cinepro Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 It's not until verse 29 that he gets back to Abraham and explains how that fits with the N&E Covenant and gives seperately the Law of Abraham, which is plural marriage. To me it is very clear they are separate and that the Law of Abraham is a part of the N&E Covenant but is not the covenant which includes all "covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations".I'm always leery of explanations that require the scriptures to talk about two different things using seemingly similar language and without any indicator that two different things are being discussed. It just seems to be bad form. But maybe that's just me.But frankly, I find the doctrine in verses 15-17 to be pretty dang interesting as well: 15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
Bunny Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I just want to make sure I've got this straight. You are so sure that there is only one way to interpret this particular section of the Doctrine and Covenants, that you are willing to alienate at least half of the active members of your ward (probably more than half the active members of the ward) in order to share with them the ONLY true interpretation?Why am I not surprised?
structurecop Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I just want to make sure I've got this straight. You are so sure that there is only one way to interpret this particular section of the Doctrine and Covenants, that you are willing to alienate at least half of the active members of your ward (probably more than half the active members of the ward) in order to share with them the ONLY true interpretation?Why am I not surprised?One thing is certain: There was only one way that Mormons interpreted this scripture prior to 1890. And I, for one, am not at all sheepish about alienating people by telling the truth.
ttribe Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 One thing is certain: There was only one way that Mormons interpreted this scripture prior to 1890. And I, for one, am not at all sheepish about alienating people by telling the truth.Every single Mormon interpreted that way prior to 1890?
structurecop Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Every single Mormon interpreted that way prior to 1890?Do you have evidence to the contrary?
ttribe Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Do you have evidence to the contrary?No...but then I'm not making the assertion that all the members of a particular community interpreted a specific verse of scripture identically over 110 years ago...that would be your burden.
structurecop Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 No...but then I'm not making the assertion that all the members of a particular community interpreted a specific verse of scripture identically over 110 years ago...that would be your burden.My point has been proven ad nauseum by primary and secondary sources dealing with pre- and post-Manifesto polygamy.
ttribe Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 My point has been proven ad nauseum by primary and secondary sources dealing with pre- and post-Manifesto polygamy.If your point was that many, or perhaps even most, but not all. The fact is, there is no reasonable way to support the assertion of "all". You were overstating your case; that's all I was getting at.
structurecop Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 If your point was that many, or perhaps even most, but not all. The fact is, there is no reasonable way to support the assertion of "all". You were overstating your case; that's all I was getting at.I would qualify with "most" or "many," but I don't think that's quite forceful enough. There may have been some Mormons who were confused about what D&C 132 was hinting at, but public discourses by early prophets combined with geographic proximity of the vast majority of Mormons to those who were practicing the principle should have removed all doubt. And I guess there may have been some Mormons who, because of age or mental disability, may not have comprehended the implications of these references.
ttribe Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I would qualify with "most" or "many," but I don't think that's quite forceful enough. There may have been some Mormons who were confused about what D&C 132 was hinting at, but public discourses by early prophets combined with geographic proximity of the vast majority of Mormons to those who were practicing the principle should have removed all doubt. And I guess there may have been some Mormons who, because of age or mental disability, may not have comprehended the implications of these references.Ohhhh...so it was only the dumb and feeble!? C'mon. My point is you have no way of magically seeing inside their heads...you can't KNOW anything about all people from 110 years ago...except, perhaps, that they breathed air.
structurecop Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Ohhhh...so it was only the dumb and feeble!? C'mon.C'mon what?
Earl Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I have found that a careful reading shows that the revelation came as a result of the question as to why Abraham could have so many wives. The Lord then replies as to the law that allows it which is the new and everlasting covenant, which includes marriage. The New and Everlasting covenant is not just marriage and not just plural marriage. Actually, I understand that the detailed historical record suggests that Section 132 came as a result of Joseph going to the Lord for a revelation to convince Emma that the practice of polygamy was acceptable to the Lord.Earl
structurecop Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 My point is you have no way of magically seeing inside their heads...you can't KNOW anything about all people from 110 years ago...except, perhaps, that they breathed air.That's debatable.
JackNimble Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Actually, I understand that the detailed historical record suggests that Section 132 came as a result of Joseph going to the Lord for a revelation to convince Emma that the practice of polygamy was acceptable to the Lord.EarlIt was first told to Joseph in 1831. The revelation was recorded in July of 1843.
Deborah Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 One thing is certain: There was only one way that Mormons interpreted this scripture prior to 1890. Doubtful since most Mormons prior to 1890 didn't participate in plural marriage. It was always a minority. Since some were not participants but were sealed to one wife they expected the blessings promised under the N&E Covenant.
