Same Sex Marriage

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope, sorry.

I asked for contemporary references from GA's DURING the height of polygamy.  Not what we say today.

My original post (being silly) was that it was once taught that polygamy was required for exaltation.

 

Sometimesaint claimed that was never required for exaltation except of those called to live polygamy.

That is not true in the teachings of the GA's of that time.

 

So, once again, CFR that polygamy was never taught as required for exaltation.  Because it absolutely was taught at that time.

A broader hindsight view from the perspective of what was actually practiced and how the belief was actually implemented yields a more accurate picture than a slanted selection of quotes with hyperbolic rhetoric. In point of fact, most of the Latter-day Saints during the early Utah period did not practice polygamy, especially in the more rural areas where it would have been more difficult if not impossible to do so. I know of no teaching that condemns these faithful Church members.

 

The "Gospel Topics" essay was composed with the aid of historians who bring to bear a historian's perspective, to wit:

 

During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God.

 

Edited April 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

Nope, sorry.

I asked for contemporary references from GA's DURING the height of polygamy.  Not what we say today.

My original post (being silly) was that it was once taught that polygamy was required for exaltation.

 

Sometimesaint claimed that was never required for exaltation except of those called to live polygamy.

That is not true in the teachings of the GA's of that time.

 

So, once again, CFR that polygamy was never taught as required for exaltation.  Because it absolutely was taught at that time.

 

Are you arguing that roughly 70% of church membership during the polygamy years understood that by not being polygamous they were not going to be able to be exalted?

[Tsuzuki]

http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/

I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby.

I think that polygamy will soon be legal.

Awesome. Good for them. I hope their lives together are full of much joy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

A broader hindsight view from the perspective of what was actually practiced and how the belief was actually implemented yields a more accurate picture than a slanted selection of quotes with hyperbolic rhetoric. In point of fact, most of the Latter-day Saints during the early Utah period did not practice polygamy, especially in the more rural areas where it would have been more difficult if not impossible to do so. I know of no teaching that condemns these faithful Church members.

 

The "Gospel Topics" essay was composed with the aid of historians who bring to bear a historian's perspective, to wit:

I have journals two different (women) ancestors in rural Utah. Both interpreted the principle as being required for exhalation. Both turned down single suitors to join polygamous households. Were they just not listening carefully during general conference?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are you arguing that roughly 70% of church membership during the polygamy years understood that by not being polygamous they were not going to be able to be exalted?

Well let's use numbers from today. More than half of members are not active. About half of the active members don't have recommends. How is that any different?

ETA: Why do you think the church was so reluctant to get rid of polygamy? Why did it cause the formation of splinter groups that currently teach polygamy is required?

Edited April 23, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JLHPROF]

A broader hindsight view from the perspective of what was actually practiced and how the belief was actually implemented yields a more accurate picture than a slanted selection of quotes with hyperbolic rhetoric. In point of fact, most of the Latter-day Saints during the early Utah period did not practice polygamy, especially in the more rural areas where it would have been more difficult if not impossible to do so. I know of no teaching that condemns these faithful Church members.

 

The "Gospel Topics" essay was composed with the aid of historians who bring to bear a historian's perspective, to wit:

 

I appreciate your clarification, but I respectfully disagree.

I consider the sermons of the GA's to the general church in public conference to have taught clearly that polygamy was a requirement of exaltation, at least between 1852 and 1890.

 

 

Are you arguing that roughly 70% of church membership during the polygamy years understood that by not being polygamous they were not going to be able to be exalted?

 

Yes (for the most part).  It shouldn't be that hard to believe.  How many members today neglect to live all the laws and ordinances of the Church necessary for exaltation?  Members in those days didn't want to live all the required laws either.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Again at its height only a small percentage of LDS were ever asked.

Despite what is around in Mormon pop culture, members were generally not asked to enter it. There were general exhortations. Once members decided to enter a plural marriage they would apply to their priesthood leadership (in many cases President Young) for approval.

Edited April 23, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

Well let's use numbers from today. More than half of members are not active. About half of the active members don't have recommends. How is that any different?

ETA: Why do you think the church was so reluctant to get rid of polygamy? Why did it cause the formation of splinter groups that currently teach polygamy is required.

 

The difference that i'm wondering about is that the church actively attempts to get these people to attend church and eventually to the temple.  They push it as much as is humanly possible.  Reactivating members and moving them to the temple is probably the main activity of the church.

 

This is because the church has always had as it's main priority to point as many people towards exaltation as possible. 

 

Did the church do that with plural marriage?  Was it a main part of church activity back then to get as many people as possibly would to join polygamous marriages?  I honestly don't know.

 

If they didn't, I'm wondering, why not?  

Edited April 23, 2014 by bluebell

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The difference that i'm wondering about is that the church actively attempts to get these people to attend church and eventually to the temple.  They push it as much as is humanly possible.  Reactivating members and moving them to the temple is probably the main activity of the church.  

 

Did the church do that with plural marriage?  Was it a main part of church activity back then to get as many people as possibly would to join polygamous marriages?  I honestly don't know.

Yes it was. It was a constant admonition to enter plural marriage. I don't think they cared about the math. It resulted in a large number of female teens being sought for marriage. In the case of my ancestors that I have researched (the journals I mentioned) both were sought after by married men (in one case a bishop) in their early teens (IIRC around 14-15). There was not a lot of pressure brought to bear and they politely demurred, but marriages to girls at least a decade or two younger than the man were relatively common.

[JLHPROF]

The difference that i'm wondering about is that the church actively attempts to get these people to attend church and eventually to the temple.  They push it as much as is humanly possible.  Reactivating members and moving them to the temple is probably the main activity of the church.

 

This is because the church has always had as it's main priority to point as many people towards exaltation as possible. 

