A Polygamy Article Worth Discussing

[juliann]

The person we are supposed to be the closest to is God, God has certainly given us independence.  Free will is independence, Satan's plan was one of dependence.  If you love something, let them go.  God let us go when we came to earth - so we can learn to walk on our own two feet, so we can learn to be independent.   I think it is important to not be attached/controlling/dependent - but to let everyone, including yourself, be free.  The entire war in heaven and on Earth is over freedom.   

I thought you agreed with me that interdependent was better than dependent... interdependent comes after someone is already independent - that you are not together for financial support, or any sort of dependency, is a more mature relationship I think....

 

  Polygamy didn't make this happen. The women were dependent simply because women's work was the lowest paying job around. When their husband's didn't provide, the wives looked to their own families for help.

 

, we are plainly told Mary's title, she is the handmaid of the Lord, and we all know what a handmaid is.

 

A handmaid is a helper or servant. Mary is best known as the mother of Jesus, not his maid.

 

Jacob 2:27-30 seems to indicate that monogamy is preferred over polygyny.

Indeed, as does the PotF.   Not one polygamy advocate has produced any statement from the CHI or a living prophet saying polygamy is the norm.  They haven't since I started asking years ago. 

 

Plural marriage is "The Law of The Holy Priesthood" (D&C 132:28). And despite Hudson's claim that plural marriage is a "Abrahamic Test"; Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham "Because this was the law." (D&C 132:34)

I think it is detrimental to create and promote reasons for God.

In fact, I believe there is some instruction from an Apostle about creating reasons for what and why God has commanded.

Then stop trying to put definitions on the Law of Sarah. It is one of the more unclear things in the D&C.   As for Abraham, one doesn't need Hudson to see the connection.

 

 132: 32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

 

 36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

 

 50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

 

Now unless you are going to claim that women have no claim to any of these blessings cause they are only objects for men, "given" like a prize, the promises are ours as well. But I think the church is beyond only talking about men's exaltation and glory... although I still see a lot of that 19th century mindset on message boards.

Edited June 9, 2014 by juliann

[changed]

A handmaid is a helper or servant. Mary is best known as the mother of Jesus, not his maid.

Mary was the handmaid of Heavenly Father, not of Jesus.

Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. ...

Again, it's the "Law of Sarah"

 

[cdowis]

del

Edited June 9, 2014 by cdowis

[frank_jessop]

Then stop trying to put definitions on the Law of Sarah. It is one of the more unclear things in the D&C.

Ummm, I applied the context to which the phrase "law of Sarah" was given and the context is clear. See D&C 132: 64, 65

As for Abraham, one doesn't need Hudson to see the connection.

132: 32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

What are the sacrifices mentioned in verse 50? And please demonstrate that those "sacrifices" are directly related to plural marriage.

Can I cherry-pick scripture and promote an agenda that plural marriage is a requirement?

I assume you present verse 32 to be about plural marriage; otherwise why make the case that plural marriage is a Abrahamic test.

132:32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

132:33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

Now unless you are going to claim that women have no claim to any of these blessings cause they are only objects for men, "given" like a prize, the promises are ours as well. But I think the church is beyond only talking about men's exaltation and glory... although I still see a lot of that 19th century mindset on message boards.

I quoted the scripture and provide the given context. Please do not project your issues on to me.

I have not set out to create my own "new vision of the compatibility" about God concerning why or when He permits plural marriage. God speaks for himself on the issue of plural marriage in Jacob, the Bible, and the Doctrine and Covenants; there was no "reconciliation" that needed to be done.

Edited June 9, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Calm]

we all know what a handmaid is.

Well,, if we are using Sarah and Hagar as our standard, a handmaid is someone you own, can force to have sex with your husband, treat like dirt if ou get mad at her to the point she runs away, take ownership of her son until you don't want him anymore and then kick them both out if you decide you don't want them around.