Deborah Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Actually, I understand that the detailed historical record suggests that Section 132 came as a result of Joseph going to the Lord for a revelation to convince Emma that the practice of polygamy was acceptable to the LordRegardless of why Section 132 may have come about, the revelation on plural marriage was a result of an inquiry, as were all Joseph's revelations, as stated in the first verse: "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??" Joseph knew about the principle long before it was made known to others.
kamenraider Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Kamenraider I have seen you corrected about this quote many times. If you use this revelation one more time without a source and disclaimer about its authenticity you will have a very long vacation from this board. Mod Um, don't you know the difference between the June 26, 1882 revelation to John Taylor, and the September 27, 1886 one? The former is the one I quoted above FOR THE FIRST TIME on this board.The latter is the one I quoted before and which I posted a photograph of -- the same one that the First Presidency said in 1933 was only a "pretended revelation" and that "no such revelation exists."
Calm Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Doubtful since most Mormons prior to 1890 didn't participate in plural marriage. It was always a minority. Since some were not participants but were sealed to one wife they expected the blessings promised under the N&E Covenant.I've always wondered what those who think that all or even most early Saints who supposedly believed the New and Everlasting Covenant---that which is required for exaltation--was identical with plural marriage were thinking as the majority (2/3s IIRC) went on their merry way NOT seeking plural marriage opportunities when it was likely available to them (while most plural marriages were with two wives, it seems to me strange that a man would take more than one if he truly thought he was depriving another Saint of an opportunity for exaltation). Certainly there are teachings about the necessity of undergoing baptism and temple marriage when you have the opportunity and not putting it off until the next life because you may have blown your chance, why would this same principle not apply for plural marriage?So if one assumes that most of the Saints accepted the N&E as plural marriage, here they were going through massive sacrifice and hardships for---if they were lucky---second best, glorified but not exalted--and since only exalted beings participate in marriage, it would seem that even their one marriage relationship had a good chance to come to naught in the next life.Yet I've never read any concerns about such things.
kamenraider Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 It seems to me that plural marriage is the exception and not the rule...not vice versa: Jacob 2Did you notice the words "this people" and "among you" in there?The revelation given to Joseph Smith on July 17, 1831 contains this: "Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."
kamenraider Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I've always wondered what those who think that all or even most early Saints who supposedly believed the New and Everlasting Covenant---that which is required for exaltation--was identical with plural marriage were thinking as the majority (2/3s IIRC) went on their merry way NOT seeking plural marriage opportunities when it was likely available to them (while most plural marriages were with two wives, it seems to me strange that a man would take more than one if he truly thought he was depriving another Saint of an opportunity for exaltation). Certainly there are teachings about the necessity of undergoing baptism and temple marriage when you have the opportunity and not putting it off until the next life because you may have blown your chance, why would this same principle not apply for plural marriage?So if one assumes that most of the Saints accepted the N&E as plural marriage, here they were going through massive sacrifice and hardships for---if they were lucky---second best, glorified but not exalted--and since only exalted beings participate in marriage, it would seem that even their one marriage relationship had a good chance to come to naught in the next life.Yet I've never read any concerns about such things.I've always wondered why only a minority of LDS members hold temple recommends. Since temple ordinances are necessary for exaltation, you'd think that more members would be interested and temple worthy.Nobody can ultimately deprive another person of an opportunity for exaltation, btw. They have to do that themselves.
Calm Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I've always wondered why only a minority of LDS members hold temple recommends. Since temple ordinances are necessary for exaltation, you'd think that more members would be interested and temple worthy.Is it typical of these nonTR holders to be full tithe payers, hold to the Word of Wisdom, donate significant time and effort to teaching, service, etc.I'm talking about member who did everything BUT engage in plural marriage. Why do all the rest if one refused to take the last step believing it was that last step of plural marriage that meant everything when it came to exaltation.When one considers what was being asked of LDS members (often being directed to move after establishing oneself, putting significant time and effort into temple building which benefit would be useless for them if they did not participate in plural marriage according to the idea that it was required for exaltation, for example) at that time, it seems strange they would put up with those hardships and sacrifices and yet not expect to get something out of them eternally speaking than would someone who lived a good Christian life, accepted the gospel and was baptized, but chose to stay in the East, go on to California or some other more congenial location.And this includes those who got married in the temple monogamously. Why bother being married in the temple if one wasn't a participant in a plural marriage if eternal marriage was only for those in plural relationships?
Lachoneus Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Do you have evidence to the contrary? What about Franklin D. Richards's A Compendium of the Principles of the Gospel 118-137 (1882)?
Deborah Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 kamenraider, I'll repeat the question I asked before: Question for all the guys saying that the commandment has not been rescinded. How many wives do you currently have and if you only have one, why, since the commandment is still in force in your eyes?
Deborah Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 "Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."Where in there does it mention plural marriage? In any case, prophets since Wilford Woodruff have said that plural marriage is not to be practiced. We listen to the living prophets.
consiglieri Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Question for all the guys saying that the commandment has not been rescinded. How many wives do you currently have and if you only have one, why, since the commandment is still in force in your eyes?I have two.But it's not my fault.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.