Kenngo1969 Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 I beg to differ, why were brides of JS & BY and fill in the blanks...., told they had to live it to reach exaltation? Why did several leaders keep marrying and ok'g polygamous unions post manifesto if it weren't so critical at the time? Just for fun?I dunno. What about the rich young man who asked the Savior what he had to do to get into Heaven? The Savior told him to keep the commandments. To the query, "Master, all of these have I kept from my youth up. What lack I yet?" he was told, "Sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, and follow me." Upon hearing this, the young man "went away, sorrowing, for he had great possessions." Does that mean that we must all sell everything we have and enter full-time into the ministry? Or did the Savior, perhaps, give this young man a commandment which was specifically tailored to him? If the Savior did the latter in this case, then who's to say that one of His Prophets couldn't give such a command to someone else in another case? 2
Kenngo1969 Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 But are they Gods? In the heading of section 132, it even says it has something to do with polygamy. Or it did at one time. But if it's only for the few so be it, but if my mind isn't playing tricks, I swear I read statements from past leaders, that say it is so. If I'm wrong, I apologise to Jazzdreamer.Technically, Christ didn't achieve full Godhood until after He was resurrected (compare Matthew 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12:48).
Kenngo1969 Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 Joseph Smith taught certain things relative to plural marriage in his day. Brigham Young taught certain things relative to plural marriage in his day. What those who wonder about it need to ask themselves is, "What is President Thomas S. Monson teaching about it (if anything) in his day?" If answering that question even, "Not much," is a great exaggeration, shouldn't that tell us something? See 2 Nephi 29:9.
Tacenda Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) Joseph Smith taught certain things relative to plural marriage in his day. Brigham Young taught certain things relative to plural marriage in his day. What those who wonder about it need to ask themselves is, "What is President Thomas S. Monson teaching about it (if anything) in his day?" If answering that question even, "Not much," is a great exaggeration, shouldn't that tell us something? See 2 Nephi 29:9.Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 578. Read the passage that plural marriage will commence in the hereafter. My son used that book on his mission. I was taken back by seeing the almost new copy in his missionary stuff. Apparently it's not such an ancient thing. When I googled exaltation, it wasn't hard to get refs even if it comes from a non LDS source. It leads to LDS sources. Added: It doesn't say to a select few either. Edited October 16, 2013 by Tacenda
Jazzdreamer Posted October 16, 2013 Author Posted October 16, 2013 Okay my new question though is who is the church to "kick out" a member for practicing polygamy? Though I don't agree with it by any means...uhm, I am wondering what if they were commanded by God as our "great Joseph" you know what I mean...?
Calm Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) Okay my new question though is who is the church to "kick out" a member for practicing polygamy? Though I don't agree with it by any means...uhm, I am wondering what if they were commanded by God as our "great Joseph" you know what I mean...?If you mean they received personal revelation from God to engage in polygyny, then they would have the choice of obeying God and being excommunicated because God has given a revelation, I believe, to the church leaders (at least at the time of the Manifesto) that polygyny is currently forbidden among God's people. Until God reveals to the Prophet that he desires the Church to practice polygyny....if he ever does....the Church and its members need to be obedient to the commandment that is in place not to practice it. I highly doubt this would ever actually happen. I cannot explain if there is someone out there who is a member who believes God has reveal to them they should practice it, but that is not my call to make. I can't judge the validity of other people's internal spiritual experience, I can only evaluate my own. Edited October 16, 2013 by calmoriah 1
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) But are they Gods? In the heading of section 132, it even says it has something to do with polygamy. I'm only aware of one revelation recorded that talks about plural marriage (section 132) and there is nothing in it that says everyone must practice it to be exalted. As I mentioned before, verses 19-20 make it apparent that monogamists can be exalted and be "gods." Here is the relevant text (edited for brevity): And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood... they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. The antecedent to "they" is clearly "a man" and "a wife." In other words, there is no requirement in these verses for polygamy in order to obtain exaltation. The revelation doesn't talk about polygamy at all until after it has laid down the requirements for exaltation mentioned in these verses. And, I think common sense says that's the case when you consider demographics (male:female ratio) and the countless faithful who have never entered into polygamy. I fully expect that my wife and I, if we meet the requirements outlined in these verses, will receive the exaltation mentioned in them as well without having to seek out another wife or two. Edited October 16, 2013 by DispensatorMysteriorum
