Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

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.

What was the source of those words? was it recorded and checked by President Hinckley?

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

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 believe (and I know others do too who I've spoken with about this) that there is repentance, of course, for Joseph too.  He was human, could be deceived and made mistakes.  I believe living polygamy was one of his mistakes.  I respect that others believe differently.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe (and I know others do too who I've spoken with about this) that there is repentance, of course, for Joseph too.  He was human, could be deceived and made mistakes.  I believe living polygamy was one of his mistakes.  I respect that others believe differently.

I feel the same.

[VideoGameJunkie]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

What was the source of those words? was it recorded and checked by President Hinckley?

Deseret News. I doubt they would misquote the prophet.

Edited February 18, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[VideoGameJunkie]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe (and I know others do too who I've spoken with about this) that there is repentance, of course, for Joseph too.  He was human, could be deceived and made mistakes.  I believe living polygamy was one of his mistakes.  I respect that others believe differently.

It's possible because there's scriptures in Doctrine and Covenants that talk about Joseph being forgiven of his sins. 

[Mystery Meat]

34 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. 

 

But see, this is why this thread is failing and doesn't work. People have provided numerous sources saying that it will and have also disagreed with your interpretation of statements that you think say it was wrong in the first place. Rather than acknowledge that their interpretation is reasonable, even if you disagree, you simply ignore it and pretend like your understanding is the only correct one. So the confusion of the thread is entirely on you and no one else. 

This is basic board manners, Juliann.

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

 

You keep saying this, but it is neither necessary nor true.

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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. 

Sigh....no one is telling you what you should talk about, just that you are really bad at facilitating "dialogue" and "discussion." But that's a you problem not a me problem. So I will actually take you up on your suggestion and find another thread that isn't moderated by someone with the conversation skills of a Donald Trump. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Glenn, I am asking for supported statements, not speculation. Those who believe polygamy is coming back

If by "coming back" you mean "reinstated as a practice observed between living Latter-day Saints and sanctioned by the Church," then I think you are correct in surmising that we have no "supported statements" indicating that it will return.  But then, I'm not sure we have any statements saying that it won't return, either.  All we have is speculation.

But if by "coming back" you mean a belief that polygamous relationships will, for at least some people, exist in the eternities, then I can't agree with that.

Polygamy is undeniably a doctrine of the Church.  Our scriptures describe Abraham's polygamy as being authorized by God, and that "it was accounted unto him for righteousness."  The present practice of polygamy, however, is not doctrinal.  Doctrine is, after all, simply a "teaching."  We don't teach it today (that is, as a practice to adhere to) because we are under commandment to abstain from doing so.  But then, we are also constrained from observing some parts of the Law of Moses.  That doesn't mean that the Law of Moses was never doctrinal.

Quote

do need to provide official support from modern prophets to counter the statements made by them that polygamy is not doctrine,

"Not doctrine" as in "not currently taught as a practice to be observed by Latter-day Saints from 1890 to present," then I agree.  

But if by "not doctrine" you mean "polygamy was never doctrinal, Joseph Smith lied and fabricated D&C 132, and the entire Church-sanctioned practice of polygamy by the 19th-century Latter-day Saints was the work of men and not authorized by God," then I don't agree.  I've previously explained why.

And if by "not doctrine" you mean "polygamy has been prohibited since 1890 and will never, ever be reinstated as a practice observed between living Latter-day Saints and sanctioned by the Church," then I don't agree.  I don't disagree, either.  I think we are left to speculate about such a thing.  According to the Church, "[t]he commandment to live the law of plural marriage in the latter days was part of the restoration of all things."  Part of the reason polygamy was practiced was to comply with this mandate (see D&C 132:40).  This mandate having been fulfilled, we are only left to speculate about whether it will be reinstated again as a practice observed by the earthly Church.  Jacob 2:30 seems to leave the possibility open.  But we just don't know.

And if by "not doctrine" you mean "polygamous relationships cannot and will never exist in the eternities," then I have to strongly disagree with you there.  Such a claim would contravene the teachings of the Church.

Quote

it is over, it is behind us. Marriage is between one man and one woman..

