Jon63 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Just to theorise a little...If a condition of holding a temple reccomend today was:1. Men had to have more than one wife or2. Women had to have more than one husbandWould you be willing to comply?Personally I'm a NO
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Jon63:There is no requirement to be married at all to attend the Temple.
Jon63 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Jon63:There is no requirement to be married at all to attend the Temple.The clue was in my preface 'Just to theorise a little...'
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Just to theorise a little...If a condition of holding a temple reccomend today was:1. Men had to have more than one wife or2. Women had to have more than one husbandWould you be willing to comply?Personally I'm a NOSorry but I am not big on lame hypotheticals. The reality is that that is not required for a temple recommend and I don't see that changing anytime. So the question is moot.
Vance Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Just to theorise(sic) a little...If a condition of holding a temple reccomend today was:1. Men had to have more than one wife or2. Women had to have more than one husbandWould you be willing to comply?Personally I'm a NOJust to "theorise" do you think it is possible to come up with a more ridiculous hypothetical? Would you be willing to try?
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Jon63:I think the word you want is speculate. But even speculation requires some grounding in reality. There is not a requirement to be married to attend the Temple. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. To not speculate, any member who engages in polygamy in this life is excommunicated from the Church.
BCSpace Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Just to theorise a little...If a condition of holding a temple reccomend today was:1. Men had to have more than one wife or2. Women had to have more than one husbandWould you be willing to comply?Personally I'm a NO I've come to realize that holding a TR in and of itself doesn't say much at all about one's testimony or level of belief.
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Jon63:I think the word you want is speculate. But even speculation requires some grounding in reality. There is not a requirement to be married to attend the Temple. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. To not speculate, any member who engages in polygamy in this life is excommunicated from the Church.Sorry to be a little bit picky but your last statement imho should readany member who engages in polygamy in this life is excommunicated from the Church, except members who practiced it prior to around 1914 and except members where one wife has died - it is okay for them to enter into polygamous sealings in the Temple.Picky I know, but a bit more accurate
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Jon63:Even stretching it it is closer to 1905, and for 99.9999% of Church purposes it is October 6, 1890. see OD 1. http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=engI doubt many are still alive after 130 years. IF you consider the practice of marrying again after your wife dies polygamy. You have more hangups than a coat closet.
nicolasconnault Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I've come to realize that holding a TR in and of itself doesn't say much at all about one's testimony or level of belief.True, but how you feel while you answer the questions certainly does.
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Jon63:Even stretching it it is closer to 1905, and for 99.9999% of Church purposes it is October 6, 1890. see OD 1. http://lds.org/scrip...t/od/1?lang=engI doubt many are still alive after 130 years. IF you consider the practice of marrying again after your wife dies polygamy. You have more hangups than a coat closet.HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.So, Polgamy is not Doctrinal according to the most recent Prophet to speak publically on the subject.This kind of means that the early leaders of the Church lead the Church into a practice that wasn't doctrinal.Who was right, Hinkley or Smith?
ELF1024 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.So, Polgamy is not Doctrinal according to the most recent Prophet to speak publically on the subject.This kind of means that the early leaders of the Church lead the Church into a practice that wasn't doctrinal.Who was right, Hinkley or Smith?Both are right, of course. You can easily assume that Hinkley was saying that it is not doctrinal TODAY and since O.D.1.HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal (today).
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Both are right, of course. You can easily assume that Hinkley was saying that it is not doctrinal TODAY and since O.D.1.HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal (today).What a pity that Hinkley forgot to add the word 'today'...So, Mormon Doctrine is a little bit like a light switch, it can be switched on one minute and then off the next.Polgymay - Off (when Church first restored)Polygamy - On (when Joseph Smith practiced it)Polygamy - Off (when Joseph Smith talked in public)Polygamy - On (when Brigham Young took over)Polygamy - Off (when Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto)Polygamy - On (after the manifesto but in secret)Polygamy - Off (a few years after it was 'banned')Polygamy - Still off (because Hinkley says it is not Doctrinal ommitting to use the word 'today')Polygamy - On (in the Celestial Kingdom?)Hard to know when to practice Polygamy and when not to...
