Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Smac --

The question was directed to Juliann as a means of trying to understand her thoughts on the matter.

I understand your point.  Church practice, past AND present, clearly supports the existence of polygamy in the eternities.  I don't disagree with you in the least and I've made the case myself (much earlier in the thread) as to why church doctrine, policy, and practice all clearly support eternal polygamy.  You don't need to prove this to me.

I just wanted to understand Juliann's POV.

-Rockpond

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

 

You're welcome.  I don't know if it has come across in my posts but I do appreciate the perspective you offer.  I'm sure you are struggling to keep up with such an unwieldy thread (I've been there myself before) when so many posts are directed to you.  But I am interested in your response to this post...

...if you have a moment to elaborate.

[provoman]

Monson holds the keys to the sealing power.

 

No one has presented evidence that a person can not be sealed to more than one person.

 

The Prophet has spoken by allowing individuals to be sealed to more than one person.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I suggest doing what I do. Go to the temple and in the Celestial room pray for answers and personal revelation about whether there will be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom. I haven't prayed about that topic yet, but I think I will next time I go.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

 

I wasn't looking for a line-by-line response.  I have been trying to meaningfully contribute to this thread by advancing the discussion.

And I don't recall ever sending you a PM, mean or otherwise.  I have not been uncivil to you or anyone else during this discussion.

I'm not sure how "one man and one woman" is particularly relevant to the issue of polygamy in the eternities.  Meanwhile, the RockPond has summarized your position as "not having a modern prophet confirming the practice of polygamy in the eternities."  The excerpts from the essays establish, I think beyond dispute, that the LDS 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).

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

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.

Because of the almost manic desire of modern Church leaders to distance themselves as far as possible from polygamy, I would imagine that finding a statement in favor of any kind of polygamy, including celestial polygamy, would be a tall order.

Regardless of what Church leaders think on the subject, they are extremely reticent to throw raw meat to the fundamentalists Mormons.

If LDS Church leaders said anything about celestial polygamy, I think the normal reaction from the FLDS would be, "Then why aren't you practicing it now?"

Such questions will only become more poignant when practicing plural marriage is no longer against the law of the land.

I expect the unfortunate position in which the LDS Church finds itself accounts at least in some measure for the absence of any recent proclamations of celestial polygamy.

Although, as others have noted, the fact men are allowed to be sealed to multiple successive wives in mortality is suggestive of where they really stand.

[Mystery Meat]

29 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

 

Juliann,

I am sure you will ignore this response as you have done all others in this thread that challenge your position and to be fair there are a lot of them. But I think you are being very disingenuous. I personally do not have strong opinions on what I think about polygamy in the eternities. I think a reasonable argument could be made either way. However, what you are doing here seems to be the same discussion tactic that many church critics and anti's take: take a particular quote or passage, interpret it one way, and then demand that everyone else interpret it the same way or accuse them of ignoring you, being wrong, or just being downright disrespectful. Bottom line, I don't think the reference in the proclamation to one man or one woman, President Hinckley's statements on Larry King, or similar statements that have been raised here are any sort of repudiation of the concept of eternal polygamy. Based on many things (not to mention Pres. Hinckley's own statements and the fact that D&C 132 is part of our canon), I think it is perfectly reasonable for many to assume that polygamy has a place in our doctrine and the eternities. Additionally, many (myself included) have provided an explanation that the "a man and a woman" reference still applies even under polygamy. Brigham Young's marriage at all times in his life was between one man and one woman. Yes, he had more than one marriage, but each of those marriages involved one wife making covenants with Brigham Young and vice-versa. Your failure to even acknowledge this point astounds me. This is a reasonable interpretation.

The most damning part of your post, however, comes in your last two lines. The fact that you are willing to publicly and aggressively attack the character of another poster on our board based on a private communication that none of us have the ability to read to determine if your attack is warranted says a lot about your own character. If Smac truly did send you a rude PM then I will be the first to condemn the action, but based on your repeated behavior in this thread you have lost all credibility with me to even accurately interpret the words, let alone the motives, of another. This is all very sad to me, because prior to this thread, I held you in high regard. On occasion, I will look at who gives certain posts rep points and the names that carry the most credibility above all others are Calm, bluebell, Juliann and (ironically) Smac's. That is no longer true.

