Sealed... for Time and for All Eternity

[Calm]

Yeah, as I noted in that post, it was "during the time that polygamy was practiced."

The quote does not specify the period "the time" refers to, just that it occurred: "there was a time when the patriarchal priesthood and second anointings were conferred only upon those who had entered into the practice of plural marriage".

Is there any evidence to doubt that during part of the time (perhaps even the majority of the time) polygamy was practiced, such blessings were given as well to monogamous couples?

That for a time they were limited to polygamous couples does not mean that was the only proper way to give it. That they were also given to monogamous couples would seem to indicate there was eventually an understanding that it was the right and proper way of doing things, much like originally family sealings were made with church leaders until further instruction was given when the Lord was asked and He gave the correct order of the sealing ordinance, which is with one's own lineage, not being 'adopted' into another's.

The Church teaches that revelation is not delivered to us fully formed as if it were Athena being 'delivered' from her father's head not only an adult, but in a full set of armour.

Instead we are told that revelation, learning and understanding comes to us line upon line. It would seem therefore that later understanding is likely to be a fuller understanding of actual truth so simply claiming "that's the way they used to do things in the Church" really doesn't work for devout LDS....though it can work for someone who believes the Church leadership is in apostasy.

[Calm]

If there were something inherently wrong now with the state of being married polygamously rather than just with cohabitating in that state, then serial polygamous sealings would not be allowed after the death of a first wife, nor would any divorced men be cleared to have a second woman sealed to them without the first sealing being cancelled.

I doubt Deborah or Juliann (and certainly not I'm not) is claiming there is something "inherently wrong" with polygamous marriage. That would be basically the same as claiming the prophets are currently in apostasy for not allowing such today.

The First Presidency decided not to let them get sealed in the temple though. They felt it would be too confusing to try to enforce a ban on polygamy in some countries but not others.

CFR please or is this your opinion?

But what you seem to be missing is the seriousness that the leadership treats polygamous marriages today---it is an excommunicable offense. And while Pres. McKay may have allowed converts who were already in such a marriage to continue (likely because of the extreme hardship that family would have had to live with if divorce was gone through) to be baptized, current leadership has made it clear that such does not happen today; even though they do not encourage divorce, they do not allow baptism to occur. There are few other acts that draw such a sharp line, I know several people with word of wisdom, tithing and other issues who were allowed baptism due to the extreme hardship that would be required for them to be in full compliance prior to baptism.

Somehow this doesn't seem to be just an issue of convenience to avoid confusion that you seem to claiming that it is.

[Calm]

I don't think that believing that plural marriage is an eternal principle is tantamount to believing that modern LDS leaders are in apostasy.

This, as far as I'm concerned, is not about whether or not plural marriage is an eternal principle. That the Lord has allowed and even commanded it in the past is generally accepted by devout LDS.

What is being debated here is the jump to the conclusion that the only form of marriage that will occur in the next life will exist in polygamous relationships (since marriage is only between exalted couples, if one insists that plural marriage is required for exaltation, only plural marriage will exist in the hereafter).

There has been no time period in the Church where marriages were only performed for those in polygamous marriages in the temple. There is no indication that one must actually live the principle as oppose to accept it as God's Will for some. That some in the past might have believed that this was so is not proof that their assumptions were correct.

I see Jacob's comment as demonstrating that plural marriage is not considered the standard form of marriage by the Lord, something that it would surely be considered if it was the only valid form of marriage through the eternities. After all, there was no legal reason or necessity for Jacob's people to refrain from polygamy.

[juliann]

David O. McKay did decide to let some polygamists in places like Egypt and Nigeria join the Church without giving up their wives in the early 60's. The First Presidency decided not to let them get sealed in the temple though. They felt it would be too confusing to try to enforce a ban on polygamy in some countries but not others.

No references. Again. The Manifesto has never been revoked. But you know that.

I think that the two main reasons why it is not practiced today are various state laws against things such as unlawful cohabitation, and PR considerations. If there were something inherently wrong now with the state of being married polygamously rather than just with cohabitating in that state, then serial polygamous sealings would not be allowed after the death of a first wife, nor would any divorced men be cleared to have a second woman sealed to them without the first sealing being cancelled.

So the church has abandoned an essential salvational doctrine because of "PR"? That is the prophet leading us astray. If you don't want to call it apostasy don't...it means exactly that to every other Mormon. Especially because there is no law against living together. Bigamy is a crime but the polygamists are not marrying more than one wife, additional marriages are done within their own temples...which means nothing to the state. But you know that.

