Ssa And Recognizing Marriages

[rockpond]

Except that it is impossible that God would cease to be God, and to acknowldge same-sex unions would deny His own perfected way of life which si the basis for the plan of happiness.

 

Is God a monogamist or a polygamist?  And does His status in one of those types of unions deny exaltation for those how are not in that type of marriage?

[thesometimesaint]

That's not an answer.  What was the process for being commanded to practice polygamy?  You said that individuals had to be commanded to practice it and that 132 wasn't understood as the command for anyone who wanted the highest level of exaltation.

 

If you can cite the records of those who didn't receive permission and were excommunicated, that might be useful in trying to understand the process for receiving the command.

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/11/what-happened-in-nauvoo-part-3-polygamy/

[rockpond]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/11/what-happened-in-nauvoo-part-3-polygamy/

 

I read it but it doesn't answer the question.

[thesometimesaint]

I read it but it doesn't answer the question.

 

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[rockpond]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

If there is something in there that you believe answers the questions, then please quote it or point to it.

[thesometimesaint]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/11/what-happened-in-nauvoo-part-3-polygamy/

 

4. So how did it work? “Between January 1842, when Theodore Turley became the second polygamist in Nauvoo, and June 1844, more than two dozen of Joseph’s confidants received sealing blessings with their first wives and then married additional wives” (p. 346). Theodore who? He seems like an odd choice for the first man to follow Joseph into the practice. “[brigham] Young was the first of the Twelve to take a plural wife, in June 1842, followed soon afterward by Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards. Others joined the limited marriage group one by one as invited to do so” (p. 346)....

 

...Some LDS leaders who were aware of the practice were not invited or were unwilling to participate.

Because Sidney Rigdon and William Law rejected plural marriage as inconsistent with previously revealed doctrine, these counselors in the First Presidency did not receive the covenants of eternal marriage. Nor did John C. Bennett, an assistant president, who distorted his limited knowledge of the doctrine to justify immoral behavior. He was excommunicated for his promiscuity. (p. 348)

[rockpond]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/11/what-happened-in-nauvoo-part-3-polygamy/

 

4. So how did it work? “Between January 1842, when Theodore Turley became the second polygamist in Nauvoo, and June 1844, more than two dozen of Joseph’s confidants received sealing blessings with their first wives and then married additional wives” (p. 346). Theodore who? He seems like an odd choice for the first man to follow Joseph into the practice. “[brigham] Young was the first of the Twelve to take a plural wife, in June 1842, followed soon afterward by Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards. Others joined the limited marriage group one by one as invited to do so” (p. 346)....

 

...Some LDS leaders who were aware of the practice were not invited or were unwilling to participate.

Because Sidney Rigdon and William Law rejected plural marriage as inconsistent with previously revealed doctrine, these counselors in the First Presidency did not receive the covenants of eternal marriage. Nor did John C. Bennett, an assistant president, who distorted his limited knowledge of the doctrine to justify immoral behavior. He was excommunicated for his promiscuity. (p. 348)

 

So we're viewing the invitation by the prophet as the commandment to practice plural marriage?  I could accept that but this was only during the time that it was being done in secret.

 

What happened after 1844?  How did it work when Brigham Young took the practice public in the Salt Lake valley?  When he was condemning monogamy, was it still necessary to be invited to practice plural marriage or did you just decide to bring your new plural wife and ask to be sealed?

 

John C. Bennett didn't attempt to be married or sealed to the women he was having sexual relations with though he claimed it was sanctioned by the prophet.  A fair reason for him to be excommunicated, in my opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

So we're viewing the invitation by the prophet as the commandment to practice plural marriage?  I could accept that but this was only during the time that it was being done in secret.

 

What happened after 1844?  How did it work when Brigham Young took the practice public in the Salt Lake valley?  When he was condemning monogamy, was it still necessary to be invited to practice plural marriage or did you just decide to bring your new plural wife and ask to be sealed?

 

John C. Bennett didn't attempt to be married or sealed to the women he was having sexual relations with though he claimed it was sanctioned by the prophet.  A fair reason for him to be excommunicated, in my opinion.

 

Christ commanded the leapers to tell no one, they all but one, told anyway.

 

Even after the BY took the practice public few members of the Church practiced polygamy. No one that I know of faced Church discipline because they were monogamists.

 

Adultry has always been against the rules of the Church. Polygamy has not.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

[rockpond]

Christ commanded the leapers to tell no one, they all but one, told anyway.

 

Even after the BY took the practice public few members of the Church practiced polygamy. No one that I know of faced Church discipline because they were monogamists.

 

Adultry has always been against the rules of the Church. Polygamy has not.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

 

I guess "few members" were thought to be on the path to receiving the highest level of exaltation.  Interesting.

 

So...

 

What happened after 1844?  How did it work when Brigham Young took the practice public in the Salt Lake valley?  When he was condemning monogamy, was it still necessary to be invited to practice plural marriage or did you just decide to bring your new plural wife and ask to be sealed?

[CV75]

Pure speculation.

