MiserereNobis Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Of course you must be joking. Either that or bobbing and weaving. No, I'm serious. I don't know Abraham's mind. Do you? I do know that he wasn't perfect and was quite capable of making many mistakes, errors, sins, etc, and still be the father of the faithful. Many of the prophets of the Old Testament had issues they struggled with. To be a prophet or a saint doesn't mean that you are perfect... quite the opposite, I think. They are people who struggled and failed and kept struggling and trusted in God despite their own weaknesses.
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Interesting. Do you mind expanding on this point? What does the LDS church tell converts that have polygamous marriages? What are they to do with their wives and children? Stay married but not have sex? We don't baptize them at all.
Zakuska Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) I know the church is already in some muslim countries. I even know a branch president in yemen right now. But as a general prosylatizing church to the general public it isn't opened. And when that happens the church is again going to have to change it's policies toward polygamy or we wont be able to baptize a single person in those countries, because everyone parent and child alike will be coming from that background. Edited November 14, 2015 by Zakuska
MiserereNobis Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 We don't baptize them at all. Seriously... if a man with 3 wives gets a full blown testimony of the LDS church and wants to be a member... what is he told? Wait until next life? What should he do if he has that testimony? He may not be allowed to be baptized, but should he try to follow the LDS church anyways? Should he stop sleeping with his wives (or at least with the ones after the first)? I'm genuinely curious if the LDS church has teachings or guidance on this.
KevinG Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 I'm not surprised KevinG you worked so hard to defend that position and now you have no where to go because even the brethren have clarified that it was not a good idea.Sorry to disappoint you but unlike the brotherhood of eternal dissatisfaction who were castigating the brethren for their publication of the policy, I can handle being wrong. Therefore I do have a place to go. And that is a church I will continue to follow, with leaders I will continue to sustain, and a God I will continue to obey. 1
KevinG Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 It's a blatant and perverse attack upon dedicated, committed, and consecrated religious sisters of the Catholic Church!!(heh )I guess it did have a catholic sound to it. No offense intended towards Catholics who support their pontiff and local leaders. However the order in referred to is ecumenical, so I'm sure you have them too. :-) 3
Zakuska Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) Seriously... if a man with 3 wives gets a full blown testimony of the LDS church and wants to be a member... what is he told? Wait until next life?What should he do if he has that testimony? He may not be allowed to be baptized, but should he try to follow the LDS church anyways? Should he stop sleeping with his wives (or at least with the ones after the first)?I'm genuinely curious if the LDS church has teachings or guidance on this.The polygamy policy is really waky... especially since there were so many early lds polygamists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_practitioners_of_plural_marriageNone of it makes sense because if JS and BY where ressurected today, the bretheren would have no choice but to excommunicate them from the very church they started. Edited November 14, 2015 by Zakuska
MiserereNobis Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 I guess it did have a catholic sound to it. No offense intended towards Catholics who support their pontiff and local leaders. However the order in referred to is ecumenical, so I'm sure you have them too. :-) Hey, those sisters are probably the best proselytizers... their order is found in every religion! 3
Popular Post KevinG Posted November 14, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 14, 2015 What are you talking about? As I understand him, KevinG is in full accord with the policy as it stands and, like many of us whose attitudes were not tainted with a spirit of faultfinding, it is how he understood the policy to be all along.I thought the policy might be interpreted to delay baptism for all children of SSM couples no matter.the custody arrangement. I shared reasons for thinking that might be the case, especially in light of not wanting to pit a child against a parent no matter their beliefs. Ron is gleefully reminding me I was partially wrong about the final interpretation, and therefore feels he is justified in his calling me out.Personally I'm cool with not being spot on. I will be able to repent of my error, move on and sustain the brethren. Would that others felt that was important too. 6
KevinG Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Hey, those sisters are probably the best proselytizers... their order is found in every religion!If I weren't on a phone I'd give you a point!