Agreed.  But I'm not persuaded that we know that it is "over" and "behind" us from now until the winding up scene.  That would just be speculation.  AoF 9 pretty much requires us to keep an open mind about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 18, 2016 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not persuaded that we know that it is "over" and "behind" us from now until the winding up scene.  That would just be speculation.  AoF 9 pretty much requires us to keep an open mind about such things.

Which makes one ponder what the member reaction would be if President Monson announced a revelation restoring polygamy as a practice of the Church in preparation for the winding up scene.

Mass apostasy I would think, similar to the one that occurred in England when word of polygamy got out, but on a larger scale of course.
 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which makes one ponder what the member reaction would be if President Monson announced a revelation restoring polygamy as a practice of the Church in preparation for the winding up scene.

Mass apostasy I would think, similar to the one that occurred in England when word of polygamy got out, but on a larger scale of course.
 

So, members who have faith and believe that God commanded Joseph Smith to restore polygamy, would not have the same faith and belief that President Monson could receive the same commandment from God?

Why would they differentiate?

. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

So, members who have faith and believe that God commanded Joseph Smith to restore polygamy, would not have the same faith and belief that President Monson could receive the same commandment from God?

Why would they differentiate?

Because more and more members doubt Joseph Smith's revelations.  Why wouldn't they doubt any President Monson revelations that make them uncomfortable?
They doubt a revelation on the children of SSM.

Revelation is only revelation to most people when they agree with it.
And when it requires them to do something uncomfortable it is even less accepted.
I have many family members that are as devout TBM as they come, and they would never accept a revelation restoring polygamy.

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because more and more members doubt Joseph Smith's revelations.  Why wouldn't they doubt any President Monson revelations that make them uncomfortable?
They doubt a revelation on the children of SSM.

Revelation is only revelation to most people when they agree with it.
And when it requires them to do something uncomfortable it is even less accepted.
I have many family members that are as devout TBM as they come, and they would never accept a revelation restoring polygamy.

That seems odd to me, but I think you're right.

I just don't understand members who believe Joseph was commanded by God to live polygamy, but then would not accept that another Prophet (the living Prophet) could be commanded by God to live the same principle and then not follow that commandment.

I do agree that many more members now doubt Joseph Smith's revelation(s).  

.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[juliann]

50 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Sigh....no one is telling you what you should talk about, just that you are really bad at facilitating "dialogue" and "discussion." But that's a you problem not a me problem. So I will actually take you up on your suggestion and find another thread that isn't moderated by someone with the conversation skills of a Donald Trump. 

Thank you for leaving for a more rewarding thread.

What makes the lack of official support so obvious is that when I request it, probably on every page, the only responses have been essays....often with personal insults.  It is a lot of trouble and a lot of print just to avoid a quote or two.

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Thank you for leaving for a more rewarding thread.

What makes the lack of official support so obvious is that when I request it, probably on every page, the only responses have been essays....often with personal insults.  It is a lot of trouble and a lot of print just to avoid a quote or two.

 

And yet you comtinuely ignore the scriptures.

 

And I do not believe that you ahve addresses sealings of more than one woman to a man; for a modern example Elder Oaks.

 

A man being sealed to more than one woman speaks volumes, if not flatly demonstrates, you are in error.

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

And I do not believe that you ahve addresses sealings of more than one woman to a man; for a modern example Elder Oaks.

 

A man being sealed to more than one woman speaks volumes, if not flatly demonstrates, you are in error.

 

Not necessarily.  There are many men who are still sealed to 2 women (having civilly divorced the first one, but not received a sealing cancellation before being sealed to a 2nd wife).  Read the other thread right now about this.  Just because a man is sealed to more than one woman, it does not mean that he will be forced to be with her (or her with him) and live polygamy, if he chooses not to live for eternity as her husband.

That a man can currently be sealed to more than one woman (and in some circumstances, a woman sealed to more than one man), is not definitive evidence that they will be living polygamy after this life.  It's only evidence that these sealings are approved and performed here on earth.

Maybe all of us will be asked to choose just one to be with for eternity.  

.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[VideoGameJunkie]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

Thank you for leaving for a more rewarding thread.

What makes the lack of official support so obvious is that when I request it, probably on every page, the only responses have been essays....often with personal insults.  It is a lot of trouble and a lot of print just to avoid a quote or two.