ELF1024 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Polgymay - Off (when Church first restored)Polygamy - On (when Joseph Smith practiced it)Polygamy - On (when Brigham Young took over)Polygamy - Off (when Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto)Hard to know when to practice Polygamy and when not to...The easy answer is just not to practice it today. As it as been since O.D.1.I, for one, have no interest in having more than one mother-in-law. It seems to me that polygamy would be it's own worst punishment. And here is a question for you; Why are you so concerned about the LDS practice of polygamy, which hasn't happened in over 100 years, when the Muslims are currently engaged in plurar marriage as a doctrine. Islam allows up to three wives. Perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree.
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 The easy answer is just not to practice it today. As it as been since O.D.1.I, for one, have no interest in having more than one mother-in-law. It seems to me that polygamy would be it's own worst punishment. And here is a question for you; Why are you so concerned about the LDS practice of polygamy, which hasn't happened in over 100 years, when the Muslims are currently engaged in plurar marriage as a doctrine. Islam allows up to three wives. Perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree.O.D.1 is a bit misleading because the Leadership still sanctioned Polygamous union after that.The OP was''My questions are:1. Do most believe that it will be mandatory in the Celestial Kingdom?2. If so, do you have a problem with it?3. How will it be possible when all the information I have show that men and women are born at very close to a 1:1 ratio?''I'll answer these questions, maybe you will to1. No, because it is not Doctrinal2. No, because I won't be making it there and so won't affect me.3. It's possible because very few people will attain the Celestial Kingdom and imho the majority will be women.
ELF1024 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 O.D.1 is a bit misleading because the Leadership still sanctioned Polygamous union after that.I know there was a CFR on that, but I have no idea if it was answered. So please repost the answer to the CFR that the Church Leadership sanctioned polygamous marriages (to living spouses) after O.D.1The OP was''My questions are:1. Do most believe that it will be mandatory in the Celestial Kingdom?2. If so, do you have a problem with it?3. How will it be possible when all the information I have show that men and women are born at very close to a 1:1 ratio?''1) Mandatory? No. Will it be practiced by some... it appears that is already assumed.2) I would have a problem with it being mandatory. I would not choose to practice polygamy.3) It seems quite clear that there will be those who will practice polygamy. I would choose not to. Let Brigham Young and other men better than I do so. I have no desire for it.
CV75 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 1. Do most believe that it will be mandatory in the Celestial Kingdom?2. If so, do you have a problem with it?3. How will it be possible when all the information I have show that men and women are born at very close to a 1:1 ratio?1. I do not know what most believe; I think it will not be mandatory.2. I do not have a problem with it in either case.3. Female twins are more common than male twins. Of these, those twins that are mistakenly unaccounted for (vanishing, vestigial, chimeric, parasitic, etc.) might allow one to assume there will be a greater number of resurrected females than males.
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I know there was a CFR on that, but I have no idea if it was answered. So please repost the answer to the CFR that the Church Leadership sanctioned polygamous marriages (to living spouses) after O.D.1I'm not sure where the CFR is but the official LDS website states that the end to Polygamy was gradual after the manifesto and Michael Quinn (regardless of what people think of him as an individual) showed it categorically.1) Mandatory? No. Will it be practiced by some... it appears that is already assumed.2) I would have a problem with it being mandatory. I would not choose to practice polygamy.3) It seems quite clear that there will be those who will practice polygamy. I would choose not to. Let Brigham Young and other men better than I do so. I have no desire for it.Very honest.Personally I think Polygamy is a man made thing - if it was from God then it would be consistent and clear.There is no case for it to be classed as doctrine (I agree with Hinkley) and I don't think there ever was.I believe Jospeh Smith was in error and that the section in the D&C that deals with this was written by him to 'escape' the criticism and strife that was coming his way.I don't think God is bothered how many spouses a person has as long as they treat them properly.Like you, Polygamy is not for me - it's hard enough buying one set of Christmas presents!
