Sealed... for Time and for All Eternity

[thesometimesaint]

tsubotsubo:

I'll let speak kamenraider for him/herself.

I'd don't always agree with anyone, including myself.

I have no way of knowing what ALL LDS believe. But if my hunch is correct we have a pretty good sampling of the various LDS perspectives here. We have everything from the "Diehards" to just us sometimesaints.

Could's be. But like you I doubt it too.

You never go wrong underestimating the intelligent of any random group of people. After all a significant number of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. After all it says so in the Bible.

I quite agree education IS the only cure for us old timers down to the still wet raw convert.

[tsubotsubo]

tsubotsubo:

I'll let speak kamenraider for him/herself.

I'd don't always agree with anyone, including myself.

I have no way of knowing what ALL LDS believe. But if my hunch is correct we have a pretty good sampling of the various LDS perspectives here. We have everything from the "Diehards" to just us sometimesaints.

Could's be. But like you I doubt it too.

You never go wrong underestimating the intelligent of any random group of people. After all a significant number of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. After all it says so in the Bible.

I quite agree education IS the only cure for us old timers down to the still wet raw convert.

Yeah, I want to see what kamenraider actually thinks too. I couldn't wholly figure it out myself, but I'd be quite chuffed if I guessed it correctly.

And I know this is neither here nor there, but you post is funny, because a few days ago, my dad seemed shocked when I told him the Earth revolved around the Sun. He was sure the Sun revolved around the Earth, because the moon does also. He then said that eclipses wouldn't be possible if the Earth revolved around the Sun, and I had to draw diagrams and all to explain how it all works to him! I was so shocked that I actually had to explain that to him. It made me wonder if a lot of other people also thought the Sun goes around the Earth. I suddenly felt quite clever...

And while I'm here, I also agree with Deborah's post. We've been flying off on all sorts of tangents in this thread!

[cinepro]

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?

I would think a class entitled "Doctrine and Covenants and Church History" might, to some degree, incorporate "scrutinization of the past" as a matter of course.

[structurecop]

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?

Considering we spend an hour a week for 48 weeks or so, I can certainly imagine spending some of that time on scrutinizing some historical issues. Especially since I am supposed to have a testimony of a bunch of historical individuals and events.

[Calm]

As such exaltation is possible with one spouse under the N&EC.

kamenraider, do you agree or disagree with Deborah's statement here?

[alter idem]

Kaimenraider, What's up with this? This is what you said:

kamenraider, on 26 August 2009 - 11:20 PM, said:

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.

You gave the impression that polygamists had been baptized into the church. However, the reference you offered does not back this claim. In fact, it refutes it.

Bold added.

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)

So, you have not supported the claim that Pres. McKay allowed polygamists to be baptized, only that he considered allowing it. If some polygamists were allowed to be baptized, you'll need another reference to prove it. And without proof, I'm inclined to disbelieve this claim.

[ttribe]

I would think a class entitled "Doctrine and Covenants and Church History" might, to some degree, incorporate "scrutinization of the past" as a matter of course.

Did I say it shouldn't?

[ttribe]

Considering we spend an hour a week for 48 weeks or so, I can certainly imagine spending some of that time on scrutinizing some historical issues. Especially since I am supposed to have a testimony of a bunch of historical individuals and events.

Again...didn't say it was zero...just posed the question as a rhetorical for people to weight the importance of those issues in their own minds.

[kamenraider]

Kaimenraider, What's up with this? This is what you said:

kamenraider, on 26 August 2009 - 11:20 PM, said:

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.

You gave the impression that polygamists had been baptized into the church. However, the reference you offered does not back this claim. In fact, it refutes it.

Bold added.

So, you have not supported the claim that Pres. McKay allowed polygamists to be baptized, only that he considered allowing it. If some polygamists were allowed to be baptized, you'll need another reference to prove it. And without proof, I'm inclined to disbelieve this claim.

I guess you didn't look up the chronology entries in Quinn's Mormon Hierarchy Vol. 2. -- I guess I'll have to type and post them for you...

19 Sept. [1962], First Presidency rules that prominent Egyptian polygamist can be baptized because polygamy is legal in Egypt. This is in reference to "an earlier ruling in the matter of Indians who had married more than one wife and it was decided that they may be baptized, if they were legally married according to their tribal customs." First Presidency agrees that such legal polygamists cannot be sealed in temples, to avoid confusing LDS policy toward Mormon Fundamentalists.