I am sure this thread will be locked before you apologize to Smac, but if I were a mod I would ban you from this thread based on your behavior.   

Edited February 17, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[SmileyMcGee]

34 minutes ago, juliann said:

"ONE man and ONE woman. No more of that tricky A man and A woman that is in the Proc." 

Again, mistaking the condoning of monogamy for the condemning of polygamy. "Coca-cola tastes good; therefore, Pepsi must taste bad." That's your logic. 

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.

Classy move. 

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Brigham Young's marriage at all times in his life was between one man and one woman. Yes, he had more than one marriage, but each of those marriages involved one wife making covenants with Brigham Young and vice-versa.   

I find the argument that Brigham Young was living in accordance with the Proclamation to be a stretch.  I think that the vast majority of non-LDS people on the planet would not agree that BY practiced "one man, one woman" marriage - the mental gymnastics to fit that square peg in the round hole seem unique to those seeking to claim that our position on marriage has not changed.  Further, the proclamation says much more about family than just "one man, one woman" and when looking at BY's family life in general, it doesn't fit the Proclamation.  I'm not saying that he was necessarily wrong for it, just that his marriage & family don't seem to fit the Proclamations precepts.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I find the argument that Brigham Young was living in accordance with the Proclamation to be a stretch.  I think that the vast majority of non-LDS people on the planet would not agree that BY practiced "one man, one woman" marriage - the mental gymnastics to fit that square peg in the round hole seem unique to those seeking to claim that our position on marriage has not changed.  Further, the proclamation says much more about family than just "one man, one woman" and when looking at BY's family life in general, it doesn't fit the Proclamation.  I'm not saying that he was necessarily wrong for it, just that his marriage & family don't seem to fit the Proclamations precepts.

I agree.

Additionally, employing such a loose and creative interpretation of the Proclamation's language ends up justifying polyandry as well as polygyny.

 

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Juliann,

I am sure you will ignore this response as you have done all others in this thread that challenge your position and to be fair there are a lot of them. But I think you are being very disingenuous.

* * *

 

I am sure this thread will be locked before you apologize to Smac, but if I were a mod I would ban you from this thread based on your behavior.   

When a faithful Mormon begins asking legitimate questions, the knives come out.

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I find the argument that Brigham Young was living in accordance with the Proclamation to be a stretch.  I think that the vast majority of non-LDS people on the planet would not agree that BY practiced "one man, one woman" marriage - the mental gymnastics to fit that square peg in the round hole seem unique to those seeking to claim that our position on marriage has not changed.  Further, the proclamation says much more about family than just "one man, one woman" and when looking at BY's family life in general, it doesn't fit the Proclamation.  I'm not saying that he was necessarily wrong for it, just that his marriage & family don't seem to fit the Proclamations precepts.

And I have no problem with your belief or interpretation. I don't even disagree with it to be honest. But I don't begrudge others for having a different interpretation that is also reasonable. Nor do I think even if the above is true, that that means the Church has repudiated eternal polygamy (or polygamy practiced in the past for that matter).

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Because of the almost manic desire of modern Church leaders to distance themselves as far as possible from polygamy, I would imagine that finding a statement in favor of any kind of polygamy, including celestial polygamy, would be a tall order.

I have repeatedly referenced and quoted from three recent essays about polygamy which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and published on the Church's website.  Here they are again:

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

This, in your view, demonstrates a "manic desire of modern Church leaders to distance themselves as far as possible from polygamy?"

Quote

Regardless of what Church leaders think on the subject, they are extremely reticent to throw raw meat to the fundamentalists Mormons.

If LDS Church leaders said anything about celestial polygamy, I think the normal reaction from the FLDS would be, "Then why aren't you practicing it now?"

Such questions will only become more poignant when practicing plural marriage is no longer against the law of the land.

I expect the unfortunate position in which the LDS Church finds itself accounts at least in some measure for the absence of any recent proclamations of celestial polygamy.

Although, as others have noted, the fact men are allowed to be sealed to multiple successive wives in mortality is suggestive of where they really stand.

I recommend that you read the essays.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

Quote

58 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.

I'll admit it took me a while to understand what you were saying, but I am listening just fine now.

