Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

In fact, in the resurrection they're back in the world. The celestial kingdom is supposed to be just this world, celestialized. So the only chance people have to be "out of the world" would seem to be in death.

Same for the spirit world.

Quote

Where Is the Postmortal Spirit World?

Latter-day prophets have said that the spirits of those who have died are not far from us. President Ezra Taft Benson said: “Sometimes the veil between this life and the life beyond becomes very thin. Our loved ones who have passed on are not far from us” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1971, 18; or Ensign, June 1971, 33). President Brigham Young taught that the postmortal spirit world is on the earth, around us (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 279).

In my opinion out of the world refers to the mortal existence of this creation, not the individual.
We do proxy sealings all the time allowing marriages for deceased.  But Christ was asked about the resurrection specifically and said they neither marry nor are given in marriage.  Basic logic - once final judgment and placement in a kingdom has occurred too late to change.  Prior to judgment, time to repent and change.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's your assumption based on no actual light and knowledge teaching.
If we are going on assumptions I could just as easily say it was changed as a press release in 1933 to attempt to shut down fundamentalist claims.

Neither statement can be proven by CFR because there is no record as to why it was changed.

I do take the current teachings to reflect the accumulation of greater light and knowledge over yesteryear's, particularly in relation to what the kingdom needs the saints to know and do to roll forth. There are plenty of references to the current teachings, and according to our track record, if they have changed over the years it is because of the "Almighty ...pouring down [light and] knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints."

[JLHPROF]

Just now, CV75 said:

according to our track record, if they have changed over the years it is because of the "Almighty ...pouring down [light and] knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints."

I don't assume light and knowledge unless it is provided.  You are welcome to make assumptions.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I suspect that the vast majority of men in the Church would rather not be "shared."  I chalk up such squeamishness to our having a blinkered and finite perception of eternal principles.  I am likewise squeamish with other aspects of the Gospel.  Take animal sacrifice, for example.  Imagine the hullabaloo that would arise if the Church re-instituted this practice in 2016.  Imagine bishops being tasked with supervising the construction of stone altars in church parking lots.  Imagine the three-hour blog being extended for 30 minutes once a month so that the bishop could lead the congregation out to the parking lot, where he would light a fire, slaughter two pigeons, and lay their carcasses on the altar so that everyone can watch them being scorched into ashes.

Sounds weird, eh?  There would be plenty of squeamishness, wouldn't there?  Church members in the U.S. in 2016 (and in many other areas as well) would, I think, be very uncomfortable with performing such a ritual.  I don't anticipate this will ever happen.  That is not my point.  Rather, my point is that animal sacrifice was, at one point, a vital component of the Gospel, and that it's not a component practiced now, and that it would if practices trigger big time "Ick!" responses to the Saints now, and that such a response is not a result of animal sacrifice being malum in se, but rather a result of our having a blinkered and finite perception of eternal principles.  I would submit that the same goes for the "ick" factor associated with polygamy.

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Personally it goes well beyond the ick factor for me. 

I'm a vegetarian who would personally not have a problem in the sense of squeamishness for the acceptance of blood sacrifices. I had no problem dissecting a pig in biology and I don't have a problem when people consume the carcasses of an animal. My problem is when it turns into eternal implications. If we suddenly expected that in heaven we would be expected to start snuffing out a life here and there for blood sacrifices, then I start to look at you funny. There's theological inconsistencies with it. For one A+E in the garden of Eden....meat was for this fallen world not their paradise. For the bigger one Christ as the last great sacrifice....kinda an important roadblock there. 

It's not my finite mind saying that, it's scripture and theology saying....hey blood sacrifices aren't a thing any more. Now it's our contrite heart and will. 

