Chapel Mormons

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"Plural marriage? Not so much." What does this even mean? Is polygamy a fundamental part of the Celestial Kingdom or not? Can men still TODAY be sealed in the temple to more than one woman. . . or not?

They can be but it is not required. So it is not required to even be familiar with this to be saved in the LDS thought.

[Redefined]

The page you are reading from must be "Anti-Mormon For Dummies". Polygamy a substantial part of the Mormon church?

Lets look at it logically. It isn't practiced and yet its a substantial part of the church?

It was practiced from around 1830 to 1890, oh sixty years and around 1910 having the serious act of excommunication being involved. It involved a relatively small portion of the overall Mormon population.

But wait, that of course trumps, Jesus and Heavenly Father appearing to Joseph Smith, Moroni, the Book of Mormon, Temple Marriage in general for time and all eternity, the idea of a Christ like civilization in the New World...

And polygamy is "substantial" relative to those items? I think God would disagree with you.

Is a Mormon's testimony based on polygamy? No.

Is a substantial portion of a Mormon's testimony based on polygamy? No.

Indeed, polygamy for Mormons is not really all that substantial or important.

So who is it important to?

Why non Mormons who don't like Mormons of course. For people who aren't Mormons it is a substantial part of their dogma and doctrine. To non LDS it is a substantial portion of their study. To non Mormons it is one of the most important doctrines out there.

You ex Mormons and your polygamy, you love it, you caress it, you fan its flames, it means a great deal more to you than it does to Mormons.

What I love is fighting against injustice.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Plural marriage? Not so much." What does this even mean? Is polygamy a fundamental part of the Celestial Kingdom or not? Can men still TODAY be sealed in the temple to more than one woman. . . or not?

A more relevant question would be, "Is it necessary to salvation and to fulfill the purpose of mortality for a man to be sealed in the temple to more than one woman?"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What I love is fighting against injustice.

I ask this in all seriousness. What are you talking about?

[Senator]

Eternal marriage is a fundamental doctrine of the Church. Plural marriage? Not so much.

It was admittedly a major doctrine in the 19th century, but that was more than 100 years ago.

Redefined,

Plural marriage is a fundamental doctrine of the church that was practiced for a little more than six decades at its inception, but is no longer practiced. Don't let any one else tell you otherwise!

[Scott Lloyd]

Redefined,

Plural marriage is a fundamental doctrine of the church that was practiced for a little more than six decades at its inception, but is no longer practiced. Don't let any one else tell you otherwise!

The fundamental doctrine of the Church relative to plural marriage is that God, in the course of his dealings with mortal men and women, has occasionally instituted it temporarily for the purpose of raising up seed to him. Otherwise, monogamy is the default condition. Get it right. And don't let anyone else tell you otherwise!

[Olavarria]

First of all, I have never bought into the chapel mormon vs cyber-mormon divide. Where do John Gee, David Bokovoy, Daniel Petersen, John E. Clark, William Schryver, me(how presumptuous) and Kerry Shirts go to take the sacrament? In the Church office building?

So...Why do some people know about these things and others dont?

Curiousity and interest; most folks are too busy to care about post-manifesto polygamy, MMM or the convergance between Olmec/Jaredite population trends.

Why does it bother some people and others accept it?

I have two guesses 1)paradigms, 2)testimony.

Paradigms:If you grew up thinking that all prophets agreed and were infallible then such things might bother you.

Tetsimony:Some people are so damn sure of their testimony that they just put the wierd and obscure on the shelf.

Why are these things not taught in church?

Because they are not applicable to our daily struggle agains the Adversary.

Surely we should have meaningful discussion about the misunderstood and contraversial aspects of the church?

I doubt it; not every one knows enough, or cares enough. And that includes me.

[Jeff K.]

I only used the MMM as an example-theres a lot of other things, Joseph's wives etc....

Someone said, 'who teaches their history at church on a Sunday?'.

Um, we do! What is 'Our heritage' for then? And why is a historical background given in the manual? If history is taught, why not teach all of it not just the bits the church feels comfortable with?

I know that there are members in my ward who dont read well, or who are of a different social economic group to others. They are simple people. Some of them DO need to be 'spoon-fed' as you put it. Have you not considered these people? Just because they are not as academic as others does this not mean they have a right to know too?