Calm Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) I know the church is already in some muslim countries. I even know a branch president in yemen right now. But as a general prosylatizing church to the general public it isn't opened. You are misinformed. They have been in countries that allow polygamy for quite sometime, at least the 1970s...early 1900s for South Africa. See the countries I listed that have missions. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics Edited November 14, 2015 by Calm 1
KevinG Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 There are very few serious sins that religious people are attempting to portray as normal non-sinful behavior. Among the Saints it seems Homosexual relationships, and polygamy without Gods commandment are two in danger of acceptance among pockets of believers. 1
Calm Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) Seriously... if a man with 3 wives gets a full blown testimony of the LDS church and wants to be a member... what is he told? Wait until next life? What should he do if he has that testimony? He may not be allowed to be baptized, but should he try to follow the LDS church anyways? Should he stop sleeping with his wives (or at least with the ones after the first)? I'm genuinely curious if the LDS church has teachings or guidance on this.Or wait until two of his wives die. They can continue to participate in the Church, just not as baptized members. He doesn't have to separate from them at all. At least the instruction I heard did not mention this. It is not easy to refuse baptism to those who want to be baptized, but do you think the women and children the man accepted as his to protect and provide for should be crippled in their lives because he would like to be a member now (a godly responsibility but so is being a father)? He made the commitment to support them. They in very many of these countries will not be able to live as part of the community, but be outsiders if he divorces the mothers even if he were to financially continue to support them. If God reveals he desires these people to be part of his Church in the here and now, the rules will be changed, but they are God's rules, we believe. Edited November 14, 2015 by Calm 3
rockpond Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Still twisting to fit an agenda. Does that make you happy or feel the Spirit more strongly?First, Mr. Dehlin's part was simply jumping the gun and inflaming the emotions of those most sensitive to the issue. He absolutely did nothing to help any issue but to desperately trying to maintain his two minutes of relevance, which is quickly going by the bye. Reprehensible? In whose eyes? Are you that judge for the all mankind? The path to apostasy is a relatively easy path to follow. What it requires is that you stop listening to the Spirit and put your faith solely in the arm of flesh. Demean all those that follow the Spirit or try to do so. It is often seen in those who set an agenda and then firmly plant their head so deep in the earth for fear they will see or hear something that conflicts with the story they have created to support their apostasy. This is the tool of the evil one and it works wonderfully to lead almost all down to hell that will give him the time to share his story of the way life is supposed to be. This Forum is a scary place; it certainly is not a place for those without a sure foundation under them.And there we have it... The fall back position for so many trying to defend this policy: if you don't support it, it's because you stopped listening to the spirit, you placed your trust in the arm of flesh, you're in apostasy. Here's the thing: everyone I know who opposes it does so on the grounds that they find the policy spiritually offensive. And to claim that Dehlin's relevance is quickly going by the bye after THIS week is absolutely laughable. He just blew the lid off what was possibly one of the worst blunders the 15 have ever made. Sadly, Dehlin just solidly established himself as the media's go-to person when it comes to Mormonism. 2
Calm Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) None of it makes sense because if JS and BY where ressueected today, the bretheren would have no choice but to excommunicate them. And if they refused to the follow God's instructions, yes, that would be right just as many leaders during JS and BY's time were excommunicated when they refused to accept further light and knowledge and commandments. If it made sense then (that God's way of doing things is more important than a leader's desire, no matter how what his or her position is), then it makes sense now. You assume that JS and BY wouldn't be able to learn and accept that God's teachings change over time. They were perfect examples of such. Your assumption is based on faulty, unrealistic premises imo. add-on: divorce in modern North America does lead to poverty in many cases, but it isn't socially crippling as it is in other areas. The exwives would have the chance to remarry and if the father was financially responsible and continued to be involved in the children's lives, the children would most likely be able to adapt better than if their father was put into jail for practicing bigamy (though JS did not do that since none of his plural marriages were considered done under governmental law unlike BY). Edited November 14, 2015 by Calm
KevinG Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 I suggest joining the Church of disaffected Saints and the profit John Dehlin so you don't have to be saddled with the horrible decisions of the LDS leadership.Resigning your leadership in am organization you cannot sustain would at least be intellectually honest. 3
Zakuska Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) Or wait until two of his wives die. They can continue to participate in the Church, just not as baptized members. He doesn't have to separate from them at all. At least the instruction I heard did not mention this.It is not easy to refuse baptism to those who want to be baptized, but do you think the women and children the man accepted as his to protect and provide for should be crippled in their lives because he would like to be a member now (a godly responsibility but so is being a father)? He made the commitment to support them. They in very many of these countries will not be able to live as part of the community, but be outsiders if he divorces the mothers even if he were to financially continue to support them.If God reveals he desires these people to be part of his Church in the here and now, the rules will be changed, but they are God's rules, we believe.The only reason polygamy was abandoned Calm was because it became illegal in the United States, and in order for Utah to become a state the bretheren had to abandond the God commanded practice.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Utah_Statehood Edited November 14, 2015 by Zakuska
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Seriously... if a man with 3 wives gets a full blown testimony of the LDS church and wants to be a member... what is he told? Wait until next life? What should he do if he has that testimony? He may not be allowed to be baptized, but should he try to follow the LDS church anyways? Should he stop sleeping with his wives (or at least with the ones after the first)? I'm genuinely curious if the LDS church has teachings or guidance on this. Yep, told to wait....or I guess until all but one wife is dead. He should support his wives. He is free to follow as best he can as an outsider. This is all subject to change of course. Who knows? We could even bring it back generally.
