Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[6EQUJ5]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I can only call em like I see em.

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

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).

I agree with you that the Church has not repudiated polygamy.

They should.   But they haven't.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I can only call em like I see em.

Tell you what: The next time you see a comment from me that is, in your view, "caustic" or "uncharitable," please send me a PM about it.  I will then review the specific example and make an assessment at that point.  I think I would appreciate such feedback (we'll see, I guess).

Thanks,

-Smac

[6EQUJ5]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Tell you what: The next time you see a comment from me that is, in your view, "caustic" or "uncharitable," please send me a PM about it.  I will then review the specific example and make an assessment at that point.  I think I would appreciate such feedback (we'll see, I guess).

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds good.  I'll keep an eye out.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Is that all it takes for to purport that polygamy is required for exaltation? A concern that the "original" understanding of D&C 131 / marriage is the only one and that it cannot be improved upon, and yet is not represented in anything found in the abundance of material taught on the subject?

3 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

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).  

Naturally speculation is formed by counting on what isn't known than on having faith in what is known. So do you think those whose justification of any fringe belief relies on the fallibility of the Lord's servants are on solid ground?

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

The bottom line on this discussion is that even if one allows that the Family Proclamation sounds the death knell to any further practice of polygamy in the LDS Church, the rejoicing of those opposed to polygamy will be short lived because paradise and the celestial kingdom are populated with many righteous polygamous families. Like it or not, agree with it or not, when the saints of this day are introduced to the prophet Joseph Smith there will be many wives standing at his side.

 

[Sky]

3 hours 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 think we'd all do well to take a look at our own behavior before we criticize Juliann.  Because it seems to me there has been just as much nastiness, if not more, directed at her in this thread.  Much of the responses directed at Juliann have been "attack dog" in nature; eager to prove her point wrong and in defense of the practice polygamy in some way.  Which is rather strange to me.  So maybe it's all in the eye of the beholder.  I think she has valid points that are worth discussing.  The fact that this thread has generated 12 pages of responses and rigorous discussion in such a short amount of time attests to the validity of the points she raised, in my mind.   

Most women do not seem to want polygamy, here or hereafter, and I don't blame them…      

Edited February 18, 2016 by Sky

[VideoGameJunkie]

9 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

Most women do not seem to want polygamy, here or hereafter, and I don't blame them…      

And most men don't want polyandry either.

[Kenngo1969]

Please forgive me for what I'm about to post, maybe the problem is simply that I'm in something of a foul mood, anyway, and perhaps I should do the Cyber-equivalent of putting this post in a drawer overnight, getting a good night's sleep, and then deep-sixing it.  (What can I say?  Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and I'm no angel, so that only leaves one other option ... )

Please forgive me for delving somewhat into gruesome personal history, but I do think it's necessary background for anyone to be able to understand why it is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who can spend twelve pages of a thread wondering/worrying about how many spouses one will have in the life to come.  For most of my dating life, the female of the species has been not only content, but downright bound and determined to ignore me.  On at least some of the rare occasions when I have arranged a date (usually singular) with someone, it's been all she could do to avoid sighing heavily and checking her watch every five minutes, and it's been all I could do to avoid asking, "Tell me again, why did you agree to go out with me ... ?"  In fairness, on at least a handful of occasions, ladies I had no business asking agreed to go out with me anyway, even though they probably should have declined, yet they had enough class and grace to avoid making me feel as though they'd rather be any-where else, doing any-thing else.

Now, having said all of that, I'll take what I can get: if the best I can hope for in this life is sole possession of the remote control; the ability, subject to other schedule constraints and within reason, to come, and to go, and to do as I please; to watch, within reason, what I want to watch or to do what I want to do without worrying about whether she will like it, or what she will think of me for watching it or doing it; the ability, within reason, to eat what I want, when I want, and so on.  While this hasn't always been the case, I've grown largely used to (if not entirely content with) being ignored.  "But, Ken," you ask, "Wouldn't the prospect of Becoming One with someone be worth giving all of that up for?"  Yes, of course.  But I'm a pragmatist: I'll take what I can get; if it happens, it happens; if not ...

I can't demand that someone use her agency to explore the prospect of Becoming One with me.  (That would sort of defeat the whole point of agency, wouldn't it?)  Christ died so that she could use her agency in other ways, and who am I to question that?  What if multiple-spouse marriage exists in the life to come?  Well, as I've said so many times before, Ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg!  I could drive myself crazy wondering, What if the prospect of finding a mate in the life to come involves us alleged "dregs of humanity" going to one looooong stake dance?  (If so, count me out!)

What's going to happen to gays in the next life?  What's going to happen to those who are sealed to more than one spouse?  What's going to happen to those of us who die single?  Beats me!  The only thing I can say is that I'm quite sure the Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Loving Lord of the Universe isn't going to have to tell any of us, "Well, I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something different, but, well ... sorry.  This is the best I could do."