Your tone towards other members in your ward is incredibly insulting. Simple people? You mean people of faith? I would say that in terms of wisdom and spirit, you are yourself someone who apparently must be "spoon fed". I don't see you as having the intellectual or spiritual maturity to really know history in general, much less church history.

Social economic order? Frankly I doubt you could afford to be in mine. I dare say those poor sad people in the lower social economic groups are doing just fine without your mercy and care. I also think their wisdom probably exceeds yours by leaps and bounds. Pfft, social economic order... I suggest you read the Book of Mormon about those people who classify others in "social economic groups" and what the Lord thought of them.

Had a bishop with limited education that worked in a coal mine. A person much closer to God than I think I will ever be. I feel sorry for the psuedo intellectuals who presume for others and judge them according to income.

[Dr.JD]

First of all, I have never bought into the chapel mormon vs cyber-mormon divide. Where do John Gee, David Bokovoy, Daniel Petersen, John E. Clark, William Schryver, me(how presumptuous) and Kerry Shirts go to take the sacrament? In the Church office building?

Curiousity and interest; most folks are too busy to care about post-manifesto polygamy, MMM or the convergance between Olmec/Jaredite population trends.

I have two guesses 1)paradigms, 2)testimony.

Paradigms:If you grew up thinking that all prophets agreed and were infallible then such things might bother you.

Tetsimony:Some people are so damn sure of their testimony that they just put the wierd and obscure on the shelf.

Because they are not applicable to our daily struggle agains the Adversary.

I doubt it; not every one knows enough, or cares enough. And that includes me.

Pedro, I like you And I like what you said about testimonies.

[selek]

What I love is fighting against injustice.

Unfortunately, you've failed to demonstrate the presence of any injustice in Mormon practice, belief, or theology.

For all of your unsolicited advice and ill-informed opinion, you've utterly failed to present proof of two things most essential:

1) That there is anything inherently wrong or incorrect in our faith, belief, or practice.

2) That you are in any way, shape, capacity, or form qualified to pass judgement upon our faith, belief, or practice- let alone offer correction to us.

Unless and until you demonstrate these things your opinions are of less than no consequence.

The purposes of this board are.informed discussion- a level of discourse you've yet to approach.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 October 2009 - 04:49 PM, said:

The page you are reading from must be "Anti-Mormon For Dummies". Polygamy a substantial part of the Mormon church?

Lets look at it logically. It isn't practiced and yet its a substantial part of the church?

It was practiced from around 1830 to 1890, oh sixty years and around 1910 having the serious act of excommunication being involved. It involved a relatively small portion of the overall Mormon population.

But wait, that of course trumps, Jesus and Heavenly Father appearing to Joseph Smith, Moroni, the Book of Mormon, Temple Marriage in general for time and all eternity, the idea of a Christ like civilization in the New World...

And polygamy is "substantial" relative to those items? I think God would disagree with you.

Is a Mormon's testimony based on polygamy? No.

Is a substantial portion of a Mormon's testimony based on polygamy? No.

Indeed, polygamy for Mormons is not really all that substantial or important.

So who is it important to?

Why non Mormons who don't like Mormons of course. For people who aren't Mormons it is a substantial part of their dogma and doctrine. To non LDS it is a substantial portion of their study. To non Mormons it is one of the most important doctrines out there.

You ex Mormons and your polygamy, you love it, you caress it, you fan its flames, it means a great deal more to you than it does to Mormons.

What I love is fighting against injustice.

Given the manner in which some of you describe the unwashed masses, did it occur to you that you may actually be a source of injustice?

[Jeff K.]

First of all, I have never bought into the chapel mormon vs cyber-mormon divide. Where do John Gee, David Bokovoy, Daniel Petersen, John E. Clark, William Schryver, me(how presumptuous) and Kerry Shirts go to take the sacrament? In the Church office building?

Curiousity and interest; most folks are too busy to care about post-manifesto polygamy, MMM or the convergance between Olmec/Jaredite population trends.

I have two guesses 1)paradigms, 2)testimony.

Paradigms:If you grew up thinking that all prophets agreed and were infallible then such things might bother you.