Likewise, polygamy goes well beyond the squeamish factor for me. I grew up in a complex family. I know, first hand, that it has both major draw backs and yet there can still be powerful love and good bonds/rewards that come out of something that is not ideal. Though I don't wish my family structure on anyone, I'm okay if some decide they want to pull it off for some dumb reason. I find polygamous families fascinating. I find polyandrous ones fascinating. It takes a lot for me to be disturbed. The problem comes with eternal assumptions, for similar reasons as blood sacrifices. There's some theological issues and principles I've got problems with in it. And the defense for it is holey, especially IMHO when polyandry is seen as not gonna happen. It doesn't fit the God I know and the ultimate desires for his children or what They set forth as the Image of God in the beginning of time (1 man-1 woman in union). My "eww" factor comes somewhere after that and after my innate sense that such relationships are the breeding ground for gender inequality.  

 

On a side note. It's funny how we talk about the light of Christ guiding all of us to true things.....and yet when just about everybody would not be ok to enter a polygamous marriage, it's gotta be modern sensibilities kicking in.   

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 17, 2016 by BlueDreams

[USU78]

18 hours ago, juliann said:

What I said is that every justification/speculation/traditional belief about polygyny leads to polyandry. That is a summation of every justification/speculation/traditional belief, not polyandry. As I have said, polyandry isn't the topic. I'm concerned with women who are now questioning Joseph Smith or the Church because people won't lighten up about polygamy returning in the eternities despite not only lack of support for that, but direct statements from a prophet saying it is behind us.

I'll admit I'm having difficulty seeing why it should be such a problem for some.  I would tend to believe that the passions of the 20s-30s burn out to a large degree, and by the time we reach our 50s-60s, the things that bothered us, having no practical effect on us in the here and now, no longer do.  We're left with, hopefully, a humbler approach that I hear a lot:  "All I know is, G-d loves us and wouldn't create an afterlife where we will be grossly unhappy."  This attitude/approach led me to my conclusions about both this-life polygamy and after-this-life polygamy:  G-d wouldn't stick us in an Abrahamic test status forever.  The Celestial Kingdom is that place where all tears are long-since dried, all losses long-since recompensed, and all hurts long-since healed.

WRT the Abrahamic test in this life:  was it doctrine or personal that Abraham be commanded to sacrifice Isaac or marry his wife's slave?  [added content in edit:]  Nephi's Abrahamic test in killing Laban is of like quality:  it is not doctrine that we should kill our Labans; only in specific instances, where it breaks our hearts.  GBH's statement that polygamy is not doctrinal makes perfect sense in this context.

Most everything that's been said on after-this-life polygamy is purest speculation.  We simply don't have enough revealed to go on to know whether, in the Heavens, mothers are single or multiple.  You know my views on the subject.  I strenuously doubt after-this-life polygamy, but I'm not arrogant enough (this week) to claim it's impossible.  And I'm probably one of the very few on this thread for which it is possible, to the extent it's possible:  I'm sealed to two women:  my late wife and the love of my life.

Edited February 17, 2016 by USU78

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Sky said:

I think the thrust Juliann's point is that there are no definitive statements from contemporary LDS Church leaders stating that plural marriage will be practiced in the eternities, even though it is assumed by many members.  The current prophet has not spoken about this subject.  So we are on shaky ground when me make doctrinal statements or assumptions when our prophet has not actually said anything about it, and has even gone so far as to condemn the practice on national television, as well as numerous times in General Conference.  

If plural marriage is still a core, integral part of our doctrine (in spite of not currently being practiced), then our leaders should say so.  But they haven't.      

The Melchizedek Priesthood (for men) and the temple endowment and marriage sealing (for men and women) are necessary for our exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  It says nothing about Plural Marriage being required for exaltation.  See:     https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/eternal-life.p1?lang=eng.

Those of us who do not have the opportunity of being sealed in the temple, through no fault of our own, will be given that opportunity in the hereafter.  Same-gender attraction is one of those reasons.  No blessing will ultimately be denied to anybody that stays faithful and endures to the end of this life.  

That is my understanding of the doctrine.     

Juliann can correct me if I'm wrong.  

