Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[SmileyMcGee]

9 hours 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.  

As usual, Calm, you are the skilled peacemaker.

Please know that it was never my intention to belittle the pain and confusion felt by women who struggle with the idea of sharing their sweetheart. I will gladly recant my previous comment referring to meltdowns over polygamy as pathetic (I would remove it but it looks like I can't edit it anymore). I thought Juliann was referring to those who argued against her position when she mentioned "meltdowns" (which makes a lot more sense now...it seemed odd that a person would lose it over a purely doctrinal discussion). Though I must say, if the intent of this thread was to discuss a best approach to helping struggling women then this thread was even more of a miserable failure than I initially thought. Initiating a discussion with the logic and tact that is more commonly found at RfM or the terrestrial forum at MDB doesn't seem to be very effective. Why not just say, "hey guys, I have had these interactions with women regarding the idea of eternal polygamy. They are really struggling with it. I don't really believe it's doctrinal (for these reasons). What ideas do you have for assisting these women who could use our love and support?" I think that would have generated a more desired response than, "If you accept eternal polygamy you reject the modern prophets and the Proclamation. And if you don't agree with me leave the thread"....not very helpful. 

I must admit that this thread really did put me off and made me worry. When I came first came to this board a couple of years ago, I was very upset about some stuff I read and I had some concerns that had been festering for years. I was not shy in sharing my contempt for those who accepted beliefs that I thought were "out of touch with reality" and ignorant of the "truth." This anger led to serious doubt and eventually to feelings of extreme meaninglessness and worthlessness. But, I can't even describe how beneficial and therapeutic it has been for me to engage people on this board who, rather than writing me off as an apostate, respectfully challenged my views and helped me to gain a new perspective on life, particularly the challenges posed by our resident pragmatist :). There are many stellar people on this board. And while I still struggle to see the benefit of certain teachings of the church and may even take a friendly jab in a effort to stir the pot, I find that there is no anger or resentment. Instead I find myself wanting to defend the beliefs of members and let people know that their beliefs are no less valid or meaningful than anyone else's. But let me tell you what was never helpful: people who acted like jerks. And if a purpose of this board is to build understanding or be a resource to those who have concerns then threads like this one are counterproductive. 

</soapbox>

Edited February 18, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[VideoGameJunkie]

Looking back, was Joseph Smith the only person in history who was COMMANDED to practice polygamy? Not first to be God approved, but first to be commanded? Abraham's 2nd wife was his first wife's idea, don't know much about Isaac, and Laban tricked Jacob. David and Solomon were approved by God, but not commanded by God. So was Joseph Smith the first time it was commanded of God to be lived?

[provoman]

 

In 2002, Elder Oaks referred to his second wife as "the eternal companion who now stands by my side". This is years after the Proclamation. And about 4 years after President Hinckley was on Larry King.

Why would Elder Oaks refer to his second wife as "eternal companion"? By the language used we can rightly say Elder Oaks and his second wife were sealed. The sealing authority in the hands of THE PROPHET. The Prophet authorizes others to perform the sealing function. President Hinckley was THE PROPHET at the time of Elder Oaks marriage to his second wife.

If plural spouses in the eternities is not doctrine, then why would THE PROPHET permit a Elder Oaks to be sealed to a second woman?

[Glenn101]

33 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Looking back, was Joseph Smith the only person in history who was COMMANDED to practice polygamy? Not first to be God approved, but first to be commanded? Abraham's 2nd wife was his first wife's idea, don't know much about Isaac, and Laban tricked Jacob. David and Solomon were approved by God, but not commanded by God. So was Joseph Smith the first time it was commanded of God to be lived?

It's all in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

"34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it."

 

And:

 "37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

 38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

 

Those verses state very plainly that God commanded Abraham to take plural wives. And that Isaac and Jacob also were commanded. I have previously quoted verse 39 about David. The implication  of that verse is that David would have had all of his wives in the next phase of life had he not committed murder. But it does seem that someone will have them.

Those are scriptures. They have been canonized. And not one single prophet has given us a revelation uncanonizing those verses or anything else in Section 132.

