Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's the link.

He is talking about those who practiced it. No one has questioned that 19th c. polygamy was doctrine. Most important is that he says he can't explain it.

Quote

DHO: I am too far removed from polygamy to give a credible explanation of the importance of that practice to those who received it from the Prophet Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. I’ve just wondered about this, but I’m too far removed from it to explain it. But I know how important it was. I feel it in my own ancestry. I see it in the decisions made by my ancestors who practiced polygamy and in others whose lives I’ve read about. I have perfect faith in the doctrine and will understand more about it in time to come. 

I have posted his statement in the same interview about the prophet not seeing fit to call it doctrine today several times.

 

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nope.  I'm just stating that we don't know.  Women and men may be able to choose which ONE they want to be with for eternity.  We do not know that all those who have been sealed to multiple partners will be forced to live polygamy.  That doesn't invalidate the sealing anymore than in other circumstances where members have been told they will have a choice.

What of those who lived polygamy on earth, and were sealed by the power of the priesthood, and who want to live polygamy in heaven?  I think what JLH is asking, is what sources can anyone point to that support the idea those people's polygamous marriages ceased to exist after death, despite being promised that they would be eternal?

This doctrine of polygamy was a huge part of the church for a long time, and if it has been denounced or has been declared to have been a mistake, we should be able to find that taught somewhere other than in a couple obscure quotes such as a t.v. interview given to a secular audience.

[VideoGameJunkie]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

I have posted his statement in the same interview about the prophet not seeing fit to call it doctrine today several times.

 

 

And I have posted the statement from Gordon B Hinckley in 2007 several times today too. Go figure.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What of those who lived polygamy on earth, and were sealed by the power of the priesthood, and who want to live polygamy in heaven?

I was just responding to JLHPROF's statement that:

Quote

Polygamy continues because marriage is eternal.

Marriage can be eternal without it involving polygamy.  I believe there will be choices (for us to be with whomever we love and want to be with....alone or with others).

[Mystery Meat]

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

OK. I still am requesting a source.

How about this. I will give you a source that says there will be polygamy in the next life, when you provide me one that says there won't.

[Mystery Meat]

7 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

And I have posted the statement from Gordon B Hinckley in 2007 several times today too. Go figure.

Don't bother she is too busy wresting the prophets words to suit her own needs.

[Ginger Snaps]

I'm not responding to any one person here, but just throwing in this statement by Richard G Scott. It was made during an interview with Sheri Dew and quoted at length in an article on lds.org (which, interestingly, includes his statement about not wanting to mess things up by adding another person to his marriage with Jeanene--I wonder how some of his co-apostles feel about that statement):

 

 

Quote

I don’t believe that the temple ordinance guarantees that we’ll be together forever. There will be a time before that sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise that makes it eternal where we’ll be in the presence of the Savior, as individuals, and there will be a choice whether we continue with the sealing or not. And I want to do everything in my power to qualify so that she’ll choose for that sealing to be eternal.

Link:

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/sure-witness-elder-scott?lang=eng

this statement gives me a lot of hope that people will have a choice--even if they did engage in temple-sealed polygamy in this life. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Ginger Snaps

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What of those who lived polygamy on earth, and were sealed by the power of the priesthood, and who want to live polygamy in heaven?  I think what JLH is asking, is what sources can anyone point to that support the idea those people's polygamous marriages ceased to exist after death, despite being promised that they would be eternal?

This doctrine of polygamy was a huge part of the church for a long time, and if it has been denounced or has been declared to have been a mistake, we should be able to find that taught somewhere other than in a couple obscure quotes such as a t.v. interview given to a secular audience.

Exactly.
When speaking of an ordinance that lasts into the eternities, how can we say it is behind us or over with?
It's pure nonsense and makes a mockery of the sealing ordinances.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was just responding to JLHPROF's statement that:

Marriage can be eternal without it involving polygamy.  I believe there will be choices (for us to be with whomever we love and want to be with....alone or with others).