 

 

 

Thank you Sky! You have said it more clearly than I have. I am putting this in the context of someone who is about to fall off the edge because s/he is being continually told that polygamy hasn't really ended and s/he can't really rely on modern statements and prophets. No matter what we may concoct as to how polygamy should be, the reality is that it is considered to reflect the inferiority of women. It elicits revulsion. That is not going to change, that is the starting point.  I really do think there are many members, who I know value and defend the church, that would be quite willing to give the final push to this person based on speculative notions, rather than using the official statements we have that would put an end to their struggle and restore their confidence in the Church. That is what I have learned.

Second, I was not aware of how quickly each and every attempt to insert speculation into this historical practice leads directly to polyandry. And few dispute that now which is quite a sea change. But I really don't want to broaden the problem by including even more messy stuff that is just as repellent as the original situation to modern thinkers. So the speculation seems even more self-defeating.

Anyone who does think that polygamy is a discarded historical practice with no relevance to what happens to modern Mormons does have a prophet and at least two apostles to stand behind. I have no doubt that polygamy, as we understand it,  is behind us.  (I actually believe that our current practice of family sealings is merely a type and shadow of the ultimate goal of a heavenly family where there is no favoritism anyway. So this is all moot to me anyway until it is used to damage other members who struggle with it.)

 I suspect that the Church is going to be leaning harder on the sociological rather than theological benefits of polygamy. It held the religion together, redistributed property so more women had a share, etc.  I haven't fully investigated this but I'm confident that is where this will go to wean those who are emotionally invested in 19th century polgyamy. This is what has had to happen with weaning members away from the priesthood ban and accompanying justifications. The Church turned to sociological explanations.

My computer time is going to be limited for the next couple of days. I haven't been able to read everything. My summation is that no one has been able to present a modern prophet confirming a belief in celestial polygamy as doctrine. Yet they dispute the prophets and apostles who have confirmed that polygamy is not doctrine. I don't think anyone can successfully argue over which is the strongest position to uphold as a believing Mormon.

[carbon dioxide]

22 hours ago, juliann said:

1. The Proclamation begins with  ". .  marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . "  The indefinite article "a" cannot be modified to mean more than one.  Since the remainder of the Proc uses "man and woman" the addition of "a" in the first paragraph indicates intent to make that clear from the get go.

However, I continually see those that would like to see the Proc canonized also say that polygyny, or "marriage between a man and many women"  awaits us in heaven. (The stock wiggle room qualifiers like "oh, but not everybody will have to!"  that accompany it to be discussed later.)

I would like to understand members who disqualify everything said by modern prophets to hold on to a 19th c. practice can consider themselves to be following THE prophet.

 

2. I think the clearest statement we have that polygamy is over and I mean over, is Pres. Hinckley's Larry King interview. Celestial polygyny advocates typically say he made an off the top of his head comment, i.e., he was wrong, or that he was talking about fundamentalist Mormons not being "doctrinal." That is not only bizarre for our prophet to be telling another group what is doctrinal, as if we see anything else they do as doctrinal, and it does not explain away what he said previously.      

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/larry_king_1998.shtml

And he continues,

His wording is consistent throughout: permitted, limited, restricted. He describes it as a "practice" not just once but twice, before finalizing that it is not doctrine. Then he says, unequivocally, "It's behind us." He never corrected this, he never reworded it. In contrast he did revisit, in a joking manner, another interview when he was widely criticized for saying we don't talk about deification much.

So I think it very fair to say the burden of proof is on those who try to make this prophet into a messenger of false information and without providing any documentation that his words were rescinded or overruled by Pres. Monson.

 

3. I see these two strong statements as the basis for what is doctrinal in our modern era. I see no way to wiggle out of it. Yet we still have members who want to appeal to earlier prophets over our living prophets.

I have asked for years for a statement by a modern prophet telling women they can expect to see polygyny in the eternities, in essence, monogamy is not the preferred form of marriage.  Polygyny is not a discarded historical practice. (And my question is not about what the relatively few already in this situation, including my relatives, will be doing in heaven!) It is about the messages being given to women right now for reasons I cannot comprehend.

So please do not divert this into a debate over historical polygamy and speculation about their future. This is about the living. Or quotes from two centuries ago. Or men being sealed to multiple women which is offset by posthumous sealings of women to all of their husbands (and the removal of the rule from the CHI  that they must chose only one husband.)