Tetsimony:Some people are so damn sure of their testimony that they just put the wierd and obscure on the shelf.

Because they are not applicable to our daily struggle agains the Adversary.

I doubt it; not every one knows enough, or cares enough. And that includes me.

Unos puntos profundos.

[tsubotsubo]

I'm thinking of looking through the church books in my room, and seeing how much I can find out about polygamy... See how well the church has 'hidden' polygamy...

EDIT: Found one already!

The Book of Mormon: Seminary Student study guide

"Jacob 2: 23-30-Unauthorized Plural Marriage is an Abomination to God

To understand Jacob's...if He does not command it, plural marriage is forbidden (see Jacob 2:30)

I haven't typed it all out, as it's a large paragraph, but it talks about plural marriage, and about how it was a sin when certain prophets such as David and Solom did it, but not when Abraham, Jacob, and others did it. It's there, for all of us to read. Sometimes God allows polygamy.

EDIT: Found another one!

Doctrine and Covenants and Church Histroy: Seminary Student study guide

"Doctrine and Covenants 132:58-66-Plural Marriage

As shown in the verse summary for Doctrine and Covenants 132...by which they are performed are guilty of gross wickedness"

There's also 2 pages about OD1, which is all about polygamy. In another section, about John Taylor, there is a paragraph about the problems he encountered for practicing polygamy, and there's a picture of him, George G. Cannon, and other, in prison for it.

Also, pages 578-579 of Mormon Doctrine talk about it.

According to one manual Bruce R. McKonkie gave a talk discussing plural marriage.

[wenglund]

It doesn't directly.

However it broadens one's understanding God's dealing with men, and in doing so brought them closer to salvation. Might such understanding bring greater depth to our own salvific endeavors?

I suppose that in some ways this more than 100-years outdated topic might indirectly have some effect for good on some people's salvific endeavors, while in other ways it apparently has had a significant effect for bad on certain people's salvific endevours (mistakely causing them, in part, to lose their salvific faith).

And, I think it fine if people decide for themselves to ride this particular hobby-horse for all it may be worth to them ().

It is just that there is a limit on the kinds and extent of information one may reasonably expect the Church to supply given the time constraints of its Sunday meetings, as opposed to what each person may reasonably expect of themselves on their own time and apart from Church meeting.

So, the question isn't whether this or that issue may have an indirect impact for good on one's salvation, but whether the Church has reasonably met its obligation to inform its members on matters that directly and significantly impact salvation/exaltation. I, personally, can't see how any informed and fair-minded and reasonable person could answer except in the affirmative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tsubotsubo]

And on p. 183 of the seminary manual, it tells us that some people practiced plural marriage AFTER the manifesto! That's right guys!

This seminary manual is only distributed all around the world, so nobody should know about this...

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose that in some ways this more than 100-years outdated topic might indirectly have some effect for good on some people's salvific endeavors, while in other ways it apparently has had a significant effect for bad on certain people's salvific endevours (mistakely causing them, in part, to lose their salvific faith).

And, I think it fine if people decide for themselves to ride this particular hobby-horse for all it may be worth to them ().

It is just that there is a limit on the kinds and extent of information one may reasonably expect the Church to supply given the time constraints of its Sunday meetings, as opposed to what each person may reasonably expect of themselves on their own time and apart from Church meeting.

So, the question isn't whether this or that issue may have an indirect impact for good on one's salvation, but whether the Church has reasonably met its obligation to inform its members on matters that directly and significantly impact salvation/exaltation. I, personally, can't see how any informed and fair-minded and reasonable person could answer except in the affirmative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Brilliant post, Wade. Bravo.

[Scott Lloyd]

And on p. 183 of the seminary manual, it tells us that some people practiced plural marriage AFTER the manifesto! That's right guys!

This seminary manual is only distributed all around the world, so nobody should know about this...

tsubotsubo has uncovered a scandal! The Church censors have been asleep at their posts. And apparently for quite some time. Call the Danites!

[tsubotsubo]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=a2f6a1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Here, on none other than *shock* the church website, it tells us that Joseph Smith engaged in gold digging. Read under 'Joseph Comes to the Susquehanna'.

Again, why would they put it there, if they were hiding it? That's quite a stupid thing to do, isn't it? Also, if you read at the bottom of the page, you'll actually see that they got some of their information from anti-mormon literature...