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 The only reason polygamy was abandoned Calm was because it became illegal in the United States, and in order for Utah to become a state the bretheren had to abandond the God comanded practice.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Utah_Statehood That and God said it was okay to abandon the practice for now. 1
MiserereNobis Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Or wait until two of his wives die. They can continue to participate in the Church, just not as baptized members. He doesn't have to separate from them at all. At least the instruction I heard did not mention this. It is not easy to refuse baptism to those who want to be baptized, but do you think the women and children the man accepted as his to protect and provide for should be crippled in their lives because he would like to be a member now (a godly responsibility but so is being a father)? He made the commitment to support them. They in very many of these countries will not be able to live as part of the community, but be outsiders if he divorces the mothers even if he were to financially continue to support them. If God reveals he desires these people to be part of his Church in the here and now, the rules will be changed, but they are God's rules, we believe. I didn't mean to sound critical (if I did). It seems like an interesting situation and I was wondering what the policy on it was.
Calm Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 It is a strange situation to many because of our history.
Zakuska Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 In countries where its not against the law to be a polygamist... we really shouldnt be worried and making them wait at All. The only reason its not practiced in the USA is because of the laws against it. We don't want the government coming in and confescating our wards stakes and temples because we are teaching people to break the laws of the land.
DJBrown Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 In countries where its not against the law to be a polygamist... we really shouldnt be worried and making them wait at All. The only reason its not practiced in the USA is because of the laws against it. We don't want the government coming in and confescating our wards stakes and temples because we are teaching people to break the laws of the land. I think that is a presumptuous statement. How do you know that the only reason we don't practice polygamy today in America is the laws against it? 1
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Those were pretty significant modifications don't you think? A relation with a concubine was not a relation sanctioned by marriage. True, and it may even come back: "I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." - President Snow "I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married" - President George Q. Cannon If it is a gospel concept and I see no reason at the moment that it is not (though I see no reason to be sure it is either) then according to the teachings of Joseph Smith it, like animal sacrifice, will have to come back to complete the restoration of all things from all dispensations in which case it would have to happen at least once. If Joseph was right then whether it is necessary seems to hinge on whether concubinage is a kind of lesser law like the Law of Moses which is not coming back or a full gospel practice in which case it must. I don't think concubinage is eternal in any case. In some cultures it was temporary and the bride eventually went home with their children, a kind of matrilineal relationship and would often marry again. In other cultural cases it was a marriage to a slave or a lower class of woman. It is much harder to figure out what the concept meant to ancient Israel. The words used in the Bible are different for wife and concubine and Jews still argue over it.
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 In countries where its not against the law to be a polygamist... we really shouldnt be worried and making them wait at All. The only reason its not practiced in the USA is because of the laws against it. We don't want the government coming in and confescating our wards stakes and temples because we are teaching people to break the laws of the land. No, the church has issued a global declaration that (living) polygamy is not allowed anywhere even if it is legal in the nation in question. 2
Recommended Posts