What none of the verses do say is that plural wives will be required for exaltation, unless the Lord commands it.

Glenn

[CV75]

10 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

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. 

And what is my theory? Posted Tuesday at 6:58 PM

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours 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?'  ...

Sorry for the snip.  I don't want to take anything out of context, so feel free to call me out if I do.  This is probably going to sound unsympathetic, so I apologize in advance  (That's no surprise: there's no way I could relate to that sister, even if I were to try my hardest.)  In a way, I envy anyone whose biggest worry (or the worry that affects her the most) is what's going to happen to her in the next life: How would that be?  It's on my list of "worries" (if you can call them that) too, but it isn't "Top 3" or "Top 5" or "Top 10" or "Top 25."  It isn't even "Top 50."  Maybe ... Maybe ... it's "Top 100."  On the other hand, the bishop whom I served as executive secretary is sealed to two women.  Initially, his second wife was reluctant to accept his proposal.  Her hesitancy may have had something to do with a struggle similar to what that sister is experiencing.  I'm not sure how ... or even if, frankly ... she resolved that struggle.  Perhaps she took an approach similar to mine and simply decided that whatever uncertainty remains, no one who is faithful is going to be dissatisfied with the beyond-the-veil propositions/resolutions of a Perfectly Just, Perfectly Merciful, Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Loving God.  It's difficult for us mortals to fathom any of those propositions at this point. 

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours 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. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

I like that approach.  I would probably be happier about certain of my current circumstances if I employed it more.  I'll try to do that.

[Rain]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sorry for the snip.  I don't want to take anything out of context, so feel free to call me out if I do.  This is probably going to sound unsympathetic, so I apologize in advance  (That's no surprise: there's no way I could relate to that sister, even if I were to try my hardest.)  In a way, I envy anyone whose biggest worry (or the worry that affects her the most) is what's going to happen to her in the next life: How would that be?  It's on my list of "worries" (if you can call them that) too, but it isn't "Top 3" or "Top 5" or "Top 10" or "Top 25."  It isn't even "Top 50."  Maybe ... Maybe ... it's "Top 100."  On the other hand, the bishop whom I served as executive secretary is sealed to two women.  Initially, his second wife was reluctant to accept his proposal.  Her hesitancy may have had something to do with a struggle similar to what that sister is experiencing.  I'm not sure how ... or even if, frankly ... she resolved that struggle.  Perhaps she took an approach similar to mine and simply decided that whatever uncertainty remains, no one who is faithful is going to be dissatisfied with the beyond-the-veil propositions/resolutions of a Perfectly Just, Perfectly Merciful, Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Loving God.  It's difficult for us mortals to fathom any of those propositions at this point. 

She didn't say it was her biggest worry. She said it was a worry that was affecting her greatly. I've found worries like that rarely come alone. Often times they are accompanied by other things in life which makes it difficult to balance everything out.

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Looking back, was Joseph Smith the only person in history who was COMMANDED to practice polygamy? Not first to be God approved, but first to be commanded? Abraham's 2nd wife was his first wife's idea, don't know much about Isaac, and Laban tricked Jacob. David and Solomon were approved by God, but not commanded by God. So was Joseph Smith the first time it was commanded of God to be lived?

There is no reference in the Bible to anyone being COMMANDED to practice polygamy (that only came from Joseph Smith and in the D&C). This has been discussed at length on other threads (so don't want to derail), but no one was commanded to live polygamy (Levirate marriages are the closest, but those were brothers being commanded to marry their brother's wife to take care of her and are different than how our church lived polygamy in the past for the most part).

I believe no polygamy is commanded by God.  I believe it came from man.  I do not believe that anyone will have to live it after this life. We will be able to choose who we are with (the one we love if they also want to be with us).  No one will be forced to live polygamy and certainly no woman will be forced to feel like just a number or one of many by sharing their sweetheart with other wives.

Maybe Zina will be with Jacob?  Maybe only Emma will be with Joseph?  