You CANNOT separate past practice of polygamy and future practice of polygamy when speaking of eternal marriage.
It makes zero difference what is being taught by modern prophets or past prophets.

If sealings are valid then polygamy is eternal.  Yesterday, today, tomorrow, forever.
Polygamy is here and not going anywhere.

Edited February 17, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Russell C McGregor]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I agree.

Additionally, employing such a loose and creative interpretation of the Proclamation's language ends up justifying polyandry as well as polygyny.

 

I understand you are a lawyer of some sort.

Which is appropriate; after all, Tom Hagen, who was the consiglieri in the Francis Ford Coppola movie of The Godfather, was a lawyer.

(Mind you, in the book, the first consiglieri heard about in the English-speaking world was an old thug named Genco Abbandando. But I digress.)

So as a lawyer, you really ought to be able to tell the difference between justifying some X, and not-excluding X.

The two things are not the same.

 

[consiglieri]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have repeatedly referenced and quoted from three recent essays about polygamy which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and published on the Church's website.  Here they are again:

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

This, in your view, demonstrates a "manic desire of modern Church leaders to distance themselves as far as possible from polygamy?"

 

Some have greatness thrust upon them.

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I understand you are a lawyer of some sort.

Which is appropriate; after all, Tom Hagen, who was the consiglieri in the Francis Ford Coppola movie of The Godfather, was a lawyer.

(Mind you, in the book, the first consiglieri heard about in the English-speaking world was an old thug named Genco Abbandando. But I digress.)

So as a lawyer, you really ought to be able to tell the difference between justifying some X, and not-excluding X.

The two things are not the same.

 

Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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?

Both men and women are in that situation. Will one of a wife's two husbands have to choose someone else? I think the messiest situation is where both spouses have children. Like, I said, I don't believe in the honeymoon cottage version of sealings. I envision the family of our Heavenly Parents working together with charity, God's love, not favoritism, for all. The problem we have with our limited vision of family is that they are very, very exclusive. Heaven won't be. We all belong with equal standing, no one is left out.  I digress.

So I have my personal opinions, which are useless, or what can be supported. Our standard fall back is "it will all work out" when it comes to divorces, etc. I don't have a much better answer than that for these instances. Only that it will work out the same for both men and women. We have a tendency to talk to people as if we are being acted upon rather than acting in these situations. So maybe the question is, does our really short sojurn on earth really even matter in context of eternity? A widow/er who loses a spouse thinks life is over for them. But a good many find another spouse who enriches their life...maybe even more. I actually don't get why this should be any different at any time (but I am one of those that doesn't see mortal life as the end of life as I know it.)

At the risk of derailing what I hope we just stopped....going back to the 19th century....is an early example of it not being a problem for some who were actually living in polygamy:

Quote

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away, although some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself. - Remarks by Heber C. Kimball, directly after the sermon by President B. Young, printed in no. 34: Bowery, Oct. 6, 1855," Deseret News Vol. V, No. 35 (7 November 1855): 274 (2nd page of this number).

For him to mention this at all means he must have been hearing about a lot of those revelations....and he didn't dispute that they had revelation.  It is very interesting that Kimball thinks "plurality of wives" will continue without the cooperation of all women, another topic. This is just one reason I'm not concerned about historical polygamy, those women can manage their own business.

I hope that answered your question. I do have to turn off the computer now.

Historical tidbit done. BACK TO THIS CENTURY.....

Edited February 17, 2016 by juliann

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Juliann,

I am sure you will ignore this response as you have done all others in this thread that challenge your position and to be fair there are a lot of them. But I think you are being very disingenuous. I personally do not have strong opinions on what I think about polygamy in the eternities. I think a reasonable argument could be made either way. However, what you are doing here seems to be the same discussion tactic that many church critics and anti's take: take a particular quote or passage, interpret it one way, and then demand that everyone else interpret it the same way or accuse them of ignoring you, being wrong, or just being downright disrespectful. Bottom line, I don't think the reference in the proclamation to one man or one woman, President Hinckley's statements on Larry King, or similar statements that have been raised here are any sort of repudiation of the concept of eternal polygamy. Based on many things (not to mention Pres. Hinckley's own statements and the fact that D&C 132 is part of our canon), I think it is perfectly reasonable for many to assume that polygamy has a place in our doctrine and the eternities. Additionally, many (myself included) have provided an explanation that the "a man and a woman" reference still applies even under polygamy. Brigham Young's marriage at all times in his life was between one man and one woman. Yes, he had more than one marriage, but each of those marriages involved one wife making covenants with Brigham Young and vice-versa. Your failure to even acknowledge this point astounds me. This is a reasonable interpretation.