 

Did the church do that with plural marriage?  Was it a main part of church activity back then to get as many people as possibly would to join polygamous marriages?  I honestly don't know.

 

If they didn't, I'm wondering, why not?  

 

I think they did.  There are numerous stories in the histories of GA's encouraging individuals AND the general populace to enter into polygamous marriages.  Sometimes they did it playfully.  Sometimes they did it with fire and brimstone.  The message was always the same.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think they did.  There are numerous stories in the histories of GA's encouraging individuals AND the general populace to enter into polygamous marriages.  Sometimes they did it playfully.  Sometimes they did it with fire and brimstone.  The message was always the same.

As I said: rhetoric and hyperbole. The very concept would have been repugnant to the typical Christian in the Victorian age. I imagine It took a lot of preaching and cajoling to get even the limited number who did to live it. Had there been the slightest sign of leniency, I suppose a great many would have rationalized that they didn't need to enter into the practice, even though it was being strongly preached from the pulpit.

 

If the Church leaders sincerely meant that the practice of it (not just the acceptance of the doctrine) was essential for exaltation, that would have meant the majority of the Church being ineligible for exaltation, even those who would have entered into the practice if they could.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes (for the most part).  It shouldn't be that hard to believe.  How many members today neglect to live all the laws and ordinances of the Church necessary for exaltation?  Members in those days didn't want to live all the required laws either.

The difference is that it is within the capability of anyone to live the laws and ordinances as they are taught today. Not so with plural marriage. A substantial number could not have lived it even if they had wanted to, including those who died as children, some with physical or mental disabilities, some who were sick or infirm, some in poverty, etc.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/

I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby.

I think that polygamy will soon be legal.

Elder Hales calls it “natural man’s obedience” but the message has been consistent from “Year One”: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/if-ye-love-me-keep-my-commandments?lang=eng

 

“Because this is widely practiced by so many, this perversion of obedience diminishes God’s standards in our culture and in our laws.”

 

“…For example, the commandment “thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it is founded upon spiritual law that protects all of God’s children, even the unborn. Long experience suggests that when we ignore this law, immeasurable sorrow results. Yet many believe it is acceptable to terminate the life of an unborn child for reasons of preference or convenience.”

[Scott Lloyd]

I have journals two different (women) ancestors in rural Utah. Both interpreted the principle as being required for exhalation. Both turned down single suitors to join polygamous households. Were they just not listening carefully during general conference?

Well, if they truly believed that practicing polygamy was required for the proper function of their respiratory system, no wonder they were so anxious to do it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Lol. My wife says I could misspell the word cat.

[Anteojito]

http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/

I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby.

I think that polygamy will soon be legal.

And that is a problem because....?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think they did.  There are numerous stories in the histories of GA's encouraging individuals AND the general populace to enter into polygamous marriages.  Sometimes they did it playfully.  Sometimes they did it with fire and brimstone.  The message was always the same.

Charles W. Penrose was a prominent member of the Church who lived during the plural marriage period. He edited the Manifesto for publication. Later, he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency.

 

Here is what he wrote in 1912. Granted, it was after the Manifesto was issued, but it reflects the understanding of one who had long been acquainted with the principle.

 

Charles W. Penrose,  "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era, (September 1912)

Question 4

: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?

 

Answer

: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential.

[1]

 

 

Edited April 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Sperm bank. Polygamy will eventually be legalized because of its existence in Islam and also among the independent polygamous Mormons. Rights will need to be extended all groups who wish to marry. Three men marrying...three women marrying...Four women getting married together...the sky's the limit.

 

So is that a bad thing?

 

Are you opposed to religious freedom?  

[Grudunza]

I just did a search for "polygamy necessary exaltation" and found numerous quotes from Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and others to the effect that polygamy was required for exaltation.

Just one of many quotes, from BY: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses 11:268) BY also said at one point, though, that people who were at least willing to practice it, but couldn't, for whatever reason, would be considered faithful in that regard.

But regardless, that polygamy was necessary for exaltation seemed to be the prevailing wisdom of the time.

[Walden]

Or communal marriage, open to all comers regardless of sexual orientation.

 

It would seem the easiest way to destroy the concept of the family is to blur its defintion.

 

Or multiple marriages, where men and women try on a partner every few years....get married, get uncomfortable, get a divorce, and then marry again, get uncomfortable, get divorced, marry again....oh wait, that's the example set by hetero marriage, the "traditional" kind.

[The Nehor]

Just one of many quotes, from BY: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses 11:268) BY also said at one point, though, that people who were at least willing to practice it, but couldn't, for whatever reason, would be considered faithful in that regard.

 

I am willing to live polygamy.

 

......................................Crap!

 

No translation or visions of eternity. What lack I yet? This gospel thing is hard.

[Senator]

If the government was removed from the marriage equation, I wonder how may people that are so vociferously opposed to "other" families arrangements would continue to be so?

[The Nehor]

If the government was removed from the marriage equation, I wonder how may people that are so vociferously opposed to "other" families arrangements would continue to be so?

 

I would because I do not think it is healthy for society.

[Senator]

I would because I do not think it is healthy for society.

What form(s) would your opposition take?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As I said: rhetoric and hyperbole. The very concept would have been repugnant to the typical Christian in the Victorian age. I imagine It took a lot of preaching and cajoling to get even the limited number who did to live it. Had there been the slightest sign of leniency, I suppose a great many would have rationalized that they didn't need to enter into the practice, even though it was being strongly preached from the pulpit.

 

If the Church leaders sincerely meant that the practice of it (not just the acceptance of the doctrine) was essential for exaltation, that would have meant the majority of the Church being ineligible for exaltation, even those who would have entered into the practice if they could.

This seems to be a plausible explanation for the discrepancy.