And here: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=05169209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[Senator]

The fundamental doctrine of the Church relative to plural marriage is that God has occasionally instituted it temporarily for the purpose of raising up seed to him. Otherwise, monogamy is the default condition. Get it right. And don't let anyone else tell you otherwise!

Ah, yes forgot the disclaimers.

However, given the worlds historical marital track record, it would appear to me that monogamy was the special condition.

Whenever, I hear members fielding the need to put the early saints' practice of plural marriage in its proper second class place, I always have a scene come into my mind. I'm standing outside a prison cell, in the blistering July heat of Yuma Arizon, inside of which is my 3rd Grt. polygamous Grandfather. I say to him, "Edmond, take heart, this is only a secondary dogma for which you are suffering."

[lingo]

If you are interested in ever finally getting it, and if you wish to avoid errant confusion on the matter going forward, then try using this simple rule of thumb:

If a given set of information is deemed by the Church to be pertinent to coming to Christ and become like Christ, then the Church is accountable for providing that information to the best of their abilities. Beyond that, they ought not be held accountable, and this regardless whether the Church or its members chose to offer additional information.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah, yes forgot the disclaimers.

No disclaimers, just scriptural doctrine. See Jacob 2:30.

However, given the worlds historical marital track record, it would appear to me that monogamy was the special condition.

Sorry, but I don't see the relevance here to a discussion about LDS doctrine.

Whenever, I hear members fielding the need to put the early saints' practice of plural marriage in its proper second class place,

"Proper second class place" is your own jaundiced and dishonest caricature.

I always have a scene come into my mind.

I'm standing outside a prison cell, in the blistering July heat of Yuma Arizon, inside of which is my 3rd Grt. polygamous Grandfather. I say to him, "Edmond, take heart, this is only a secondary dogma for which you are suffering."

I am grateful to and honor any Church members in earlier times who faithfully and obediently obeyed the difficult commandment to practice plural marriage. I also recognize that it never was intended to be a permanent condition in the Church. I also dare say that, wherever he is at the moment, your grandfather Edmond's understanding of the doctrine regarding this subject far exceeds yours.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And, another one I've just found, and article about the Whitney family, and there's quite a lot about plural marriage, but it also mentions them giving their teenage daughter to Joseph Smith to marry.

...

The whole article is here: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=f4a4d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Can we really say the church is hiding all of this?

Of course we can. I mean, where's all the lust, sex, jealousy, and deception we all know formed the heart of plural marriage???

[Senator]

I also recognize that it never was intended to be a permanent condition in the Church.

Spoken like a true post- Manifestite.

Did they know that?

I also dare say that, wherever he is at the moment, your grandfather Edmond's understanding of the doctrine regarding this subject far exceeds yours.

And yours

Eeh, Wade's right, why waste my time with such a hobby-horse. After all, the "turning of the hearts" is just to get the work done.

Dear Edmond,

Here's a medal. Now please go back in the closet and don't bug us with you history anymore. It makes us uncomfortable. We just don't have much need of your stories and others like you. Can't seem to find a significant gospel lesson to pull from ya.

Take care,

Your loving grrr. grandson.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Did they know that?

Did the priests in the tabernacle and later in Solomon's Temple know that animal sacrifices would eventually be coming to an end? Would it have changed anything for them if they had?

Now please go back in the closet and don't bug us with you history anymore. It makes us uncomfortable.

Please speak for yourself.

[Scott Lloyd]

Spoken like a true post- Manifestite.

It would be a sad situation if we hadn't learned anything since the 1890s.

Did they know that?

Perhaps not. Divine knowledge is revealed line upon line. See above.

And yours

Well, I'm not the one who's hung up over it.

Eeh, Wade's right, why waste my time with such a hobby-horse. After all, the "turning of the hearts" is just to get the work done.

Dear Edmond,

Here's a medal. Now please go back in the closet and don't bug us with you history anymore. It makes us uncomfortable. We just have much need of your stories and others like you. Can't seem to find a significant gospel lesson to pull from ya.

Take care,

Your loving grrr. grandson.

Get back to me when you have something more than contrived mockery to offer. Until then, I have more important concerns.