The most damning part of your post, however, comes in your last two lines. The fact that you are willing to publicly and aggressively attack the character of another poster on our board based on a private communication that none of us have the ability to read to determine if your attack is warranted says a lot about your own character. If Smac truly did send you a rude PM then I will be the first to condemn the action, but based on your repeated behavior in this thread you have lost all credibility with me to even accurately interpret the words, let alone the motives, of another. This is all very sad to me, because prior to this thread, I held you in high regard. On occasion, I will look at who gives certain posts rep points and the names that carry the most credibility above all others are Calm, bluebell, Juliann and (ironically) Smac's. That is no longer true.

I am sure this thread will be locked before you apologize to Smac, but if I were a mod I would ban you from this thread based on your behavior.   

I went back and found that I sent a fairly long and detailed PM to Juliann in October 2014.  It had been so long that I had forgotten all about it.

I sent her a private message because I intended the message to be, well, not for public consumption.  I won't divulge the contents of the message, except to deny the apparent implication that I said something inappropriate in it.

Again, I have not been uncivil to Juliann or anyone else during this discussion.  I am troubled.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

When a faithful Mormon begins asking legitimate questions, the knives come out.

I've been asking legitimate questions throughout this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I find the argument that Brigham Young was living in accordance with the Proclamation to be a stretch.  I think that the vast majority of non-LDS people on the planet would not agree that BY practiced "one man, one woman" marriage - the mental gymnastics to fit that square peg in the round hole seem unique to those seeking to claim that our position on marriage has not changed.  Further, the proclamation says much more about family than just "one man, one woman" and when looking at BY's family life in general, it doesn't fit the Proclamation.  I'm not saying that he was necessarily wrong for it, just that his marriage & family don't seem to fit the Proclamations precepts.

For me..there are a lot of things BY doesn't really fit into.

[Russell C McGregor]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I went back and found that I sent a fairly long and detailed PM to Juliann in October 2014.  It had been so long that I had forgotten all about it.

I sent her a private message because I intended the message to be, well, not for public consumption.  I won't divulge the contents of the message, except to deny the apparent implication that I said something inappropriate in it.

Again, I have not been uncivil to Juliann or anyone else during this discussion.  I am troubled.

Thanks,

-Smac

It looks to me like a popular corporate practice called "building a paper trail."

 

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I went back and found that I sent a fairly long and detailed PM to Juliann in October 2014.  It had been so long that I had forgotten all about it.

I sent her a private message because I intended the message to be, well, not for public consumption.  I won't divulge the contents of the message, except to deny the apparent implication that I said something inappropriate in it.

Again, I have not been uncivil to Juliann or anyone else during this discussion.  I am troubled.

Thanks,

-Smac

I hope all this get cleared up..I hate it when posters/friends get upset like this.  That being said Smac..you finally admitted it!  You are a troubled man!

[6EQUJ5]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I have not been uncivil to Juliann or anyone else during this discussion.  I am troubled.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac --

As much as I enjoy and admire many of your posts there are times when you can be quite caustic and uncharitable.  I think the lawyer in you kicks in and you become more interested in "winning" than discussing.

Q

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Smac --

As much as I enjoy and admire many of your posts there are times when you can be quite caustic and uncharitable.  I think the lawyer in you kicks in and you become more interested in "winning" than discussing.

Q

This thread has not been one of those times.  I have not been uncivil or "caustic" or "uncharitable" in this thread.  I have been asking questions and seeking to understand, not to "win."

As far as the armchair psychoanalysis, I'll have to disagree.  My motives for participating on this board cannot be aptly described as either "winning" or merely "discussing."  My predominant interests here are "learning" and "discerning."  When difficult issues are under discussion, the discussion can become difficult.  So while civility and decorum should prevail, I think hard questions can and should be asked and answered.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 18, 2016 by smac97