Or you're just ignoring my posts about Gordon B Hinckley in 2007, 9 years after the Larry King interview and 12 years after the Family Proclamation was released. You're ignoring people's posts.

[Jeanne]

For what it is worth Juliann..I understand what you are asking and I think you are a highly intelligent woman who has done a great job with a  great deal of patience in trying to get you answer. 

Hugs..Jeanne

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

And yet you comtinuely ignore the scriptures.

 

And I do not believe that you ahve addresses sealings of more than one woman to a man; for a modern example Elder Oaks.

 

A man being sealed to more than one woman speaks volumes, if not flatly demonstrates, you are in error.

 

This has been addressed so many times in this thread, including the clarification from Elder Oaks,  that it is mind boggling you would start over.  You don't have an official source disputing a modern prophet and an apostle. That is all this boils down to.

 

[juliann]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because more and more members doubt Joseph Smith's revelations.  Why wouldn't they doubt any President Monson revelations that make them uncomfortable?
They doubt a revelation on the children of SSM.

Revelation is only revelation to most people when they agree with it.
And when it requires them to do something uncomfortable it is even less accepted.
I have many family members that are as devout TBM as they come, and they would never accept a revelation restoring polygamy.

But as we can see, thanks to this thread, there are maybe even more members as devout TBMs as they come, that would never accept a prophet and apostle saying polygamy is over.  I think this speaks to a much bigger problem.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

But as we can see, thanks to this thread, there are maybe even more members as devout TBMs as they come, that would never accept a prophet and apostle saying polygamy is over.  I think this speaks to a much bigger problem.

Maybe part of the problem is that, as far as Pres. Hinckley's quote, he never actually did say that to members of the church.  He said it to a reporter on a t.v. show who wasn't asking about what might happen in the next life at all and was only focused on what the church was doing in this one, but he never said it to the church.

I don't know that it's fair to hold members of the church to doctrine that was never taught to them.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe part of the problem is that, as far as Pres. Hinckley's quote, he never actually did say that to members of the church.  He said it to a reporter on a t.v. show who wasn't asking about what might happen in the next life at all and was only focused on what the church was doing in this one, but he never said it to the church.

I don't know that it's fair to hold members of the church to doctrine that was never taught to them.

I agree that President Hinckley was only referring to the here and now. 

[Mystery Meat]

53 minutes ago, juliann said:

Thank you for leaving for a more rewarding thread.

What makes the lack of official support so obvious is that when I request it, probably on every page, the only responses have been essays....often with personal insults.  It is a lot of trouble and a lot of print just to avoid a quote or two.

You are intellectually dishonest. 

[provoman]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

This has been addressed so many times in this thread, including the clarification from Elder Oaks,  that it is mind boggling you would start over.  You don't have an official source disputing a modern prophet and an apostle. That is all this boils down to.

 

 

Elder Oaks, 2007, national tv,

" I have perfect faith in the doctrine [polygamy] and will understand more about it in time to come."

 

Elder Oaks called it Doctrine.

 

"As to those people who are still practicing polygamy, I have immense sympathy for them. But I don’t see any common ground of doctrine between them and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because revelation is the bedrock of our faith..."

 

doctrine again

Edited February 18, 2016 by provoman

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Thank you for leaving for a more rewarding thread.

What makes the lack of official support so obvious is that when I request it, probably on every page, the only responses have been essays....often with personal insults.  It is a lot of trouble and a lot of print just to avoid a quote or two.

I think what is so upsetting about this thread is the fact that I held you in high regard. Now, it is clear that you are nothing more than a hypocrite. I am reminded of this piece you and Cal wrote not too long ago (http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/03/26/these-are-our-sisters/) in which you warned against mischaracterizing. The fact that you continue to make claims like the one above, is blatant mischaracterizing, ignore posts and is downright rude (which is ironic, considering the thread last week in which you said that men tend to silence women in conversation) to those who disagree with you, even to the point of making accusations about character that no one can substantiate. Any credibility you had with me is gone. I don't care if the mods think I have crossed a line with this post. I think you have crossed plenty. I find your behavior here hypocritical, ugly and wanting in personal integrity and character.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mystery Meat