With regard to black Africa, President David O. McKay says it "is a cruel thing" to require Nigerian polygamists to cease their legally polygamous marriages, yet Presidency decides to forbid baptism of black African polygamists (who are also denied priesthood ordination by LDS policy for all persons of black African descent). By contrast, the Egyptian polygamist, a Coptic Christian, is baptized in London in February 1963 and ordained elder.

--D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, SLC: Signature Books 1997, pgs. 849-850.

19 Dec. [1962], David O. McKay privately tells LaMar Williams, church's representative to self-converted Nigerian Mormons, to baptize Nigerian polygamists "and admit them to the Church. They could keep the wives and families that they had at the time of baptism, but they were not to engage further in this practice." Although this is typical example of McKay's pattern of privately reversing First Presidency decisions, circumstances prevent its implementation. Delay in getting visas and subsequent Nigerian civil war prevent Williams and other LDS missionaries from actually being able to perform baptisms until 1978 when official decision of McKay Presidency is enforced prohibiting baptism of polygamists. Black African husbands, wives, and children have to renounce polygamous marriages in order to receive LDS baptism or to receive priesthood. In tribal cultures a divorced wife is an outcast and her children suddenly become illegitimate.

This refusal to recognize legitimacy of black African polygamy contradicts March 1897 letter of First Presidency regarding marriages in non-western cultures. This seems to be race-based policy contrary to First Presidency's recent recognition of polygamy among Arabs ("children of Abraham") and LDS church policy since 1959 to ignore the illegality and "technical adultery" of LDS converted Latin Americans ("blood of Israel") who are living in long-term relationships without legal marriage and without divorce from previous spouse(s).

--D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, SLC: Signature Books 1997, pg. 850.

[kamenraider]

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.

That's pretty much it. (Are you chuffed?)

[alter idem]

I guess you didn't look up the chronology entries in Quinn's Mormon Hierarchy Vol. 2. -- I guess I'll have to type and post them for you...

Was I supposed to? I don't own the book. I didn't realize that was a requirement.

So, from the sources you've provided there is only one example of an egyptian polygamist living in England being allowed to be baptized, a reference to a ruling that Indian polygamists can be baptized, but no examples that any actually were--and it looks like no Nigerian polygamists were ever allowed baptism due to the Biafran War. I'd say it was a rare occurrence and seems to have fallen in the category of outside of the norm and even against first Presidency policy. Hardly the original impression you gave that a number of baptisms of polygamists occurred in the 1960's.

[kamenraider]

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.

Juliann claimed above that "all women are sealed to all husbands when work for the dead is done." I don't think I'd use the word "all" in that sentence. Anyway, she's implying that just because a man is sealed to more than one woman doesn't necessarily mean that he will wind up living with both in the celestial kingdom, anymore than it means that a woman will live polyandrously with multiple husbands. The problem with this is that women are not anointed to multiple men via the second anointing, however multiple women are anointed to a single man:

First Presidency Letterpress Copybooks, 1877-1949:

March 19th 1889

President John D.T. McAllister,

St. George Temple.

Dear Brother:

--Your letter of Feb. 27th, asking certain questions pertaining to Temple ordinances, has been received and considered.

In regard to your last question, pertaining to a woman having been sealed and anointed [second anointing] to her husband, but subsequently divorced from him, he continuing a faithful, good man, etc, is she to be anointed to a second good man as though she never had been anointed? I answer, No. In such a case it will not be proper for the sister to be again anointed.

Your second question as to my having any word for you in re lation to adoption---

I would say it will be well to leave the matter of adoption for the present as they have been, and not make any changes. This will also answer your question in regard to going back as far as records can be obtained correctly in adoptions. [p.2]

In relation to children who are old enough to be baptized [&] who are dead, receiving their endowments. I will say that in performing ordinances for the dead it is safe to follow the rules observed in regard to the living, unless there may be special occasions which can be attended to when the circumstances require.