Kenngo1969 Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Page 578. Read the passage that plural marriage will commence in the hereafter. My son used that book on his mission. I was taken back by seeing the almost new copy in his missionary stuff. Apparently it's not such an ancient thing. When I googled exaltation, it wasn't hard to get refs even if it comes from a non LDS source. It leads to LDS sources. Added: It doesn't say to a select few either.Tacenda, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate with you about what President Joseph Smith, or President Brigham Young, or Elder Bruce R. McConkie, or Elder L. Dean Hickenlooper of the Twelfth Quorum of the Seventy said in a Priesthood Leadership Meeting of the Roseblossom Ward of the Garden City West Stake, or what he wrote in his seminal doctrinal work, The Essential, Indispensable Gospel According to Elder Hickenlooper. (On my mission [and I doubt I'm alone in this regard], we called Mormon Doctrine the Book of Bruce.) If one posits that plural marriage is a carte blanche commandment to every man and woman in the Church, and as the number of wives per husband increases, it quickly faces the same problem as multilevel marketing: there aren't enough numbers to make it work, and I'm assuming that this will even be true in the afterlife, given that I believe roughly equal numbers of men and women will be saved/exalted. If I'm asked to live plural marriage sometime in this life, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. If I'm asked to live it in the next life, I'd have to get there first before it even begins to matter. And the only things that President Smith, President Young, Elder McConkie or anyone else said that still matter to me today are the things that appear in current, correlated Church materials.
MorningStar Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 Okay my new question though is who is the church to "kick out" a member for practicing polygamy? Though I don't agree with it by any means...uhm, I am wondering what if they were commanded by God as our "great Joseph" you know what I mean...?It wouldn't be a legal marriage or one recognized by God. It would be adultery.
Kenngo1969 Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) There is only one person on the earth who is authorized to receive and enact revelation for the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, subject to the unanimous assent of the rest of The Fifteen (the Counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve). The lifting of the restriction on Priesthood is instructive: despite the fact that various members of the First Presidency and the Twelve had expressed varying opinions on the matter before the revelation, they were unanimous afterward. If I receive a personal, spiritual manifestation that purports to contravene the current doctrine or practice of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that manifestation does not authorize me to speak on behalf of the Church. The Lord doesn't work "bottom-up" by giving Brother Smedley Smileright (a rank-and-file member of the Church of Jesus Christ) a revelation or manifestation which He intends to be binding on the entire Church (and for that matter, this is also true of any individual member of the rest of The Fifteen). He works "top-down" by giving the current Church President the revelation, which then is ratified by the rest of The Fifteen (as was the case with the lifting of the restriction on Priesthood). The Lord's House is a House of Order. How do we know that the Lord won't tell Brother Smileright anything that's binding on the whole Church? The Lord only has one Mouthpiece on the Earth at any given time: Why Brother Smileright cannot claim to have received a private revelation which is binding on the entire Church: Doctrine & Covenants 42: 11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church. Why Brother Smileright is “out of the way” if he claims to have received a private revelation which is binding on him when it contravenes what the President of the Church has revealed: Doctrine & Covenants 21: 4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; 5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. Edited October 16, 2013 by Kenngo1969 1
Damien the Leper Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 Polygamy is absolutely inconsequential to salvation. No one need worry about it or the abuses strains of it that found their roots in the 1840s.
Calm Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 Val, for new board members who are looking for the LDS understanding, you need to explain where you are coming from to avoid confusion. You tend to say things a bit stronger than most current members do.
Damien the Leper Posted October 16, 2013 Posted October 16, 2013 Val, for new board members who are looking for the LDS understanding, you need to explain where you are coming from to avoid confusion. You tend to say things a bit stronger than most current members do. Apologies. In the grander scheme of soteriologically motivated matrimony, polygamy ranks low.