LOL--a bit more well-founded than that!

[CV75]

Polygamy was originally taught as THE way to the highest level of exaltation.  Monogamy was decried by church leaders.  We had to reach the depths of humility before the prophet was able to be taught by God that there could be another way.

 

Priesthood for all men was the rule but we failed to understand that.  We put in a restriction without God's sanction.  

Now this is pure speculation!

 

 

We've placed a restriction on same-gender marriage and no revelation supporting such has been provided to us.  Maybe it's God's will.  Maybe it isn't.

 

Hopefully someday we'll know for sure.

 

Yes, I suppose following a revelation coud be viewed as placing a restriction on not following it. Glass half-full/empty kind of thing.

 

With faith, we don't need to know for sure.

[CV75]

Is God a monogamist or a polygamist?  And does His status in one of those types of unions deny exaltation for those how are not in that type of marriage?

No--He revealed D&C 132.

[thesometimesaint]

I guess "few members" were thought to be on the path to receiving the highest level of exaltation.  Interesting.

 

So...

 

What happened after 1844?  How did it work when Brigham Young took the practice public in the Salt Lake valley?  When he was condemning monogamy, was it still necessary to be invited to practice plural marriage or did you just decide to bring your new plural wife and ask to be sealed?

 

That is possible, but I really don't believe so. Polygamy is a short term solution for a short term problem. Long term its practice is problematic(It creates more problems than it solves).

 

All that really happened was that it was publically known. The requirements would be the same. I can see BY condemning monogamy for those that were commanded to practice poygamy.

[rockpond]

No--He revealed D&C 132.

 

So once again you are making exceptions to your own rules.  You said that we have to be exactly as God is to be exalted, therefore same gender marriage is a future impossibility for exaltation.  Well, is God a monogamist or a polygamist?  By the logic you've set out, we have to be just like him.

 

D&C 132 commanded plural marriage.  Revelation later allowed us to understand the new and everlasting covenant as inclusive of one man, one woman marriages.  You insist that future revelation can't adjust the new & everlasting covenant to also include same gender sealings and yet past revelation has provided additional understanding of that covenant outside of the original understanding of Section 132.

[rockpond]

Now this is pure speculation!

 

 

 

Yes, I suppose following a revelation coud be viewed as placing a restriction on not following it. Glass half-full/empty kind of thing.

 

With faith, we don't need to know for sure.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying is speculation.

 

And, what "revelation" placed the restriction on same gender marriage?

[rockpond]

That is possible, but I really don't believe so. Polygamy is a short term solution for a short term problem. Long term its practice is problematic(It creates more problems than it solves).

 

All that really happened was that it was publically known. The requirements would be the same. I can see BY condemning monogamy for those that were commanded to practice poygamy.

 

How was polygamy a short term solution for a short term problem?

 

How is its long term practice problematic?  Our teachings dictate that it will come back post-Millenium.

 

BY didn't condemn monogamy for those that were commanded to practice polygamy.  He just condemned it.  As did other church leaders.  And you still have not established how/when it was commanded to individuals.

 

Section 132 was understood at the time to be the commandment for all.

[thesometimesaint]

How was polygamy a short term solution for a short term problem?

 

How is its long term practice problematic?  Our teachings dictate that it will come back post-Millenium.

 

BY didn't condemn monogamy for those that were commanded to practice polygamy.  He just condemned it.  As did other church leaders.  And you still have not established how/when it was commanded to individuals.

 

Section 132 was understood at the time to be the commandment for all.

 

Its answer is given right in Scripture.

SEE Book of Mormon Jacob 2:30

30: For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

For every man with 2 or more wives, one or more men must do without any. An unattached young male man is the most dangerous of species sociologically speaking.

 

I have no idea as to what Post-Millennium marriage will look like. But I am familiar with what Pre-Millennium marriages look like.

 

If you are commanded to do one thing then did another. Would you not be under condemnation?

 

I've already shown you where at the time D&C 132 wasn't applied to the general Church membership but was by invitation.

Edited September 10, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[rockpond]

Its answer is given right in Scripture.

SEE Book of Mormon Jacob 2:30

30: For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

For every man with 2 or more wives, one or more men must do without any. An unattached young male man is the most dangerous of species sociologically speaking.

 

I have no idea as to what Post-Millennium marriage will look like. But I am familiar with what Pre-Millennium marriages look like.

 

If you are commanded to do one thing then did another. Would you not be under condemnation?

 

I've already shown you where at the time D&C 132 wasn't applied to the general Church membership but was by invitation.

 

If the purpose of polygamy was to raise up seed than Joseph Smith failed, right?  And apparently so did the saints in the Salt Lake valley as polygamous wives had fewer children than their monogamous counterparts.  (http://www.scribd.com/doc/49314559/Moorad-2010-Effect-of-Mormon-Fundamentalist-Polygyny-on-Genetic-Evolutionary-Fitness)

 

All you have shown is that while polygamy was practiced in secret in Nauvoo, it was done by invitation of the prophet.  That only covers the first few years of the six decades.