With kind regards,

I am you Brother,

W. Woodruff

I don't think I made it clear, but I believe that there may be people in monogamous marriages in the celestial kingdom. I think that may be what the "middle glory" of that kingdom is all about. It would sort of make sense, especially if the bottom glory is for single people, and the top is for polygamists. Byron Sessions (Bio here) had the following experience (related by Price Johnson), though:

In the early part of this century, the Mormon Church colonized the

Bighorn Basin in Northern Wyoming. Byron Sessions was the Stake President and

leader of this project under Apostle Owen Woodruff. Soon after my father's

death there, President Sessions called my father's family together and gave

them valuable advice and instructions. In his talk, he explained the

importance and necessity of obedience to the law of plural marriage. Members

of the family who were present at this meeting consisted of my father's two

wives and about twelve of his twenty children. We were placed under a pledge

of secrecy, and the family honored this pledge while President Sessions was

still living. As he is now dead and beyond the power of his enemies, I am

relating in this letter, a part of this talk.

He said that he had had a dream in which he and his wife were taken

beyond the veil. A messenger, or guide, met them there and gave them a view of

the marvelous workings and conditions that prevail in the place of

departed and righteous spirits. They finally came to a stairway that led to

the upper story of a large building. A guard was standing here, and this is

what he said: "This is as far as you can go as man and wife; you can go in

separately, but your status as man and wife ends at this place."

Brother Sessions asked why this was the case, as they had been sealed in

the temple, and fully expected to remain together through eternity. The guide

said, "You have not obeyed all the conditions of the law by which men and

women are sealed for eternity. Because of this, your union must cease at

death, and you will not be allowed to proceed further as man and wife."

He began to weep, and was weeping when he awoke. His wife, who was lying

beside him was also crying, and he said, "Ida, what is the matter?" She

answered, "I have just had a dream and I am glad it was only a dream." Their

dreams were identical.

(Note: Byron Sessions later took another wife [in 1903]; he also was set apart in

his stake to keep plural marriage alive.)

--Taken from the pamphlet, "An Open Letter to All Latter-day Saints on

Plural Marriage," from Price Johnson, pp. 15-16.

[ttribe]

I don't think I made it clear, but I believe that there may be people in monogamous marriages in the celestial kingdom. I think that may be what the "middle glory" of that kingdom is all about. It would sort of make sense, especially if the bottom glory is for single people, and the top is for polygamists.

You REALLY think that THE differentiating factor between the top and middle portions of the CK is polygamy? So, does that mean that a polygamous FLDS is more likely to achieve the highest order of the CK than I am? After all, they ARE living the principle, right?

This, of course, takes me right back to this - Post Link. So, which is it? Is it just a matter of time before the principle of polygamy is thrust upon us again, or is it that the the Church, and its leaders, are currently in apostasy?

[kamenraider]

You REALLY think that THE differentiating factor between the top and middle portions of the CK is polygamy? So, does that mean that a polygamous FLDS is more likely to achieve the highest order of the CK than I am? After all, they ARE living the principle, right?

I don't believe that the FLDS have any authority to perform sealings. I'm not 100% sure how they'll be finally judged, except that it will be just, whatever the judgement is. I really can't imagine that their sealings have any validity at all though.

edit: I guess I ought to add that I believe that people will be judged according to their light and knowledge, and also their ability, in regard to living this.

This, of course, takes me right back to this - Post Link. So, which is it? Is it just a matter of time before the principle of polygamy is thrust upon us again, or is it that the the Church, and its leaders, are currently in apostasy?

I think it's "just a matter of time before the principle of polygamy is thrust upon us again":

In that day family units will be perfected according to the plans made in the heavens before the peopling of the earth. Celestial marriage in its highest and most glorious form will bind men and women together in eternal unions, and the resultant families will truly continue forever. One of the most provocative millennial passages forecasts the order of matrimony that will then prevail, saying: "And in that day" -- the millennial day -- "seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach," the reproach of being without a husband, without children, without a family of their own. This shall come to pass after the destruction of the wicked, and it is one of many scriptural intimations that the generality of women are more spiritual than are most men. The inference is that far more women will abide the day of his coming than will be the case with men. And they, being clean and upright, and desiring family units and children and the exaltation that grows out of all these things, will turn to the marriage discipline of Abraham their father so they may be blessed like Sarah of old.

--Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, pg. 655.

[kamenraider]

Was I supposed to? I don't own the book. I didn't realize that was a requirement.

Sorry, I was just getting a little tired of finding and typing quotes.