ELF1024 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I'm not sure where the CFR is but the official LDS website states that the end to Polygamy was gradual after the manifesto and Michael Quinn (regardless of what people think of him as an individual) showed it categorically.That doesn't show that the church leadership was still sanctioning polygamous marriages. There wasn't global communication the way we have global communication today at that time, and it is possible that the information to stop doing it after O.D.1 was issued did not reach all of the locations that could be used for sealings until later in the year.
ELF1024 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Very honest.Personally I think Polygamy is a man made thing - if it was from God then it would be consistent and clear.There is no case for it to be classed as doctrine (I agree with Hinkley) and I don't think there ever was.I believe Jospeh Smith was in error and that the section in the D&C that deals with this was written by him to 'escape' the criticism and strife that was coming his way.I don't think God is bothered how many spouses a person has as long as they treat them properly.Like you, Polygamy is not for me - it's hard enough buying one set of Christmas presents!I think it is from God, and that is because of the number of times, in scripture it shows up. I do not believe the Joseph Smith Jr. erred in the revelation of Polygamy, however I would say that the implementation of Polygamy has left me unsettled on the subject. That being said, I am willing to give Joseph Smith Jr. "a pass" on the subject as the truth of the issue has been twisted and torn such that until I get a chance to meet with God, or Brother Joseph; I have no faith that would get a true account. So until such time as I hear it from him, I will be comfortable in my position.
Jon63 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 That doesn't show that the church leadership was still sanctioning polygamous marriages. There wasn't global communication the way we have global communication today at that time, and it is possible that the information to stop doing it after O.D.1 was issued did not reach all of the locations that could be used for sealings until later in the year.Yes, I think that is possible.But given the relatively small geography (the Church wasn't a global organization in those times) I think it probable that senior people within the Leadership didn't take the instruction to stop the way that we see it as an Official Declaration. It didn't stop until 1904.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 What a pity that Hinkley forgot to add the word 'today'...Hard to know when to practice Polygamy and when not to...Why would Pres Hinkley be talking about Polygamy in any other capacity than today or the days he was President? Can you imagine the craziness if had had said that Polygamy is doctrine? It currently is not doctrine and it is condemened President Hinkley was 100% correct in what he said. It is a pity that you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
BCSpace Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.So, Polgamy is not Doctrinal according to the most recent Prophet to speak publically on the subject.This kind of means that the early leaders of the Church lead the Church into a practice that wasn't doctrinal.Who was right, Hinkley or Smith? I agree with previous. Both are right. Hinckley is just saying that is not doctrine that we practice it today at this moment. Notice also how careful he is in the context not to invalidate or condemn previous plural marriages.The LDS Church has a doctrine on plural marriage and part of that doctrine is that God authorizes it from time to time in mortality. Nothing has been said about a temporary nature for these and in fact, since they are sealings, the implication is that plural marriage will be practiced in the CK at least among those who practiced it here. It's totally unavoidable. Now if one wants to say that it's not fair, either because they get all the benefit or because they bear all the burden, that only a few will be practicing it in the CK, I would agree with you and go further to state that it seems unavoidable that most or all will be practicing plural marriage in the CK. I suppose one can hope that there will be a mass unsealing and resealing as everyone readjusts to new and monogamous partners, but is that really a reasonable expectation especially since there is no evidence for such?
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 BCSpace:I'll agree here. As I believe it is all voluntary there probably will be some realignment of sorts in the CK. But I have no idea what that realignment will look like.
nicolasconnault Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 That doesn't show that the church leadership was still sanctioning polygamous marriages. There wasn't global communication the way we have global communication today at that time, and it is possible that the information to stop doing it after O.D.1 was issued did not reach all of the locations that could be used for sealings until later in the year.This blog gives a very thorough account of this whole part of church history. I haven't finished reading it (read the first 4 parts), but it helped me understand a lot more about why some saints continued to practice after the manifesto, including at least one apostle.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.