Jazzdreamer Posted October 16, 2013 Author Posted October 16, 2013 Apologies. In the grander scheme of soteriologically motivated matrimony, polygamy ranks low.Thank you for your explanation on this matter<3
williamsmith Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) Simply Polygamy or Plural Marriage (aka Sealing) is only necessary for salvation for those who are commanded by God to live it, or under it.It's a doctrine, given and taken away per the Lords requirements. That's all you need to believe. Even when it's been commanded only those God ordains are commanded to live it. For example in Brigham's time only a small # of the church lived it. It is a calling of God, and like any calling, it must be spiritually received. The spirit must speak to you. So, that's it. I once left the church because of polygamy and other issues, but when I came to understand the truth about it and the other issues I came back, and I then also spiritually came to understand it when I understood it was about "love", not lust. Pure love. Edited October 17, 2013 by williamsmith
Damien the Leper Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Thank you for your explanation on this matter<3 You're welcome and welcome to the best board ever! Im not being sarcastic either. This place has the best misfits in the world.
Jazzdreamer Posted October 17, 2013 Author Posted October 17, 2013 You're welcome and welcome to the best board ever! Im not being sarcastic either. This place has the best misfits in the world.Lol oh I've found that I learn more HERE than I do in church. I love it so far!! People so wonderful and helpful!! ^.^And thanks for the welcome
EllenMaksoud Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 Is polygamy necessary for exaltation? Is this true?? Where does it say this??Look at Jacob 2 in the BOM, and then you will wonder how polygamy came up.
Jazzdreamer Posted October 19, 2013 Author Posted October 19, 2013 Look at Jacob 2 in the BOM, and then you will wonder how polygamy came up.So how did Jacob get around that..?
Garden Girl Posted October 20, 2013 Posted October 20, 2013 Look at Jacob 2 in the BOM, and then you will wonder how polygamy came up. So how did Jacob get around that..? You have to read Jacob 2:26-30 very carefully....The Lord tells the people:They shall not do "like unto them of old" (i.e., have more than one wife...)He tells them "For there shall not any man among you have save it one wife; and concubines he shall have none (pretty clear that this is the norm the Lord wants in general)...He delights in chastity of women, and the people shall keep his commandments..."For if I will... raise up seed unto me... I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (one man, one wife). This type of discussion should be in the General Discussions Forum because someone else may have some differing opinion about these verses... and this Forum is for social discussion... GG
EllenMaksoud Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 You have to read Jacob 2:26-30 very carefully....The Lord tells the people:They shall not do "like unto them of old" (i.e., have more than one wife...)He tells them "For there shall not any man among you have save it one wife; and concubines he shall have none (pretty clear that this is the norm the Lord wants in general)...He delights in chastity of women, and the people shall keep his commandments..."For if I will... raise up seed unto me... I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (one man, one wife). This type of discussion should be in the General Discussions Forum because someone else may have some differing opinion about these verses... and this Forum is for social discussion... GGSo, someone should move it.
Garden Girl Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 So, someone should move it.Other parts of the thread are fine for social, but this last is something that should be discussed in Gen Disc... the thread directions can sometimes cross over as did this one part on page 3... so if this direction is to be pursued then a new thread in Gen Disc should be started... GG
EllenMaksoud Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Other parts of the thread are fine for social, but this last is something that should be discussed in Gen Disc... the thread directions can sometimes cross over as did this one part on page 3... so if this direction is to be pursued then a new thread in Gen Disc should be started... GGI didn't start the thread.
Garden Girl Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 So, someone should move it. I didn't start the thread. Tsk, Tsk Ellen... don't be so touchy... a new poster did start the thread, and I was merely explaining that a thread can sometimes take a turn from being more "social" into an area that is better suited for discussion in Gen Disc in which case a new thread would be started in Gen Disc, if desired, to continue this type of subject to allow for differing opinions if any... I wasn't being critical in the least... GG
savedbygrace Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Why were people told in the OT that circumcision was an eternal, everlasting covenant with God and commanded to perform it or be damned and yet we aren't commanded to live that law today?That law has been fulfilled in Christ, we are now in the new covenant that does not require circumcision.
Recommended Posts