Polygamy in the CK

[Jason]

It was of God. Nothing less than a spiritual confirmation that it was would have convinced my ancestors to practice it, because they found it extremly difficult.

[cinepro]

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?

That comment was made in an interview with Larry King. In the rest of the quote, President Hinckley explains why he might "condemn" modern day polygamy:

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

If Larry King were an actual "interviewer", he might have asked how President Hinckley would view polygamy if it weren't illegal. But that's a pretty big "if".

[ELF1024]

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.

I do not find it very likley that a "blog" is going to represent the truth. Unless such blog is well documented.

I'll have a look, but I do not expect to find more than a lenghy undocumented unreferenced opinion.

[nicolasconnault]

I do not find it very likley that a "blog" is going to represent the truth. Unless such blog is well documented.

I'll have a look, but I do not expect to find more than a lenghy undocumented unreferenced opinion.

2 hours later, ELF1024 is still reading the "blog"

[ELF1024]

2 hours later, ELF1024 is still reading the "blog"

I haven't got to it yet. I'm doing overtime at work, so I can hit the Packer/Falcon game this weekend. I'll try and get to it this evening. However, I do have a life outside the board.

[nicolasconnault]

I haven't got to it yet. I'm doing overtime at work, so I can hit the Packer/Falcon game this weekend. I'll try and get to it this evening. However, I do have a life outside the board.

Just in case this saves you some time, the blog entries are actually a transcript of an extensive interview with Daymon Smith regarding his PhD dissertation.

[Calm]

ELF, perhaps these short summaries from the EOM (Plural Marriage and Manifesto entries) will help:

Earlier polygamous families continued to exist well into the twentieth century, causing further political problems for the Church, and new plural marriages did not entirely cease in 1890. After having lived the principle at some sacrifice for half a century, many devout Latter-day Saints found ending plural marriage a challenge almost as complex as was its beginning in the 1840s. Some new plural marriages were contracted in the 1890s in LDS settlements in Canada and northern Mexico, and a few elsewhere. With national attention again focused on the practice in the early 1900s during the House hearings on Representative-elect B. H. Roberts and Senate hearings on Senator-elect Reed Smoot (see Smoot Hearings), President Joseph F. Smith issued his "Second Manifesto" in 1904. Since that time, it has been uniform Church policy to excommunicate any member either practicing or openly advocating the practice of polygamy. Those who do so today, principally members of fundamentalist groups, do so outside the Church.

While nearly all Church leaders in 1890 regarded the Manifesto as inspired, there were differences among them about its scope and permanence. Some leaders were understandably reluctant to terminate a long-standing practice that was regarded as divinely mandated. As a result, a limited number of plural marriages were performed over the next several years. Not surprisingly, rumors of such marriages soon surfaced, and beginning in January 1904, testimony given in the Smoot hearings made it clear that plural marriage had not been completely extinguished. The ambiguity was ended in the General Conference of April 1904, when the First Presidency issued the "second manifesto," an emphatic declaration that prohibited plural marriage and proclaimed that offenders would be subject to Church discipline, including excommunication.

And last FAIR does a good job at outlining the cessation process (which was a process that took some time to complete):

It is estimated that fewer than two hundred plural marriages were sanctioned between 1890 and 1904.^[8] These were often performed in areas outside the reach of U.S. law, such as on the seas or in Mexico.

link has much more detail including comments from Elder Oaks: http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy/Practiced_after_the_Manifesto#Post-Manifesto_marriages

[Calm]

In regards to the doctrine of plural marriage, Jon (who has been banned I believe, but perhaps just from other threads) needs to remember that not only is sec 132 considered doctrine, but so is OD 1---which states that plural marriage is not to be practiced. Thus President Hinckley's comments are exactly correct. The practice of plural marriage (being defined as being married---not sealed; while related the two terms are not identical and those who use them interchangeably are using them inappropriately---to more than one living woman) in these days is not doctrinal.

For defintion, see lds.org, topic Plural marriage and Sealing:

the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time

An ordinance performed in the temple eternally uniting a husband and wife, or children and their parents.

[ELF1024]

ELF, perhaps these short summaries from the EOM (Plural Marriage and Manifesto entries) will help:

And last FAIR does a good job at outlining the cessation process (which was a process that took some time to complete): link has much more detail including comments from Elder Oaks: http://en.fairmormon...festo_marriages

Thank you

[zelder]

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. God never forces anybody to do anything that they don't want to do. Gods great plan of happiness provides the maximum happiness for everyone. Don't worry about it.

2. Plural marriage in the CK is doctrine. They have never revoked D&C 132 and men can still be sealed to more than one woman as long as only one woman is currently living. I don't have a problem with it though. God will not force anyone to honor the sealing if they dont want to. I'm sure many of us will feel good about anything God wants for us in the after life becasue God loves us and only wants our happiness.

3. IDK. Thats a complicated subject. However, in my experience, there are always more women than men at church. That could be a strong indication of what heaven might be like.

[cinepro]

God will not force anyone to honor the sealing if they dont want to.

I've never heard that sealings had an opt-out clause. Where did you learn this?

[zelder]

I've never heard that sealings had an opt-out clause. Where did you learn this?

I think there is always an option to opt-out. You can opt-out of your baptism/membership, you can opt-out of your sealing, even God can cease to be God if he wants to. I know plenty of people who have had their sealings blotted out in mortality, so I'm sure it can be done somehow in the afterlife. I suppose there are always consequences to these actions though. I'm mostly just trying to help the OP to not worry about polygamy in the afterlife. I'm sure everyone in heaven is very happy no matter what degree of glory they have, no matter how many wives or sister wives or lack thereof people have.