I don't think any definitive conclusions about what's going to happen to any of us in the next life are possible.  (Whatever it is, it will entirely transcend human experience and, hence, will defy description in human language, anyway, so ...) Sorry for this irrelevant diversion.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.  Have fun debating the equivalent of how many pins can dance on the head of an angel, or something like that! 

[Sky]

9 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

And most men don't want polyandry either.

Doesn't seem to stop them from looking forward to spending eternity with their wives!  

[Sky]

Direct counsel from Elder M. Russell Ballard given in 2009:  See: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive

Quote

Our Church members have too often allowed others to set the conversational agenda. An example is polygamy. This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2009. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on. If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge it was once a practice but not now, and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our Church. In ordinary conversations, don’t waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during the Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church.

 

And this from Elder Dallin H. Oaks:  (interview transcript from PBS documentary) http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary

Quote

HW: There still is some confusion that polygamy is definitively and unequivocally disallowed in this world. What will happen in the next? There is a perception that polygamy is part of the afterlife. Could you talk a little about that?

DHO: If I talked about that I’d be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn’t say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they’ve ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I don’t think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they don’t believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they don’t make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] they’re right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, “What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?” I have to say I don’t know. But I know that I’ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that’s anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don’t know. 

 

[Avatar4321]

16 minutes ago, Sky said:

Doesn't seem to stop them from looking forward to spending eternity with their wives!  

if you get married, your spouse dies, then you get married again wouldn't you look forward to being with them on the other side? Both of them?

[Sky]

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

if you get married, your spouse dies, then you get married again wouldn't you look forward to being with them on the other side? Both of them?

Honestly, one wife is enough for me!  I don't want two wives.  There is such a thing as time-only marriages in the temple.    

Also, do you empathize with the perspective of a lot of women of not wanting to "share" their husband with another woman?  Can you understand why that might be a recoiling thought for most women?      

[SmileyMcGee]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Naturally speculation is formed by counting on what isn't known than on having faith in what is known. So do you think those whose justification of any fringe belief relies on the fallibility of the Lord's servants are on solid ground?

As kenngo wisely quipped above, I think this discussion is just another version of the "how many angels can dance on the head of pin," and we're doing it with different ideas of angels and pinheads. If your theory and your reasoning for your theory gives you peace and purpose and a way to explain your experiences, then awesome! More power to you! Share it! But let's not play this game of "my theory and perspective are more correct than your's." That inevitably regresses into a fruitless exchange of circular reasoning, laden with self-deception. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Sky said:

Honestly, one wife is enough for me!  I don't want two wives.  There is such a thing as time-only marriages in the temple.    

Also, do you empathize with the perspective of a lot of women of not wanting to "share" their husband with another woman?  Can you understand why that might be a recoiling thought for most women?      

Once the fallen nature is fully conquered, it's likely the more difficult things God commands some of his children to do (like polygamy) will be much easier and more natural to obey. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[VideoGameJunkie]

This is a quote from Brigham Young on the introduction of monogamy by the Roman empire. “Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife.” ( Brigham Young Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262 archive.org )

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

 I think this discussion is just another version of the "how many angels can dance on the head of pin," and we're doing it with different ideas of angels and pinheads.

This discussion may be, but I as well as Juliann (and likely others on the board or reading it) have dealt with women who are deeply troubled to the point that it is affecting their relationship with their husbands, their own sense of identity and even how they feel about God now.  One woman that I talked with had taken the doctrine of polygyny and let it affect how she saw her own value as in 'why bother even getting out of bed to accomplish anything if in the next life I am just going to be some man's possession, given to whomever is considered most deserving?'  This was after she had been reassurred that she didn't need to worry about her place in the next life, that any woman who was worthy could depend on being married though it might mean as a second (or third, etc) wife, but she would get all the blessings she deserved so no need to worry.  But what that meant to her was she didn't deserve someone special in her life or to be special to someone else.  What she wanted was a marriage where she knew the bond with her husband was a unique one that came from love for each other and hard work together and commitment to each other starting from the moment they vowed to be married to each other, not a relationship that he could just as easily get with someone else or multiple elses.  Plural marriage meant to her she was replaceable, interchangeable; not a unique and valued child of God or wife of her husband.  Not someone special meant for somene special.  And this is not an unusual experience; many, many women have repeated some version of this sense of being untethered from their relationship with the one they are or anticipate being one flesh with (heart, mind and soul) in this life and that leading to feeling untethered from everything else that anchors them to a sense of purpose and value in life to some degree.

