prevent us from living the New and Everlasting Covenant in the way the Lord intends us to. Remember that the New and Everlasting Covenant...according to the scriptures...is the fulness of the Gospel. We must live each and every principle in context with the others in order to live it successfully.

Link to comment

You are conveniently ignoring all the rest of the material (and I posted merely a portion of it as it got repetitive quickly) that demonstrates that it is not just Brother Oaks, but everyone else in the leadership that interprets (not reinterprets) the New and Everlasting Covenant as the fulness of the Gospel. Even BY and JS saw it that way.

Plural marriage is a part of that Covenant and is, imo, an eternal principle, but it may not be an essential part just like the WoW is an eternal principle, but since it wasn't required for Saints in all ages, it does not appear to be necessary for exaltation, but rather a willingness to follow all that we are commanded to do...the current commandment with regards to Plural marriage is not to engage in it. Eternal Marriage (as opposed to Plural Marriage) is a necessary ordinance due to the essential nature of the exalted being--man and woman together.

Right, Calmoriah. I understand that the party lines today interpret celestial marriage that way. The living prophets today have reinterpreted what Jesus himself laid out in the first 6 verses of D&C 132. They had to. The early prophets fully understood that polygamy was part and parcel to godhood.

Calmoriah writes:

As to nobody liking to talk about [polygamy], could have fooled me by the number of times it's brought up on the board.

I submit that this is the only place it can be talked about unofficially officially. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to be able to have these discussions. I never, in three decades, ever, had anything remotely close to this type of discussion in any of my EQ or sunday school classes. If I had, I promise I probably would not have left the church. My experience is that discussion like this is discouraged heavily with the ramrod of "When the Bretheren speak, the thinking has been done"

**he shudders** bleh!

Calmoriah writes:

As a practical demonstration, there were many righteous saints that heard the talks that BY and others gave about the principle of plural marriage that were not participants in a plural marriage. Reading their journals and other writings would indicate they had no doubt that they were still eligible for exaltation without it.

I was right. It was you who set me straight a while back. But you are forgetting the various mandates that the eternal principle of celestial marriage follows. I am still willing to concede that not everyone lived polygamy (those are the facts, not a difficult concession), but I am NOT able to concede that those in the church 1830 - 1890 thought god was an perfect entity sans polygamy. They perceived him with many wives. Right? Heck. There are many early saints who preached that Jesus was a polygamist. Calmoriah, what is your take? Do you think that, in general, most 1830-1890 latter day saints perceived the Mormon god as a polygamous being or no?

Noggin

post script, I read where you said you would live polygamy tomorrow if it was reinstated. Hats off to you. That's a testament to your faith. Not even a flinch though? Or sense of dread? Twinge of jealousy?

Link to comment
Right, Calmoriah. I understand that the party lines today interpret celestial marriage that way.

Are we at least clear that the New and Everlasting Covenant is NOT Plural marriage, but the fulness of the Gospel?

Link to comment

Are we at least clear that the New and Everlasting Covenant is NOT Plural marriage, but the fulness of the Gospel?

not really. I know, I admit I am dense. I just can't get away from what your section 132 has Jesus saying.

The way I see it, 1830-1890 was a time period where the new and everlasting covenant was understood to be

1. new and

2. everlasting and

3. included polygamy as the highest expression of marriage

4. included polygamy as part and parcel to exhaltation

which is how Jesus Christ laid it out in the first 6 verses of section 132. There is also an expounding of the law in these verses:

Jesus Christ gives the "law"

28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

Jesus Christ explains what the law is as in olden times

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loinsâ??from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Josephâ??which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the cstars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

Jesus Christ extends the same blessing to Joseph Smith:

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

Jesus Christ explains how to qualify for the blessings by doing the works of abraham:

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

Jesus Christ explains that if Joseph Smith does not enter into the law (the works of Abraham, i.e. polygamous marriage, Smith cannot receive the Abrahamic blessings)

33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

Jesus Christ then outlines, in no uncertain terms, the hammer that strikes the anvil of this law, which is polygamy:

34 God acommanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

Here Jesus gives a description of what an exhaltation consists of:

55 But if [Emma Smith] will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

Clearly Jesus Christ is telling you that part of Joseph Smith's exhaltation is having an hundred fold of many things including... wives.

That is the eternal law I was taught. I cannot see how an eternal law can be revoked. Whereas once upon a time exhaltation included polygamy and now today, some how Latter Day Saints believe it does not. I have just laid out why I assert that Mormons, regardless of how ardently they believe that they are NOT working towards an exhaltation that includes polygamy, they really and truly are.

It's kind of a sore spot for new converts, which, imo, is why you'll see general authorities play UP as to how polygamy is "behind us now" and not required for exhaltation. And that is true for earth bound Mormons who are not TODAY required to live it... and all the while playing DOWN as to how essential it was between the years 1830-1890 for a couple to attain to the highest and fullest exhaltation of godhood. And yes, I get that many Mormons were not polygamous, but the understanding, I believe, was that when they died, if they wanted godhood, they would be as god is... a polygamist.

Noggin

Link to comment

I think its pretty clear that Jacob was a polygamist. Now the scriptures say that Jacob either is or will inherit the kingdom of God. Nowhere do we find God condemning Jacob of his polygamy nor Jacob ever repenting of it. So what I conclude from this is either:

A. God commanded Jacob to practice it.

B. Polygamy simply was not an issue that interest God. It may have not been commanded but it never was condemned. At worst, God remained neutral on it.

C. It was a sin but unrepentant sinners like Jacob still can go to heaven.

I personally think A is more likely than be but B is still plausible. I completely reject C. When we sin we are commanded to repent. Its not a suggestion like "Repent if you feel like it".

Whenever, I ask an LDS person this - it is ".....I personally think...." - NOW, show me where in the Bible does it say that? The Bible DOES NOT SUPPORT your opinion. SHow me your Biblical reference.

Also, show me the Biblical reference that God condeming Judas hanging himself or Lot sleeping with his daughters?(of course you won't find that..)

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...