So, from the sources you've provided there is only one example of an egyptian polygamist living in England being allowed to be baptized, a reference to a ruling that Indian polygamists can be baptized, but no examples that any actually were--and it looks like no Nigerian polygamists were ever allowed baptism due to the Biafran War. I'd say it was a rare occurrence and seems to have fallen in the category of outside of the norm and even against first Presidency policy. Hardly the original impression you gave that a number of baptisms of polygamists occurred in the 1960's.

I didn't mean to imply anything beyond what I actually wrote. I can see how it might be understood that way, though.

[tsubotsubo]

That's pretty much it. (Are you chuffed?)

Yay! Well, at least I understood what you were trying to say.

The main reason I think it should be discussed slightly more (a few times a year), is because I would much rather people found out about it at church, with dozens of other members to answer their questions, than on exmormon.org, or on CARM. Every few months, there tends to be a bit of a commotion, when someone first finds out about polygamy (it tends to be a new convert, or a child). Usually, they go to the Bishop, and tell him what they've discovered, or they announce it in Sunday School, only to find out that everybody else knows.

But when we have members attending church for months (sometimes years), and not knowing about polygamy, I can sometimes understand why people accuse us of hiding, or watering down the doctrine. I, for example, found out about it when I was 11. At the age of 11, I knew who Mark Hoffman was, I knew what having your 'calling and election made sure' meant, but I didn't know what the word 'polygamy' meant.

Also, I think it could be beneficial to the church to discuss it more often. Not just polygamy, but most of the things that we discuss here. I mean, do we want people to find out that Joseph Smith married 14 year-olds on FAIR, or on CARM, or at church with their friends, or on exmormon.org? It's a no-brainer for me.

If someone got told that Joseph Smith said men live on the moon, and had the FAIR-wiki article about it read to them immediately after, I'm sure they probably wouldn't care less by the end of it. If someone got told that Joseph Smith said men live on the moon, and had a thread about it from exmormon.org read to them immediately after, going on about how such a ludicrous 'prophecy', supposedly from God, proves the church isn't true, I'm sure they'd be quite uneasy about it.

I honestly think the church should be more open about it, and tell their members everything, before the opposition can do it first.

[thesometimesaint]

tsubotsubo:

I'm a long time convert to the Church, and the only member in the family that raised me. So I do know somewhat of the trials that new converts go through. Before I joined, I read all I could find out about the Church, and made a prayerful decision.

I don't know how beneficial talking about a long ago discarded practice would be in the context of our Church meetings. I've always felt that our Church meetings such be one of renewing our covenants with God, and learning how to be better Saints, and people.

Hopefully we do our own study, or if young can go to our parents for the answer to our questions. I still have lots of questions, but I am hopeful that all will be revealed to me someday.

[Calm]

I don't think I made it clear, but I believe that there may be people in monogamous marriages in the celestial kingdom. I think that may be what the "middle glory" of that kingdom is all about.

How do you interpret 131 then?

1 IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

If your assumption that the highest degree is plural marriage is correct, then it would appear that only plural marriage is the New and Everlasting and there is no other form of marriage...

[MorningStar]

I made sure that my wife was willing to live it before we were engaged. If I were to have another sealed to me, I would want it to be the right person and not just anyone -- someone I was with in the pre-mortal existence. If you think of all of the legal and social pressures today that favor monogamy, you'll realize that this would be a little difficult to say the least, without something rather miraculous happening. Women that are associated with polygamy cults, and also other "independents", also tend to creep me out for some reason (and not just because of things like prairie dresses or whatever). I guess I've got some sort of (Church instilled?) irrational prejudice in that regard.

Why should your wife be willing to live something we are commanded not to do? If my husband had made such a suggestion before we were married, I would have broken up with him for sure. When polygamy was practiced, it was not done by the majority. They were called to practice it.

[ttribe]

I don't believe that the FLDS have any authority to perform sealings. I'm not 100% sure how they'll be finally judged, except that it will be just, whatever the judgement is. I really can't imagine that their sealings have any validity at all though.

edit: I guess I ought to add that I believe that people will be judged according to their light and knowledge, and also their ability, in regard to living this.

My question was tongue-in-cheek to highlight your overemphasis on polygamy with respect to the requirements of the CK.

I think it's "just a matter of time before the principle of polygamy is thrust upon us again":

Does that mean for all or for some? Your quote mining on the subject is not clear. If only for some, what does that mean for those of us never asked to live the principle? Will we be excluded from the highest degree of the kingdom through no fault of our own? Seems to be the logical conclusion given the scenario you've devised.