Emma definitely did not enjoy or love polygamy to the extreme that she even denied that Joseph ever lived it and lied about it to their children.  I can't imagine she will be forced to live it after this life.

.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is no reference in the Bible to anyone being COMMANDED to practice polygamy (that only came from Joseph Smith and in the D&C). This has been discussed at length on other threads (so don't want to derail), but no one was commanded to live polygamy (Levirate marriages are the closest, but those were brothers being commanded to marry their brother's wife to take care of her and are different than how our church lived polygamy in the past for the most part).

I believe no polygamy is commanded by God.  I believe it came from man.  I do not believe that anyone will have to live it after this life.  We will be able to choose who we are with (the one we love if they also want to be with us).  Nothing will be forced and certainly women will not be forced to feel like just a number or one of many.

Maybe Zina will be with Jacob?  Maybe only Emma will be with Joseph?  

.

And the answer has been provided.  Joseph etc was the only dispensation head living in a culture where polygamy wasn't acceptable and therefore the only one that would need to be commanded.   Polygamy was perfectly acceptable in all other pre-Roman time periods.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the answer has been provided.  Joseph etc was the only dispensation head living in a culture where polygamy wasn't acceptable and therefore the only one that would need to be commanded.   Polygamy was perfectly acceptable in all other pre-Roman time periods.

I know the reasons people give (and I know what you believe too, JLHPROF and respect your right to do so).  But, the fact remains that men being commanded to live polygamy by God comes from Joseph Smith (for our church).

I do not believe that God would command or force anyone to live polygamy and I believe it came from man.  That makes this discussion easier for women if they can accept or believe that.

I know that many women in our ward believe that now and are at peace over this topic.  This came about after we had our 5th Sunday discussion on the essays.  I didn't expect that result really, but this has been the case with many once they learned how Joseph lived polygamy and polyandry.  The betrayal involved and the lies that were told.  They do not believe that could have come from God.

.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the answer has been provided.  Joseph etc was the only dispensation head living in a culture where polygamy wasn't acceptable and therefore the only one that would need to be commanded.   Polygamy was perfectly acceptable in all other pre-Roman time periods.

Polygamy was a cultural artifact of the ancient near east. Biblical peoples practiced it because their non-Hebrew ancestors practiced it. 

[JulieM]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know that many women in our ward believe that now and are at peace over this topic.  This came about after we had our 5th Sunday discussion on the essays.  I didn't expect that result really, but this has been the case with many once they learned how Joseph lived polygamy and polyandry.  The betrayal involved and the lies that were told.  They do not believe that could have come from God.

.

This was exactly my experience.

Calm, you could have been writing about me in your poignant post above and how I was struggling with this.

I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet, but I believe he made a mistake in living and implementing polygamy (when I learned recently how it was lived). As Alarson stated above, I am now at peace with this and I know God didn't command it and that I won't be commanded to live in a polygamous relationship EVER with my dear husband.  We are committed only to each other as it should be.  

Others can believe differently, but this is what I firmly believe now.

I love the gospel and the church, but can't believe God commanded something that husbands had to lie and deceive their wives and bring such heartache to live.  I know you can produce quotes by women who believed in it, and obeyed.  But, I have to believe that even the majority of these women yearned to be the only one their husbands loved and cherished and had relations with.

Women had to have had the same feelings as what Calm described above even back in the early days of the church (even though some obeyed).  Nothing has changed there.  

Edited February 18, 2016 by JulieM

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 In a way, I envy anyone whose biggest worry (or the worry that affects her the most) is what's going to happen to her in the next life: How would that be?  

But the struggle for most of these women isn't what is going to happen in the next life, it is what is happening in the here and now.  Plural marriage has some doctrines attached to it, sealings have a number of policies, celestial marriage quite a bit of doctrine and then you have the temple ceremony....and then there is lots and lots of speculation and folklore.  Women are taking all those things in context and coming to conclusions about their role not only in the next life, but their role now, and even their eternal identity.  And one of the conlusions that is often come up with what they come up with is that they are not of value either later or now, that they are a place filler, interchangeable with any woman that comes along, that not only will they not ever be able to have a special relationship with God eternally, but only with their husband they are sealed to (temple content, not saying interpretation is right, but totally understand why they go there), but they won't even be able to have that special relationship with their husband and are not meant to...so eternally speaking, what does it matter if they go missing?