[Calm]

D&C 90

 "28 And again, verily I say unto you, it is my will that my handmaid Vienna Jaques should receive amoney to bear her expenses, and go up unto the land of Zion..."

The Lord calls Sister Jaques his handmaid. I don't think it is implying anything here but an obedient female disciple as servant is often used for men.

[JLHPROF]

D&C 90

 "28 And again, verily I say unto you, it is my will that my handmaid Vienna Jaques should receive amoney to bear her expenses, and go up unto the land of Zion..."

The Lord calls Sister Jaques his handmaid. I don't think it is implying anything here but an obedient female disciple as servant is often used for men.

 

Exactly correct.  If you follow the terms used by God to address people in the revelations:

 

Servant/Handmaid, Son/Daughter, Friends.  - It's almost like a trackable progression...

[juliann]

Ummm, I applied the context to which the phrase "law of Sarah" was given and the context is clear. See D&C 132: 64, 65

What are the sacrifices mentioned in verse 50? And please demonstrate that those "sacrifices" are directly related to plural marriage.

Can I cherry-pick scripture and promote an agenda that plural marriage is a requirement?

 

I have no idea where you are going with this, I never said plural marriage was a requirement....the early leaders did that.

 

And yes, you can cherry pick scripture. Which is the point.  The mythology used to justify polygyny is supported with cherry picking of scripture, dead prophets, and old teachings. But cherry picking is only objectionable when it upsets someone else's cherry picked assumptions.  So to throw in another idiom, pot meet kettle and help yourself to the cherries. But don't expect others to only want yours.

[frank_jessop]

I have no idea where you are going with this, I never said plural marriage was a requirement....the early leaders did that.

And yes, you can cherry pick scripture. Which is the point.The mythology used to justify polygyny is supported with cherry picking of scripture, dead prophets, and old teachings. But cherry picking is only objectionable when it upsets someone else's cherry picked assumptions. So to throw in another idiom, pot meet kettle and help yourself to the cherries. But don't expect others to only want yours.

What "mythology"? Section 132 is a revelation from the Lord to Joseph Smith, correct?

And given that I haven't cherry-pick, except to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the practice; your "pot meet kettle" is misplaced.

[juliann]

What "mythology"? Section 132 is a revelation from the Lord to Joseph Smith, correct?

And given that I haven't cherry-pick, except to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the practice; your "pot meet kettle" is misplaced.

Everybody cherry picks. You stand alone in your belief that you are the only unbiased person on the planet.

 

And you seem oblivious to the fact I don't support polygamy as anything but a discarded (but approved)  historical practice that has no relevance to our future.  You seem to just want to argue.  About anything.

[cdowis]

You can't be certain of that.

 

 

Just verified with temple presidency that a living sister cannot be sealed to a second husband until the first sealing has been cancelled/iinvalidated with the permission of the First Presidency.  But it can be done after they are deceased.

 

I really do know what I am talking about.

 

Another case of "word of mouth" vs church handbook.

Edited June 10, 2014 by cdowis

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 You seem to just want to argue.  About anything.

 

I am seeing a pattern here.

 

 

[Calm]

Just verified with temple presidency that a living sister cannot be sealed to a second husband until the first sealing has been cancelled/iinvalidated with the permission of the First Presidency. But it can be done after they are deceased.

I really do know what I am talking about.

Another case of "word of mouth" vs church handbook.

It is not just "word of mouth" if you know one of the people personally involved. Hearing a firsthand account is strong evidence if the witness is credible. Itend to see most bishops as credible.

No one has claimed it is the new policy, simply that there have been multiple reports of special dispensation from the First Presidency, including a case several of us on the board know in real life, know the person claiming it very well, know he would have no reason to lie and lots and lots of reasons to tell the truth.

It is not surprising a specific temple president hadn't heard given the probably handful or two exceptions having been made.

Edited June 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

Just verified with temple presidency that a living sister cannot be sealed to a second husband until the first sealing has been cancelled/iinvalidated with the permission of the First Presidency.  But it can be done after they are deceased.