 

You have claimed that it was done by commandment and that Section 132 was not the commandment to all.  But you have not supported that with any actual evidence of commandments to anyone to practice it.

 

Either Section 132 was the command to all to practice polygamy as indicated by Jacob 2:30 and as supported by the Joseph F Smith testimony I quoted earlier.  Or, there had to have been a process for commanding specific men to practice plural marriage.

[MormonMason]

Permission, yes.  But how was the command from God given to practice plural marriage?

 

For six decades we practiced plural marriage... if it wasn't understood as THE requirement for the highest level of exaltation and was only done when commanded, then what was the process for receiving such a command?  Is there a record of that occurring?

Yes.  The process is described in The Seer, by Orson Pratt, published in 1853-1854, for one thing.  See here all of page 31 of The Seer to read about the process.

 

In several talks in the Journal of Discourses, it also has been stated that exaltation could come even to those with only one wife, and that circumstances would prevent people from living this principle, and that it was in no way possible for this principle to be for all people everywhere.  People who could not live that principle and law for whatever reason were encouraged to be "polygamists in heart" even if they could not be so in practice.

Edited September 10, 2013 by MormonMason

[rockpond]

Yes.  The process is described in The Seer, by Orson Pratt, published in 1853-1854, for one thing.  See here all of page 31 of The Seer to read about the process.

 

In several talks in the Journal of Discourses, it also has been stated that exaltation could come even to those with only one wife, and that circumstances would prevent people from living this principle, and that it was in no way possible for this principle to be for all people everywhere.  People who could not live that principle and law for whatever reason were encouraged to be "polygamists in heart" even if they could not be so in practice.

 

Thank you.  Very interesting.  So there was a process where by the man went to the prophet and obtained a revelation.  Cool.

 

Do you have specifics on the JoD teachings that exaltation could come with one wife?  Cause I'm familiar with the teachings like this one by Brigham Young (also from the JoD):

 

"Now, where a man in this Church says, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one," he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, "Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent," and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever."

 

Doesn't sound like exaltation.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

I don't care what anyone does as long as it doesn't harm or infringe upon someone else's life, rights, freedoms or beliefs.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Anti-NOMunistJackMormon

[Calm]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/11/what-happened-in-nauvoo-part-3-polygamy/

 

4. So how did it work? “Between January 1842, when Theodore Turley became the second polygamist in Nauvoo, and June 1844, more than two dozen of Joseph’s confidants received sealing blessings with their first wives and then married additional wives” (p. 346). Theodore who? He seems like an odd choice for the first man to follow Joseph into the practice.

 

Turley is one of my great greats.  He was very faithful, very committed and in Nauvoo, he lived across the street from JS, my memory says he was a close friend.  I believe it is in one of his journals that they used to go out on the porch at times to hear Joseph speak.  There are a lot of his descendants in the Church.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/person/theodore-turley

 

Joseph refers to him here:

 

“… Friendship is like Brother [Theodore] Turley in his blacksmith shop welding iron to iron; it unites the human family with its happy influence.”⁶

 

 

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-40?lang=eng&query=theodore+Turley

Edited September 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

 

Turley is one of my great greats.  He was very faithful, very committed and in Nauvoo, he lived across the street from JS, my memory says he was a close friend.  I believe it is in one of his journals that they used to go out on the porch at times to hear Joseph speak.  There are a lot of his descendants in the Church.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/person/theodore-turley

 

Joseph refers to him here:

 

 

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-40?lang=eng&query=theodore+Turley

 

 

That's cool.  I assume that he had to have been very faithful and close with the Prophet if he was the first man (after Joseph) to begin practicing polygamy.

[california boy]

For every man with 2 or more wives, one or more men must do without any. An unattached young male man is the most dangerous of species sociologically speaking.

 

Unless of course, the unattached male is gay.  Then we want him to remain unattached.  Right?

[MormonMason]

Unless of course, the unattached male is gay.  Then we want him to remain unattached.  Right?

According to all scripture as a whole, he will remain separate and single throughout eternity.  It matters not what we want or do not want.  Doctrine and Covenants 132 clearly states "a man" and "a wife" and "he marry her," etc.  Pretty clear in light of that that any attachment formed in this life between man and man, or between woman and woman, is forever temporary.

 

Add to that the clear statements of scripture in the New Testament about homosexuality being in the list of things that keep people out of the kingdom of God, Jesus' very clear teaching about what kind of marriage is acceptable to God (male and female together, and no other), and the stated purpose of marriage in the scriptures as a whole, and we can be fairly certain that there never will be homosexual relationships solemnized in temples of the Most High.

 

They would have to rewrite all the scriptures, like people are trying to rewrite the dictionary and set on its head thousands of years of tradition, in order to make allowance for that to happen.  There could be no way for men on men and female on female relationships ever to be like heavenly Father and heavenly Mother, and no way for them to be "heirs together of the grace of life" as with man and woman.  We'd have to jettison that teaching, too, as well as that bit about God's work being "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

 

I just don't see it happening...ever.