How are these members justifying their speculation about celestial polygyny of post-Manifesto women in direct contradiction of the Proc and without the support of modern and living prophets? 

Though the proclamation does us the word "a" for a man and a woman, I really don't think the intent there was to address polygamy directly  After all, are they saying that all the polygamists in the 19th century including Joseph Smith were wrong and their marriages were not ordained by God?  I don't think so.  Monogamy is the general norm but God makes exceptions (Jacob 2:30).  God removed the command for polygamy a hundred years ago and unless God reboots the command, monogamy is the standard.  It is also speaking about same sex marriage or any other kind of marriage relationship that man might come up with.  The concept of people being married to robots in the future is not out of the question. 

Hinckley talked about the current practice of polygamy not being doctrinal.  Not the concept of polygamy.  The practice of polygamy is doctrine when God commands the practice.  Right now the practice of polygamy has ended just as football season has ended.  But it can start up again in the future if God requires it.  Who can say what can happen in the future.  Especially as we get closer to the last days when war, natural disasters, plagues, ect engulf the world and our daily lives. 

[provoman]

Juliann you have not addressed the scriptures. You use the apples of apostates to pass judgement on the oranges if the Saints.

 

We need not be commanded in all things. The Dontrine in the scriptures remains intact. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't assume light and knowledge unless it is provided.  You are welcome to make assumptions.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/nauvoo-period/doctrine-and-covenants-132?lang=eng

“Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation,” even though some in the past may have said and taught so in a certain context.

These articles are replete with light and knowledge indicating the replacement of any former or current understanding that D&C 131 exclusively referred to polygamy with the current understanding that it refers to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as practiced in the Church today:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng#1

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

And of course, “…whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

If plural marriage is still a core, integral part of our doctrine (in spite of not currently being practiced), then our leaders should say so.  But they haven't.

I think they have, both in the recent articles (listed above) and in this sample:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/nauvoo-period/doctrine-and-covenants-132?lang=eng

“Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation,” even though some in the past may have said and taught so in a certain context.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/nauvoo-period/doctrine-and-covenants-132?lang=eng

“Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation,” even though some in the past may have said and taught so in a certain context.

These articles are replete with light and knowledge indicating the replacement of any former or current understanding that D&C 131 exclusively referred to polygamy with the current understanding that it refers to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as practiced in the Church today:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng#1

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

And of course, “…whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”

Yeah, I'm more concerned with the source of this "light and knowledge" than the abundance of it.

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, juliann said:

Thank you Sky! You have said it more clearly than I have. I am putting this in the context of someone who is about to fall off the edge because s/he is being continually told that polygamy hasn't really ended and s/he can't really rely on modern statements and prophets. No matter what we may concoct as to how polygamy should be, the reality is that it is considered to reflect the inferiority of women. It elicits revulsion. That is not going to change, that is the starting point.  I really do think there are many members, who I know value and defend the church, that would be quite willing to give the final push to this person based on speculative notions, rather than using the official statements we have that would put an end to their struggle and restore their confidence in the Church. That is what I have learned.

Second, I was not aware of how quickly each and every attempt to insert speculation into this historical practice leads directly to polyandry. And few dispute that now which is quite a sea change. But I really don't want to broaden the problem by including even more messy stuff that is just as repellent as the original situation to modern thinkers. So the speculation seems even more self-defeating.

Anyone who does think that polygamy is a discarded historical practice with no relevance to what happens to modern Mormons does have a prophet and at least two apostles to stand behind. I have no doubt that polygamy, as we understand it,  is behind us.  (I actually believe that our current practice of family sealings is merely a type and shadow of the ultimate goal of a heavenly family where there is no favoritism anyway. So this is all moot to me anyway until it is used to damage other members who struggle with it.)

 I suspect that the Church is going to be leaning harder on the sociological rather than theological benefits of polygamy. It held the religion together, redistributed property so more women had a share, etc.  I haven't fully investigated this but I'm confident that is where this will go to wean those who are emotionally invested in 19th century polgyamy. This is what has had to happen with weaning members away from the priesthood ban and accompanying justifications. The Church turned to sociological explanations.