 

I really do know what I am talking about.

 

Another case of "word of mouth" vs church handbook.

The bishops who assisted with getting special permission to do this are not liars.  Nor are the women stepping up to confirm it. Sorry, but they trump your temple president. But nice try.

[frank_jessop]

Everybody cherry picks. You stand alone in your belief that you are the only unbiased person on the planet.

I never claimed to be unbiased, I did claim I did not cherry-pick.

And you seem oblivious to the fact I don't support polygamy as anything but a discarded (but approved) historical practice that has no relevance to our future. You seem to just want to argue. About anything.

I am trying to understand what you meant about "mythology" used to justify plural marriage. You spoke of "dead Prophets, old teachings" in reference to mythology.

Section 132, and therefore Joseph Smith, refer to "dead prophets" in justifying plural marriage, so I wondered if you deemed 132 based on "mythology" of "dead prophets and old teachings". But given that you regard polygamy as being "approved", I suppose you were not referring to Section 132 and/or Joseph Smith.

Rather, perhaps, what you deem as mythology to justify the plural marriage, are present day justifications offered - even the justifications offered in this thread i.e. "good men", knowing who fathered the child, polygamy makes woman more independent; each of which you offered rebuttals for.

I am trying to understand your position more clearly.

[JLHPROF]

The bishops who assisted with getting special permission to do this are not liars.  Nor are the women stepping up to confirm it. Sorry, but they trump your temple president. But nice try.

 

Making exceptions to an established ordinance pattern and regulation does create precedent I'll admit, but it doesn't create a foundational doctrine.  I have yet to see any doctrine teaching eternal polyandrous sealings from any authoritative source, be it scripture or prophet.  Nor at any point in the Church's history was this taught as a possible result.

 

Which means if these sealings are taking place (and I have no reason to doubt your word that they have occurred) then they are being done against the established doctrines and principles on marriage in the Church as the Temple President correctly reiterated to Cdowis (ie, eternal monogamy except when God authorizes eternal polygyny by revelation).

 

It is a very dangerous precendent to set to start performing ordinances that go against established doctrine, but I suppose it has happened in Church History before...

Edited June 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Given who establishes doctrine in our Church and given who is granting the exceptions (and it is not temple presidents who are going long with theexceptions when instructed to) I don't see it as all that problematic.

Edited June 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

The bishops who assisted with getting special permission to do this are not liars.  Nor are the women stepping up to confirm it. Sorry, but they trump your temple president.

 

I see no point in such a discussion with you.  I wish you all the best.

[cdowis]

It is not just "word of mouth" if you know one of the people personally involved. Hearing a firsthand account is strong evidence if the witness is credible. Itend to see most bishops as credible.

No one has claimed it is the new policy, simply that there have been multiple reports of special dispensation from the First Presidency, including a case several of us on the board know in real life, know the person claiming it very well, know he would have no reason to lie and lots and lots of reasons to tell the truth.

It is not surprising a specific temple president hadn't heard given the probably handful or two exceptions having been made.

 

Fair enough, and that's very possible.  So let's make it simple and quite clear  ==>>

 

"Today (yesterday) the temple president (counselor) specifically told me that they received the First Presidency permission for a second sealing for a living sister which did not require voiding/cancellation of the the first sealing.  He verified that this was indeed a change in the previous policy., since this contradicts what another temple president said."

 

If not possible to talk with the temple presy, then the bishop will do.

Edited June 11, 2014 by cdowis

[juliann]

 

I never claimed to be unbiased, I did claim I did not cherry-pick.


I am trying to understand what you meant about "mythology" used to justify plural marriage. You spoke of "dead Prophets, old teachings" in reference to mythology.

Section 132, and therefore Joseph Smith, refer to "dead prophets" in justifying plural marriage, so I wondered if you deemed 132 based on "mythology" of "dead prophets and old teachings". But given that you regard polygamy as being "approved", I suppose you were not referring to Section 132 and/or Joseph Smith.