And for the 50th time, all women are sealed to all husbands when work for the dead is done so your tired excuse is meaningless unless you are also rewriting the rules for proxy covenants. But you know that.

Advocate polygamy all you want but you need to stop making stuff up and sneaking in pretend "facts".

[kamenraider]

to the saints of Joseph's day who were called to live the law. It is not given to us at this time and in fact we are commanded not to have plural marriages.

As was noted in another recent thread, the Church voted upon D&C 132 and other additions to the D&C in 1880 as "binding upon us as a people and as a Church." Here's the quote that was posted there:

In the October 1880 general conference, President George Q. Cannon held up copies of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and said, â??As there have been additions made â?¦ by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the Conference, to see whether the Conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.â? President Joseph F. Smith so moved, it was seconded, and the congregation voted affirmatively. (Deseret Evening News, 11 Oct. 1880, p. 2, col. 4.)

In 1895, George Q. Cannon made a clearer distinction between what is binding and not binding on us in the D&C:

There are revelations in that book [D&C] concerning counsel and the management of affairs that are not binding upon us, only so far as they are applicable to us. When, however, it comes to the revelations concerning principle, then those revelations are unalterable and they will stand as long as heaven and earth will endure, because they are true. I wish you would see this distinction, my brethren and sisters, and in reading the book have it in your minds.

--George Q. Cannon, Sept. 7, 1895, Brian Stuy ed., Collected Discourses Vol. 4, pg. 340.

If you can show me a specific place where we are "commanded" not to have plural marriages, I would be interested to see it.

[thesometimesaint]

First things first, OD1 1890

Then Declaration 2 in 1904.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto

The "Second Manifesto" was announced at the general conference of the church held on April 6, 1904. At a public meeting, Smith announced that he would like to read an "official statement" that he had prepared so that his words "may not be misunderstood or misquoted". Smith read:

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.

JOSEPH F. SMITH,

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[5]

Francis M. Lyman, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, then presented the following resolution of endorsement, which was seconded by B.H. Roberts and accepted unanimously by those in attendance at the conference:

Resolved that we, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in General Conference assembled, hereby approve and endorse the statement and declaration of President Joseph F. Smith just made to this Conference concerning plural marriages, and will support the courts of the Church in the enforcement thereof.[5]

Smith's official statement was later published in the Improvement Era, an official magazine of the church.[1]

[ttribe]

If you can show me a specific place where we are "commanded" not to have plural marriages, I would be interested to see it.

You are aware of the OD's on the subject. You are aware of the existing scripture in Jacob on the subject. Yet, you keep beating this drum. Perhaps, you'll make your point?

[kamenraider]

The quote does not specify the period "the time" refers to, just that it occurred: "there was a time when the patriarchal priesthood and second anointings were conferred only upon those who had entered into the practice of plural marriage".

Is there any evidence to doubt that during part of the time (perhaps even the majority of the time) polygamy was practiced, such blessings were given as well to monogamous couples?

That for a time they were limited to polygamous couples does not mean that was the only proper way to give it. That they were also given to monogamous couples would seem to indicate there was eventually an understanding that it was the right and proper way of doing things, much like originally family sealings were made with church leaders until further instruction was given when the Lord was asked and He gave the correct order of the sealing ordinance, which is with one's own lineage, not being 'adopted' into another's.

The Church teaches that revelation is not delivered to us fully formed as if it were Athena being 'delivered' from her father's head not only an adult, but in a full set of armour.

Instead we are told that revelation, learning and understanding comes to us line upon line. It would seem therefore that later understanding is likely to be a fuller understanding of actual truth so simply claiming "that's the way they used to do things in the Church" really doesn't work for devout LDS....though it can work for someone who believes the Church leadership is in apostasy.

In the book Nauvoo Sealings Adoptions and Anointings by Lisle G. Brown, pg. 361, I read that out of 594 individual second anointing ordinances performed in Nauvoo, only 172 were for men and 422 were for women. Keep in mind that these were not given to any single people, and do the math.

If there was a change in how this was done, I think the most logical time for it would have been when the Church stopped performing plural marriages. If there is any evidence to suggest that it was done earlier than that, I'd like to see it.

[kamenraider]

You are aware of the OD's on the subject. You are aware of the existing scripture in Jacob on the subject. Yet, you keep beating this drum. Perhaps, you'll make your point?

Does OD 1 "command" us to not marry plurally? Are there any other OD's that I'm not aware of where we are "commanded" in that regard? Was Jacob 2 written to a specific group of unrighteous people, or to everyone, including members of the Church living celestial laws?