[alter idem]

Does that mean for all or for some? Your quote mining on the subject is not clear. If only for some, what does that mean for those of us never asked to live the principle? Will we be excluded from the highest degree of the kingdom through no fault of our own? Seems to be the logical conclusion given the scenario you've devised.

From discussing this here and reading other works, I'd say that those who believe that the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage means only Polygamous unions, this means the rest of us will be excluded from the highest kingdom. As he speculated earlier, we'll go to a middle kingdom--not as low as those who didn't marry at all, but still, we will have come up short. For those who refuse to see polygamy as it is described in the Book of Mormon, something that can be an abomination in God's eyes and only to be practiced when commanded by God, to them it is a requirement, it seems.

How they came to think this, I am not sure--since even during the time that polygamy was practiced, a whole lot of good, righteous members of the church were not asked to practice it and so, by this thinking, could not qualify for the highest kingdom. I find it hard to believe that all those monogamous members were satisfied with the thought that no matter what they'd sacrificed and how they'd lived their lives, they still would not measure up--through no fault of their own.

We are looking back at this from over a 100 years ago and I think some today are influenced by the fundamentalists--some members have given polygamy more importance than it deserves--thanks in part to the fundamentalists and their many writings and the religion they've created by making this lifestyle the very basis and foundation for their existence.

I would expect that if members of the church during the polygamous years understood that they could only obtain the highest spot in the CK if they were married polygamously, don't you think they'd have all been demanding to live the principle? I would think we would find comments and complaints and worries voiced by the majority of the members because they were not able to qualify for the highest kingdom. However, I don't think we find this from the monogamous members and I believe that is telling. We do find from this time period that members understood that that if asked to practice it by their Prophet or his leaders (when it was the accepted practice of the church) they must, or they will be accountable--I believe their understanding was that unless asked to live it, it had no effect on them and they would still obtain all the blessings that a polygamist would enjoy in the hereafter.

We are not asked to live it, in fact, we are forbidden on pain of excommunication to live it. We are asked to follow the living Prophet and not dead prophets. This fascination with polygamy has lured many good people away from the true church. It has been an effective way that Satan is able to pick off some faithful LDS who would not succomb to the worldly temptations and vices that usually work--with this fascination with having greater knowledge, or being called to specially live something that others don't have--thinking they know the mysteries and they are especially privileged to ignore the rules and the commandments the rest are expected to live because they are special--and so; some end up being deceived into thinking they are "called" to live this and end up causing great suffering and destruction to their innocent families. This is not what our Heavenly Father wants. He wants us to follow our living Prophet.

[staccato]

From discussing this here and reading other works, I'd say that those who believe that the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage means only Polygamous unions, this means the rest of us will be excluded from the highest kingdom. As he speculated earlier, we'll go to a middle kingdom--not as low as those who didn't marry at all, but still, we will have come up short. For those who refuse to see polygamy as it is described in the Book of Mormon, something that can be an abomination in God's eyes and only to be practiced when commanded by God, to them it is a requirement, it seems.

How they came to think this, I am not sure--since even during the time that polygamy was practiced, a whole lot of good, righteous members of the church were not asked to practice it and so, by this thinking, could not qualify for the highest kingdom. I find it hard to believe that all those monogamous members were satisfied with the thought that no matter what they'd sacrificed and how they'd lived their lives, they still would not measure up--through no fault of their own.

We are looking back at this from over a 100 years ago and I think some today are influenced by the fundamentalists--some members have given polygamy more importance than it deserves--thanks in part to the fundamentalists and their many writings and the religion they've created by making this lifestyle the very basis and foundation for their existence.

I would expect that if members of the church during the polygamous years understood that they could only obtain the highest spot in the CK if they were married polygamously, don't you think they'd have all been demanding to live the principle? I would think we would find comments and complaints and worries voiced by the majority of the members because they were not able to qualify for the highest kingdom. However, I don't think we find this from the monogamous members and I believe that is telling. We do find from this time period that members understood that that if asked to practice it by their Prophet or his leaders (when it was the accepted practice of the church) they must, or they will be accountable--I believe their understanding was that unless asked to live it, it had no effect on them and they would still obtain all the blessings that a polygamist would enjoy in the hereafter.