Rather, perhaps, what you deem as mythology to justify the plural marriage, are present day justifications offered - even the justifications offered in this thread i.e. "good men", knowing who fathered the child, polygamy makes woman more independent; each of which you offered rebuttals for.

I am trying to understand your position more clearly.

No you aren't.  You are trying to put words in my mouth.  One more time, "The mythology used to justify polygyny is supported with cherry picking of scripture, dead prophets, and old teachings."  I think that is pretty darn clear but you still try to twist it into "mythology of dead prophets" when all I said is the mythology is supported by cherry picking. I'm quite sure you know what cherry picking means which makes your twisting words more egregious.

 

The end.

 

 

 

It is a very dangerous precendent to set to start performing ordinances that go against established doctrine, but I suppose it has happened in Church History before...

These sealings are done with signed letters of approval from the First Presidency. I don't think that can reasonably be called dangerous.

 

 
It is not surprising a specific temple president hadn't heard given the probably handful or two exceptions having been made.

I doubt this is only a handful when I alone know of three such sealings from first hand sources.

Edited June 11, 2014 by juliann

[Calm]

Fair enough, and that's very possible.  So let's make it simple and quite clear  ==>>

 

"Today (yesterday) the temple president (counselor) specifically told me that they received the First Presidency permission for a second sealing for a living sister which did not require voiding/cancellation of the the first sealing.  He verified that this was indeed a change in the previous policy., since this contradicts what another temple president said."

 

If not possible to talk with the temple presy, then the bishop will do.

Not clear here on what you are saying. Are you saying thesis a standard that must be met for you to be satisfied (this is implied by your last sentence)?

Why "(counselor)"?

[Calm]

I doubt this is only a handful when I alone know of three such sealings from first hand sources.

True. They are likely not evenly spread through all the temples (thus not all temple presidents have an equal chance of experiencing it) but clumped as individuals get the idea to appeal by hearing it happened to someone else nearby though the discussion on the Internet would cause some spreading. Edited June 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[frank_jessop]

No you aren't You are trying to put words in my mouth. One more time, " I think that is pretty darn clear but you still try to twist it into "mythology of dead prophets" when all I said is the mythology is supported by cherry picking. I'm quite sure you know what cherry picking means which makes your twisting words more egregious.

The end.

You know, someone in a different lambasted me about mind reading. I was not trying to twist your words; I regretfully misquoted you.

My error, is that I did not copy and paste your exact words. My error is also relying on my first impression of what I read, rather than re-reading it a few times.

Speaking of pots and kettles and putting words an others mouth please see your comment from post 76:

Now unless you are going to claim that women have no claim to any of these blessings cause they are only objects for men, "given" like a prize, the promises are ours as well. But I think the church is beyond only talking about men's exaltation and glory... although I still see a lot of that 19th century mindset on message boards.

I will not put words in your mouth nor attempt too. I ask that you treat me in that same manner that you wish to be treated.

[cdowis]

Not clear here on what you are saying. Are you saying thesis a standard that must be met for you to be satisfied (this is implied by your last sentence)?

Why "(counselor)"?

 

 Since it was already stated that there is no written documentation on this issue, just "word of mouth", I was trying to make it simple and practical.

 

OK, you win ==>> Give us a link or quote from formal church documentation (CHI, etc) to fulfill the CFR, please.  I think you are full of baloney on this new and secret protocol, known only to a chosen few, but let's see what you got.

Edited June 11, 2014 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

Since it was already stated that there is no written documentation on this issue, just "word of mouth", I was trying to make it simple and practical.

OK, you win ==>> Give us a link or quote from formal church documentation (CHI, etc) to fulfill the CFR, please. I think you are full of baloney on this new and secret protocol, known only to a chosen few, but let's see what you got.

Uh oh....