I know Juliann wanted to avoid history, but I think it is crucial to understand that women were being taught that plural marriage saved them from the Curse of Eve because it gave them a chance to distance themselves from the man they would have normally developed feelings for being around him all the time, working side by side, solely dependent on him, etc....the blessing of plural marraige was for women removing their desire for their husband, they were being taught to see their husband as a necessary partner for the raising of their posterity, but not to love and become one with him in the sense that we see it now.  They were to spend all their love on their children and accept as proper a distance relationship with the husband they shared with others, distance not only in terms of physical distance, but emotional too.  Experience celestial love by removing all reasons for jealousy and desire from one's heart by removing passion and romantic love.  And this is what the women and others came up with as the logical benefit for women to practice plural marriage .  This was their explanation for it and this was what was taught as the ideal for marriage for women.  

So it should be easily seen that it isn't a rare faithful woman of only modern times getting twisted ideas about what marriage means and what that means about women from discussion that swirls around plural marriage, that sees the doctrine of plural marriage as turning her relationship with her husband into something not particularly attractive, one solely for the intent of producing offspring but not for drawing the two of them together into one flesh where one can't see where the presence of one ends and the other begins and they are only fully whole in all their glory when they are together.  The inherent differences in numbers in the marriage relationship drives the conversation there.  And it is not something for women that is in the future, it is very much in the here and now, when they go to the temple, when they hear of men getting remarried, when they hear their friends struggle to make the decision who will they be sealed to and if they choose to remain sealed to their first husband, they give up all hope of finding another mate who can be a full partner because he won't be a member of the Church as those men want children who are sealed to them, preferring not to embark on the next stage of life bereft of their wife and children who are instead by another man's side.

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know that many women in our ward believe that now and are at peace over this topic.  This came about after we had our 5th Sunday discussion on the essays.  I didn't expect that result really, but this has been the case with many once they learned how Joseph lived polygamy and polyandry.  The betrayal involved and the lies that were told.  They do not believe that could have come from God.

.

How do they maintain a belief in Joseph and other prophets as prophets if they were willing to go along with the lies?  And God being willing to allow it to happen?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

(Levirate marriages are the closest, but those were brothers being commanded to marry their brother's wife to take care of her and are different than how our church lived polygamy in the past for the most part).

And is explicitly not on an eternal basis, but for time only so even if used as justification for plural marriage, it cannot be used as justification for eternal plural marriage.  There was no sealing between the men and their brother's wife in the way we understand it.

[juliann]

I requested that this thread be about today, not the OT, not the 19th century. 

For those who don't like the topic, please move on to another one rather than making speeches about what the rest of us should be talking about to please you.  Basic board manners, guys. 

I hope to get back to this later today. 

 

And another weird window that won't go away...................

On 2/16/2016 at 3:55 PM, Mystery Meat said:

 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do they maintain a belief in Joseph and other prophets as prophets if they were willing to go along with the lies?  And God being willing to allow it to happen?

As JulieM expressed above, they believe Joseph was a Prophet but was mistaken in living polygamy.  They believe he was human and made mistakes (albeit that was a big one).  They also believe in the living Prophet today and in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (and believe there is no place for polygamy in there).

.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

And is explicitly not on an eternal basis, but for time only so even if used as justification for plural marriage, it cannot be used as justification for eternal plural marriage.  There was no sealing between the men and their brother's wife in the way we understand it.

That's interesting and I honestly hadn't thought of this.  Thanks, Calm.  As always, you add such balance (and your post above is pretty incredible too).

(Sorry Juliann, just saw your post.  I'll refrain and try to stay on the topic of today.  But, how women feel today about the past polygamy lived in the church does really influence how they feel about living polygamy today or in the eternities.  I know you want statements from current leaders though and again, I apologize for responding and going off topic.)