My computer time is going to be limited for the next couple of days. I haven't been able to read everything. My summation is that no one has been able to present a modern prophet confirming a belief in celestial polygamy as doctrine. Yet they dispute the prophets and apostles who have confirmed that polygamy is not doctrine. I don't think anyone can successfully argue over which is the strongest position to uphold as a believing Mormon.

I'll say to you what I said to Sky.

Why should they need to speak on the subject?
D&C 132 is still canon.  Eternal polygamous sealings in the past are considered valid by the Church.  Eternal polygamous sealings performed by current GA's are considered valid.
There doesn't need to be an explicit current teaching that "there will be polygamy in the next life" because the explicit current practices and validations do the teaching for us.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Same for the spirit world.

In my opinion out of the world refers to the mortal existence of this creation, not the individual.
We do proxy sealings all the time allowing marriages for deceased.  But Christ was asked about the resurrection specifically and said they neither marry nor are given in marriage.  Basic logic - once final judgment and placement in a kingdom has occurred too late to change.  Prior to judgment, time to repent and change.

Right, but those are later teachings that wouldn't have informed Joseph Smith's understanding of "out of the world" in D&C. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Thank you Sky! You have said it more clearly than I have. I am putting this in the context of someone who is about to fall off the edge because s/he is being continually told that polygamy hasn't really ended and s/he can't really rely on modern statements and prophets. No matter what we may concoct as to how polygamy should be, the reality is that it is considered to reflect the inferiority of women. It elicits revulsion.

"It is considered?"  Why the passive voice?  Considered by whom?  Polygamy "elicits revulsion" in whom?  And why are we assigning such subjective, touchy-feely reactions as "reality?"

And what are we to make of 19th-century LDS women who characterized polygamy as “one of the greatest blessings” (Helen Mar Kimball)?  

What about Vilate Kimball's assessment of polygamy ("'She told me,' Vilate’s daughter later recalled, 'she never saw so happy a man as father was when she described the vision and told him she was satisfied and knew it was from God.'”)?

What about Lucy Walker's assessment of polygamy ("Lucy Walker recalled her inner turmoil when Joseph Smith invited her to become his wife. 'Every feeling of my soul revolted against it,' she wrote. Yet, after several restless nights on her knees in prayer, she found relief as her room 'filled with a holy influence' akin to 'brilliant sunshine.' She said, 'My soul was filled with a calm sweet peace that I never knew,' and 'supreme happiness took possession of my whole being.'")?

Granted, not all had such experiences, but some did.  So is it appropriate to categorically characterize polygamy as an innately ugly, revolting thing?

Quote

I suspect that the Church is going to be leaning harder on the sociological rather than theological benefits of polygamy. It held the religion together, redistributed property so more women had a share, etc.  I haven't fully investigated this but I'm confident that is where this will go to wean those who are emotionally invested in 19th century polgyamy.

Who are these people who are "emotionally invested in 19th century polygamy?"  How is this emotional investment demonstrated?  Are these people advocating a return to polygamy?

I continue to be confused by this thread.

Quote

This is what has had to happen with weaning members away from the priesthood ban and accompanying justifications. The Church turned to sociological explanations.

I don't understand.  The Church has expressly "turned to" revelatory explanations for polygamy.  The Church has recently published three essays:

1. Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo
2. Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah
3. The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

The essay on Race and the Priesthood is essentially silent on the origins of the priesthood ban, except to expressly reject the "many theories" which have been advanced by Church leaders and members.  The Church "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else," and "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."  