So exploring how to discuss the teachings of the Church on plural marriage, what is the best approach to help women who are dealing with this confusion to allow them to not only stay grounded in the Church, but in their marriage and their lives seems rather important to me.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

This discussion may be, but I as well as Juliann (and likely others on the board or reading it) have dealt with women who are deeply troubled to the point that it is affecting their relationship with their husbands, their own sense of identity and even how they feel about God now.  One woman that I talked with had taken the doctrine of polygyny and let it affect how she saw her own value as in 'why bother even getting out of bed to accomplish anything if in the next life I am just going to be some man's possession, given to whomever is considered most deserving?'  This was after she had been reassurred that she didn't need to worry about her place in the next life, that any woman who was worthy could depend on being married though it might mean as a second (or third, etc) wife, but she would get all the blessings she deserved so no need to worry.  But what that meant to her was she didn't deserve someone special in her life or to be special to someone else.  What she wanted was a marriage where she knew the bond with her husband was a unique one that came from love for each other and hard work together and commitment to each other starting from the moment they vowed to be married to each other, not a relationship that he could just as easily get with someone else or multiple elses.  Plural marriage meant to her she was replaceable, interchangeable; not a unique and valued child of God or wife of her husband.  Not someone special meant for somene special.  And this is not an unusual experience; many, many women have repeated some version of this sense of being untethered from their relationship with the one they are or anticipate being one flesh with (heart, mind and soul) in this life and that leading to feeling untethered from everything else that anchors them to a sense of purpose and value in life to some degree.

So exploring how to discuss the teachings of the Church on plural marriage, what is the best approach to help women who are dealing with this confusion to allow them to not only stay grounded in the Church, but in their marriage and their lives seems rather important to me.  

Calm do you feel then that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others got it right by practicing polygamy or did they make an unfortunate mistake? My feelings on Celestial polygamy keep going back and forth with what I think. I have no definite answer or conclusion and that bothers me.

[Sky]

31 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

This is a quote from Brigham Young on the introduction of monogamy by the Roman empire. “Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife.” ( Brigham Young Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262 archive.org )

 

Brigham Young said some pretty weird things.  

I'd argue that the pattern for monogamy started with Adam and Eve as presented in the Book of Genesis and the temple endowment presentation.  

The Journal of Discourses is not an official cannon of the Church, and as such, should not be viewed as an official source of doctrinal authority.  We have been told that. 

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Calm do you feel then that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others got it right by practicing polygamy or did they make an unfortunate mistake? My feelings on Celestial polygamy keep going back and forth with what I think. I have no definite answer or conclusion and that bothers me.

I don't know.  It doesn't bother me for myself as I have other things that give me all the assurance I need in the love of God and his promises.  I do wish I had a clear way of dealing with the history, the doctrine, the teachings and folklore that would leave people reassured as I am, but I haven't got there yet.  At this point, I just try to encourage people to live with ambiguity in their lives, try to view it as an adventure of discovery rather than a sentence of doom.

[carbon dioxide]

5 minutes ago, Sky said:

I'd argue that the pattern for monogamy started with Adam and Eve as presented in the Book of Genesis and the temple endowment presentation.  

 

I would not say that God was establishing monogamy as the pattern there.  Even in all polygamist relationships, it has to start with the first wife.  Nobody else was present for Adam to marry.  I see nothing within Genesis the prevented Adam to take more wives if they were available later on.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

Most women do not seem to want polygamy, here or hereafter, and I don't blame them…      

I am sure that a lot of men don't want to see it either.  One wife is barely all that many of us can handle without declaring bankruptcy or other things.  Regardless of ones personal views on the subject, in regards the scriptures it was been allowed and even commanded from time to time.  Wishing that fact away because one has problems with it will not make it go away.  It is what it is.  I guess for those who have a problem with it should just be happy that it is unlikely to return anytime soon and we should worry about other things.

Edited February 18, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't know.  It doesn't bother me for myself as I have other things that give me all the assurance I need in the love of God and his promises.  I do wish I had a clear way of dealing with the history, the doctrine, the teachings and folklore that would leave people reassured as I am, but I haven't got there yet.  At this point, I just try to encourage people to live with ambiguity in their lives, try to view it as an adventure of discovery rather than a sentence of doom.

Thanks for your honesty.  

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

And most men don't want polyandry either.

Yes, I agree. JS did us no favors by introducing this practice. 

[carbon dioxide]

13 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Yes, I agree. JS did us no favors by introducing this practice. 

I would not say that he introduced the practice.  I see no evidence that Joseph taught members of the Church to do it generally.  There were unique relationships involving specific people with Joseph under special conditions that did not go beyond him from what I have seen.  I would not be surprised if Joseph and those who involved themselves did not see this to be that big of a deal and those that bring the subject up to either Joseph or the women involved in the spirit world may get a nice rebuke from them regarding it.

Edited February 18, 2016 by carbon dioxide