.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Glenn101]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know the reasons people give (and I know what you believe too, JLHPROF and respect your right to do so).  But, the fact remains that men being commanded to live polygamy by God comes from Joseph Smith (for our church).

I do not believe that God would command or force anyone to live polygamy and I believe it came from man.  That makes this discussion easier for women if they can accept or believe that.

I know that many women in our ward believe that now and are at peace over this topic.  This came about after we had our 5th Sunday discussion on the essays.  I didn't expect that result really, but this has been the case with many once they learned how Joseph lived polygamy and polyandry.  The betrayal involved and the lies that were told.  They do not believe that could have come from God.

.

Have you read the experience of Vilate Kimball? She was given a revelation on polygamy ere she ever heard it from Joseph Smith or her husband. You can read one account here.

 

Some posters, such as cinepro have expressed skepticism about the conversion that some of the early church sisters went through on the subject. They point to women in groups like the FLDS who believe they have had a revelation that polygamy is supposed to be practiced now. However, Vilate's supplications were not about polygamy itself, but was an effort to find out what was troubling her husband so much.

But, in reality, it is a moot point at this time. No one is forced to live polygamy right now, and it probably will not be practiced again until the millennium. The best thing, in my opinion, is to trust God, live a faithful life, and deal with whatever comes afterward when we get there. No faith filled LDS person who is true to the covenants that he or she makes at baptism and in the temple have anything to fear from what a loving God has in store for them. It will be glorious beyond anything that we can imagine here upon this earth.

Maybe we are beating the proverbial dead horse here. We can only control what we do in this life and have faith for the world to come.

Well, my wife has just managed to extract a splinter from one of my fingers that had been embedded pretty painfully deeply, so I am now a wounded worrier. Guess I need to sign out.

Glenn

[juliann]

Glenn, I am asking for supported statements, not speculation. Those who believe polygamy is coming back do need to provide official support from modern prophets to counter the statements made by them that polygamy is not doctrine, it is over, it is behind us. Marriage is between one man and one woman..

To date, no one has offered any. I think after this many pages, it is time to say there just isn't any. 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Glenn, I am asking for supported statements, not speculation. Those who believe polygamy is coming back do need to provide official support from modern prophets to counter the statements made by them that polygamy is not doctrine, it is over, it is behind us. Marriage is between one man and one woman..

To date, no one has offered any. I think after this many pages, it is time to say there just isn't any. 

 

Well you never responded to the reply I made about Gordon B Hinckley's comments at Inis Hunters funeral in 2007, 9 years after his appearance on Larry King where he stated it is not doctrinal.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

To date, no one has offered any. I think after this many pages, it is time to say there just isn't any. 

 

Has any Prophet since President Hinckley made a statement regarding polygamy?  Are there any talks or statements where it's addressed (other than regarding the FLDS) by any of the current Prophets or Apostles?

President Hinckley's statements may be the most current we have.

(I know we have the essays....)

.

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Has any Prophet since President Hinckley made a statement regarding polygamy?  Are there any talks or statements where it's addressed (other than regarding the FLDS) by any of the current Prophets or Apostles?

President Hinckley's statements may be the most current we have.

(I know we have the essays....)

.

 

As we said about many Brigham Young quotes, perhaps Gordon B Hinckley was speaking as a man on Larry King since it was a response to a interview and not a statement or revelation doctrine spoken at General Conference. We dismiss so much of what Brigham Young said, so should we take everything else said by other prophets as doctrine? 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As JulieM expressed above, they believe Joseph was a Prophet but was mistaken in living polygamy.  They believe he was human and made mistakes (albeit that was a big one).  They also believe in the living Prophet today and in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (and believe there is no place for polygamy in there).

.

Good to know, thanks.  I know of some who would prefer that position, but feels it brings into question how such a mistake could have taken place and think the consequences would be too much to maintain Joseph's worthiness.  I can see both ways and a few more, it is all about what you weight as the most important factors (if you weight agency very high, tends to me you are okay with God not interfering to set things straight for example).