But the Church has taken a very different approach to the origins of polygamy in the essays above:

• "In biblical times, the Lord commanded some of His people to practice plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman."
• "Some early members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also received and obeyed this commandment given through God’s prophets."
• "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives..."
• "Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days..."
• "The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843..."
• "People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time [in 1831]..."
• "The revelation, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, states that Joseph prayed to know why God justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon in having many wives. The Lord responded that He had commanded them to enter into the practice..."
• "Ancient principles—such as prophets, priesthood, and temples—would be restored to the earth. Plural marriage was one of those ancient principles..."
• "Joseph knew the practice of plural marriage would stir up public ire. After receiving the commandment..."
• "As early as 1840, Joseph Smith privately taught Apostle Parley P. Pratt that the “heavenly order” allowed Pratt and his wife to be together “for time and all eternity.” Joseph also taught that men like Pratt—who had remarried following the death of his first wife—could be married (or sealed) to their wives for eternity, under the proper conditions..."
• "During the era in which plural marriage was practiced, Latter-day Saints distinguished between sealings for time and eternity and sealings for eternity only. Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone...Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings. The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown..."

I think the Church's treatment of the origins of the race-based restriction on the priesthood is categorically different from its treatment of the origins of the Church's 19th-century practice of polygamy.  Namely, the origins of the latter are undeniably and unequivocally declared to be revelatory in nature.

I also note that the first essay above specifically states that "men like [Parley P.] Pratt ... could be married (or sealed) to their wives for eternity."  It also specifically discusses "eternity-only sealings" of plural wives to Joseph Smith.

I would like to read your assessment of these things.

Quote

My computer time is going to be limited for the next couple of days. I haven't been able to read everything. My summation is that no one has been able to present a modern prophet confirming a belief in celestial polygamy as doctrine.

What are your thoughts about the essays, which openly discuss "a belief in celestial polygamy as doctrine?"  (I think we should keep in mind that these essays "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.")

Quote

Yet they dispute the prophets and apostles who have confirmed that polygamy is not doctrine.

CFR, please.  Which prophets and apostles have "confirmed that polygamy is not doctrine?"

Also CFR as to the individuals you claim are "disput[ing] the prophets and apostles."  You are making some very risible claims here.  This is disconcerting.

Quote

I don't think anyone can successfully argue over which is the strongest position to uphold as a believing Mormon.

I think the "strongest position" on this issue is the one taken by the Church in the essays linked to above.  Those essays affirm the revelatory origins of polygamy, and also specifically reference, apparently as a point of doctrine, that polygamy can exist in the eternities.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2016 by smac97

[SmileyMcGee]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/nauvoo-period/doctrine-and-covenants-132?lang=eng

“Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation,” even though some in the past may have said and taught so in a certain context.

These articles are replete with light and knowledge indicating the replacement of any former or current understanding that D&C 131 exclusively referred to polygamy with the current understanding that it refers to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as practiced in the Church today:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng#1

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

And of course, “…whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”

First, no one is arguing that it is a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom, some just believe or speculate that it will be required for exaltation (I personally don't care for the practice and don't think it will be required but I'm not arguing that such a belief reflects some elusive "official position"). In fact, many believe that there will be single people in the celestial kingdom but that exaltation is a separate issue. In addition, "we have no knowledge that plural marriage will [not] be a requirement for exaltation." Sure we have some quotes, but I can't even begin to recount the many times I have been told or heard that not everything a prophet says is the "official position" of the church. This is even stated by the church: "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine).  

Edited February 17, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Right, but those are later teachings that wouldn't have informed Joseph Smith's understanding of "out of the world" in D&C.

Joseph wasn't the one speaking in D&C 132.  His personal understanding was irrelevant.

[SmileyMcGee]

18 hours ago, juliann said:

Seriously, LEAVE.

This seems inappropriate and just mean. Tacenda was commenting on the elusiveness of official positions held by the Church (an elusiveness to which this thread attests). Last I checked there was no rule stating that if the creator of a thread doesn't see the relevance of a person's comment then that person has to leave the thread. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

This seems inappropriate and just mean. Tacenda was commenting on the elusiveness of official positions held by the Church (an elusiveness to which this thread attests). Last I checked there was no rule stating that if Juliann doesn't see the relevance of a person's comment then that person has to leave the thread. 

It's my thread, let's get that clear. I can have it closed if I want to. When someone is mean enough to say that Pres Hinckley is lying for the Lord, they are gone or the thread is closed. You are off topic.