[kamenraider]

First things first, OD1 1890

Then Declaration 2 in 1904.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto

The "Second Manifesto" was announced at the general conference of the church held on April 6, 1904. At a public meeting, Smith announced that he would like to read an "official statement" that he had prepared so that his words "may not be misunderstood or misquoted". Smith read:

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.

JOSEPH F. SMITH,

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[5]

Francis M. Lyman, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, then presented the following resolution of endorsement, which was seconded by B.H. Roberts and accepted unanimously by those in attendance at the conference:

Resolved that we, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in General Conference assembled, hereby approve and endorse the statement and declaration of President Joseph F. Smith just made to this Conference concerning plural marriages, and will support the courts of the Church in the enforcement thereof.[5]

Smith's official statement was later published in the Improvement Era, an official magazine of the church.[1]

This is an interesting statement:

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If this statement is true, then all the post-Manifesto marriages must have been done independent of the Church, don't you think? Either that or Joseph F. Smith wasn't telling the truth.

[ttribe]

Does OD 1 "command" us to not marry plurally? Are there any other OD's that I'm not aware of where we are "commanded" in that regard?

Given that it has the force of a commandment, I'm having some difficulty figuring out why you are unnecessarily parsing this down to a legalistic argument.

Was Jacob 2 written to a specific group of unrighteous people, or to everyone, including members of the Church living celestial laws?

Oh stop...do I really need to be more clear on my opinion of your reading of Jacob 2? We've already had the conversation. What else do you intend to ignore from the scriptures?

Again, you've taken this thread through these same questions multiple times. Please spare us further suspense - make your point.

[kamenraider]

CFR please or is this your opinion?

Here:

As early as 1962, church president David O. McKay was inclined to allow wholesale baptisms of Nigerian polygamists on humanitarian grounds and LDS temple marriages for these legal polygamists. He was supported by his lawyer-counselor Henry D. Moyle, who argued that the Manifesto was inapplicable to Third World polygamy. However, they were dissuaded by Counselor Hugh B. Brown's concern that this would confuse the church's policy toward illegal polygamy in North America. Brown, also a lawyer and a lifelong opponent of the fundamentalists, had drafted the 1935 law that made unlawful cohabitation a felony in Utah. (230)

Again, about 1979, Apostle LeGrand Richards reported that a meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had just debated whether to sanction legal polygamy in Nigeria and elsewhere. However, this temple meeting tabled the discussion, thereby continuing by default the policy of requiring legal polygamists to become monogamists. Apostle Richards explained, "The problem is that if we allow it in other places [such as Africa], the people could argue that it should be allowed here [in Utah], too." (231)

-footnotes-

230. Transcript of First Presidency meeting, 19 September 1962; Joseph W. Musser diary, 28 March, 1935; Truth 10 (November 1944): 144.

231. Richards described the meeting and made that statement to Paul and Margaret Toscano, according to their letter to the author, 16 September 1990.

--D. Michael Quinn, Plural Marriage and Mormon Fundamentalism, in Fundamentalisms and Society, ed. by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Applebee, Chicago Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press 1993, pg. 275. See also Dialogue Vol. 31, No. 2 (Summer 1998), pg. 63.

The same article was reprinted in Dialogue, IIRC. There are also a couple of entries about this in Quinn's Mormon Hierarchy Vol. 2, in the chronology in the back, under the year 1962.

But what you seem to be missing is the seriousness that the leadership treats polygamous marriages today---it is an excommunicable offense.

Did the guy who began that policy (Joseph F. Smith) ever violate it?

[kamenraider]

Again, you've taken this thread through these same questions multiple times. Please spare us further suspense - make your point.

My point was, that I'm not aware of any place where we are specifically commanded not to marry plurally.

[thesometimesaint]

kamenraider:

I'm with ttribe here. What is your point?

We still find a rare LDS that practices polygamy, and we excommunicate them. That is the limit of what we do. Are you trying to imply that somehow we practice polygamy today?

[ttribe]

My point was, that I'm not aware of any place where we are specifically commanded not to marry plurally.

No...that's not your point; that's your strategy. The logical conclusions that extend from this argument are the real "point". I'd just like you to state them specifically.

[kamenraider]

kamenraider:

I'm with ttribe here. What is your point?

We still find a rare LDS that practices polygamy, and we excommunicate them. That is the limit of what we do. Are you trying to imply that somehow we practice polygamy today?

Yes. My mother was sealed to my stepfather after his first wife (who had also been sealed to him) died.