We are not asked to live it, in fact, we are forbidden on pain of excommunication to live it. We are asked to follow the living Prophet and not dead prophets. This fascination with polygamy has lured many good people away from the true church. It has been an effective way that Satan is able to pick off some faithful LDS who would not succomb to the worldly temptations and vices that usually work--with this fascination with having greater knowledge, or being called to specially live something that others don't have--thinking they know the mysteries and they are especially privileged to ignore the rules and the commandments the rest are expected to live because they are special--and so; some end up being deceived into thinking they are "called" to live this and end up causing great suffering and destruction to their innocent families. This is not what our Heavenly Father wants. He wants us to follow our living Prophet.

The truth claims of the church rest on Joseph Smith and his so-called restoration. Like it or not, if Joseph cannot be trusted, the claims of the church fail. I don't care how much you like the living Prophet. His authority is based off historically shifting sand.

[ttribe]

From discussing this here and reading other works, I'd say that those who believe that the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage means only Polygamous unions, this means the rest of us will be excluded from the highest kingdom. As he speculated earlier, we'll go to a middle kingdom--not as low as those who didn't marry at all, but still, we will have come up short. For those who refuse to see polygamy as it is described in the Book of Mormon, something that can be an abomination in God's eyes and only to be practiced when commanded by God, to them it is a requirement, it seems.

How they came to think this, I am not sure--since even during the time that polygamy was practiced, a whole lot of good, righteous members of the church were not asked to practice it and so, by this thinking, could not qualify for the highest kingdom. I find it hard to believe that all those monogamous members were satisfied with the thought that no matter what they'd sacrificed and how they'd lived their lives, they still would not measure up--through no fault of their own.

We are looking back at this from over a 100 years ago and I think some today are influenced by the fundamentalists--some members have given polygamy more importance than it deserves--thanks in part to the fundamentalists and their many writings and the religion they've created by making this lifestyle the very basis and foundation for their existence.

I would expect that if members of the church during the polygamous years understood that they could only obtain the highest spot in the CK if they were married polygamously, don't you think they'd have all been demanding to live the principle? I would think we would find comments and complaints and worries voiced by the majority of the members because they were not able to qualify for the highest kingdom. However, I don't think we find this from the monogamous members and I believe that is telling. We do find from this time period that members understood that that if asked to practice it by their Prophet or his leaders (when it was the accepted practice of the church) they must, or they will be accountable--I believe their understanding was that unless asked to live it, it had no effect on them and they would still obtain all the blessings that a polygamist would enjoy in the hereafter.

We are not asked to live it, in fact, we are forbidden on pain of excommunication to live it. We are asked to follow the living Prophet and not dead prophets. This fascination with polygamy has lured many good people away from the true church. It has been an effective way that Satan is able to pick off some faithful LDS who would not succomb to the worldly temptations and vices that usually work--with this fascination with having greater knowledge, or being called to specially live something that others don't have--thinking they know the mysteries and they are especially privileged to ignore the rules and the commandments the rest are expected to live because they are special--and so; some end up being deceived into thinking they are "called" to live this and end up causing great suffering and destruction to their innocent families. This is not what our Heavenly Father wants. He wants us to follow our living Prophet.

Very well said.

[ttribe]

The truth claims of the church rest on Joseph Smith and his so-called restoration. Like it or not, if Joseph cannot be trusted, the claims of the church fail. I don't care how much you like the living Prophet. His authority is based off historically shifting sand.

This doesn't address, at all, the post to which you replied.

[alter idem]

Juliann claimed above that "all women are sealed to all husbands when work for the dead is done." I don't think I'd use the word "all" in that sentence. Anyway, she's implying that just because a man is sealed to more than one woman doesn't necessarily mean that he will wind up living with both in the celestial kingdom, anymore than it means that a woman will live polyandrously with multiple husbands. The problem with this is that women are not anointed to multiple men via the second anointing, however multiple women are anointed to a single man:

It is a little hard for us to discuss second anointings since we don't know much about them, but I'd say it makes sense that this woman would be told she did not need a second anointing with a different husband--the ordinance was performed for her and is binding, irrespective of whether she remains married to that man or he falls into apostasy, whatever. Just like her endowment does not have to be redone if she divorces or her spouse falls away from the gospel, or she remarries, the endowment is not redone and likewise, there should be no need to redo a second anointing.