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

It's my thread, let's get that clear. I can have it closed if I want to. When someone is mean enough to say that Pres Hinckley is lying for the Lord

I don't believe that "mean" is the right word to describe the comment.  I don't think there's a mean bone in Tacenda's body.

I imagine she was comparing it to how Joseph Smith publicly answered questions about polygamy (and some call it "lying for the Lord").  It's one possibility for why President Hinckley answered as he did and that is applicable here since his words are being discussed.  

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by JulieM

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph wasn't the one speaking in D&C 132.  His personal understanding was irrelevant.

Of course we disagree about that. But Mormon theology evolved gradually. We didn't get the endowment or a detailed priesthood doctrine in the BOM, for instance. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

My computer time is going to be limited for the next couple of days. I haven't been able to read everything. My summation is that no one has been able to present a modern prophet confirming a belief in celestial polygamy as doctrine. Yet they dispute the prophets and apostles who have confirmed that polygamy is not doctrine. I don't think anyone can successfully argue over which is the strongest position to uphold as a believing Mormon.

Juliann -- I get what you are saying about not having a modern prophet confirming the practice of polygamy in the eternities.  So, when you look at the sealing ordinance as currently practiced, how do you explain that?  Going back to the Pres. Nelson example:  will either Wendy or Dantzel have to choose someone else in the next life?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Juliann -- I get what you are saying about not having a modern prophet confirming the practice of polygamy in the eternities.

I have referenced essays which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve, and which do, in fact, address the practice of polygamy in the eternities.  Here's the link.  The essays are all fairly new.  AFAIK, all have been published during Pres. Monson's tenure.

The Church's present position is that Joseph Smith taught that polygamy could be practiced in the eternities, and that he himself participated in polygamous marriages which were intended to be exclusively extant in the eternities (not in this life, but in the next).

So I think we can say that a modern prophet has confirmed the practice of polygamy in the eternities.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have referenced essays which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve, and which do, in fact, address the practice of polygamy in the eternities.  Here's the link.

The essays are all fairly new.  AFAIK, all have been published during Pres. Monson's tenure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Those essays speak to the past practice, not the existence of polygamy in the eternities... which I believe is Juliann's point.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Those essays speak to the past practice, not the existence of polygamy in the eternities... which I believe is Juliann's point.

Well, I think that's incorrect.  One of the essays specifically addresses polygamy in the eternities in at least two ways.  Here's a link to the essay in question: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

Here are the relevant excerpts:

• "As early as 1840, Joseph Smith privately taught Apostle Parley P. Pratt that the “heavenly order” allowed Pratt and his wife to be together “for time and all eternity.” Joseph also taught that men like Pratt—who had remarried following the death of his first wife—could be married (or sealed) to their wives for eternity, under the proper conditions..."
• "During the era in which plural marriage was practiced, Latter-day Saints distinguished between sealings for time and eternity and sealings for eternity only. Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone...Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings. The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown..."

Moreover, I have previously noted (at least I think I did) that there are probably tens of thousands of 19th century polygamous marriages that were solemnized in the Church's sealing ceremonies.  Nobody has yet to explain why the Church would conduct such ceremonies if there was no intention of having them endure in the eternities (or at least have the potential of so enduring).  Juliann has not yet addressed this point.

The existence of thousands of sealings for thousands of polygamous marriages would seem to be sort of a res ipsa loquitur sort of thing as far as whether polygamy will exist in the eternities.  Of course it will.  Why else would God authorize these sealings?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2016 by smac97

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Those essays speak to the past practice, not the existence of polygamy in the eternities... which I believe is Juliann's point.

Thank you. I have corrected posters for pages now, maybe they will listen if you say it! 

What the essays do say that is of use to this discussion is.....wait for it....wait for it....ONE man and ONE woman. No more of that tricky A man and A woman that is in the Proc.

Smac, to be honest, I don't read pages of line by line responses that chew up the post to the point I don't know where to start responding, even when I do have oodles of time.  And you don't send very nice PMs.