[kamenraider]

[quote name='ttribe' date='31 August 2009 - 08:56 AM' timestamp='1251734188' post='1208712265']

No...that's not your point; that's your strategy. The logical conclusions that extend from this argument are the real "point". I'd just like you to state them specifically.

[thesometimesaint]

kamenraider:

That is not commonly associated with polygamy, or more correctly polygyny.

[ttribe]

Huh??

Now you're going to play dumb? Seriously? You've devoted all this time to this thread and you aren't going to bring it to its logical conclusion. Let me help you -

Premise: The Church was never "commanded" to cease the practice of plural marriage.

Argument: The Church only issued OD1 in order to remove the legal pressure it was facing as a result of the practice of polygamy.

Logical extension of the argument - 1: The day will come that such legal pressure will cease.

Conclusion based on Logical extension of the argument - 1: The practice of polygamy as a Church will/should be re-instituted.

Logical extension of the argument - alt 1: The Church should never have stopped the practice of plural marriage among the living.

Conclusion of Logical extension of the argument - alt 1: The Prophets and Apostles who subject the membership to excommunication for the practice of polygamy among the living are in apostasy and should be opposed.

Now, the only question is - which one of these are you trying to get at?

[tsubotsubo]

Huh??

I'm a bit confused by all this too, but I think ttribe is asking you to be more direct with what you say. You tend to post quotes from other sources for us to read for ourselves, but we don't seem to getting the same information from the quotes that you intend us to (if that makes sense).

I think ttribe wants you to make your 'points' using 30 of you own words, rather than 400 of a long-dead prophet's words.

However, I think I get what you're trying to say. I think you're saying that a lot of mormons claim not to believe in polygamy, and are actually vehemently opposed to it, yet, it is still part of our doctrine. You think the church should be more clear to its members about our beliefs regarding polygamy. You think that at the moment, the church is vague, and possibly embarrassed, when it comes to our polygamous beliefs, and you think that this is causing most members to presume we don't believe in polygamy, when we actually do.

Have I got it correct? If this if what your view is, I mostly agree with you.

[thesometimesaint]

tsubotsubo:

I'm not a bit embarrassed by D&C 132. Are you?

Do I personally want another living wife. No, one is more than enough for me.

Am I opposed to the idea that if my now wife dies before me, that I can not be remarried for fear that I am somehow polygamous?

Not a bit.

Am I opposed to polygamy in the hereafter. No.

[Mortal Man]

How so?

Our lesson centered on the importance of not thinking about other women once you're married. Don't you sense a wee bit of irony there, since Sec. 132 is about taking other wives? Anyone who sat through our class and didn't already know what was in there would have no clue that the section mentions polygamy.

[ttribe]

Our lesson centered on the importance of not thinking about other women once you're married. Don't you sense a wee bit of irony there, since Sec. 132 is about taking other wives? Anyone who sat through our class and didn't already know what was in there would have no clue that the section mentions polygamy.

I guess this goes to the heart of what the purpose is for Gospel Doctrine - are we there to focus on issues that apply to us in the here and now, or are we there to scrutinize the past?

[tsubotsubo]

tsubotsubo:

I'm not a bit embarrassed by D&C 132. Are you?

Do I personally want another living wife. No, one is more than enough for me.

Am I opposed to the idea that if my now wife dies before me, that I can not be remarried for fear that I am somehow polygamous?

Not a bit.

Am I opposed to polygamy in the hereafter. No.

Firstly, I was trying to guess the 'points' that kamenraider was trying to make. Secondly, I said that if my guess was correct, that I'd mostly agree with him. Thirdly, you and I (and even all the mormons on this forum) are not an accurate representation of all the LDS in the world.

However, to answer your question, no, I'm not embarrassed by section 132. However, we could be the only 2 mormons in the world that aren't embarrassed by that section (obviously, I know this is far from the case).

However, I know of mormons that don't know what the word 'polygamy' means. I've heard mormons make statements such as 'Polygamy has nothing to do with my religion'. I think it's reasonable to assume that there's a lot of mormons who wish to distance themselves away from polygamy, and prefer not to talk about it. I think that's the reason that there's mormons (particularly new converts) that don't know about polygamy, and its relation to mormonism. I think all mormoms should be educated in all things about our religion, including what we really believe about polygamy.

[Deborah]

I'm not sure what is being argued anymore. No one has denied that the church doesn't technically practice plural marriage in the case where one spouse is deceased. The church is very clear we do not authorize plural marriage for living spouses. So what is the point. Plural marriage is no longer practiced and therefore the New and Everlasting Covenant applies today to marriage to one living spouse. As such exaltation is possible with one spouse under the N&EC.