I never said otherwise.  I don't believe anyone will be forced to live polygamy.  But that is not Juliann's topic.

Her topic is that polygamy is firmly in the past and is not coming back.  A nonsense statement when speaking of eternal ordinances.
When we meet Joseph he will still be a polygamist.  When we meet President Hunter he will still be a polygamist.  Despite our semantics, Russell M. Nelson is a polygamist and will be when he passes on, even if one of his wives has gone on ahead.  He still has eternal companionS, eternal WIVES.

Separating eternity from today is not the Mormon way.  It is one continuous existence.

[juliann]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why do you think I've stepped back from them?

Sorry if I misread, I admit it is difficult to keep everything straight.

[VideoGameJunkie]

5 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I'm not responding to any one person here, but just throwing this statement by Richard G Scott out. It was made during an interview with Sheri Dew and quoted at length in an article on lds.org (and interestingly, includes his statement about not wanting to mess things up by adding another person to his marriage with Jeanene--I wonder how some of his co-apostles feel about that statement):

 

 

Link:

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/sure-witness-elder-scott?lang=eng

this statement gives me a lot of hope that people will have a choice--even if they did engage in temple-sealed polygamy in this life. 

I like that. That's a great find.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Sorry if I misread, I admit it is difficult to keep everything straight.

It's alright -- I know you've got a lot of replies coming at you from a lot of different directions.  I don't know how you've kept up this long.

[juliann]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

 

I

Her topic is that polygamy is firmly in the past and is not coming back.  A nonsense statement when speaking of eternal ordinances.
When we meet Joseph he will still be a polygamist.  When we meet President Hunter he will still be a polygamist.  Despite our semantics, Russell M. Nelson is a polygamist and will be when he passes on, even if one of his wives has gone on ahead.  He still has eternal companionS, eternal WIVES.

 

No it's not.  This is not about 19 c. polygamy at all no matter how many hundreds of posts are popping up saying it is.  Seriously, what do I have to do to make those who disagree with me respect the topic?

I have never heard anyone but critics claim that a widow/er who remarries is a polygamist now. I don't think we should join in with them.

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I'm not responding to any one person here, but just throwing in this statement by Richard G Scott. It was made during an interview with Sheri Dew and quoted at length in an article on lds.org (which, interestingly, includes his statement about not wanting to mess things up by adding another person to his marriage with Jeanene--I wonder how some of his co-apostles feel about that statement):

 

 

Link:

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/sure-witness-elder-scott?lang=eng

this statement gives me a lot of hope that people will have a choice--even if they did engage in temple-sealed polygamy in this life. 

Thanks for this.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

No it's not.  This is not about 19 c. polygamy at all no matter how many hundreds of posts are popping up saying it is.  Seriously, what do I have to do to make those who disagree with me respect the topic?

I have never heard anyone but critics claim that a widow/er who remarries is a polygamist now. I don't think we should join in with them.

There is no 19th century polygamy, 20th century polygamy, or 21st century polygamy.

There is ONLY eternal polygamy which encompasses every period of time.

Joseph Smith wasn't a polygamist, Joseph IS a polygamist.
Russell M. Nelson won't become a polygamist, he IS a polygamist.
Eternity is now.

Edited February 18, 2016 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

And I have posted the statement from Gordon B Hinckley in 2007 several times today too. Go figure.

Without a link or full quote. And I responded when someone else provided that and you still haven't noticed. It doesn't say what you want it to. You aren't paying attention, VGJ.  I can't respond to everything and I'm not going to respond to incomplete or unreferenced quotes no matter how much you badger.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

He is talking about those who practiced it. No one has questioned that 19th c. polygamy was doctrine. Most important is that he says he can't explain it.

I have posted his statement in the same interview about the prophet not seeing fit to call it doctrine today several times.

I remain befuddled by what you are trying to accomplish in this thread.  

If by "polygamy is not doctrine" you mean "polygamy has not been reinstated as a practice to be observed between living Latter-day Saints and sanctioned by the Church," then you are correct in saying that polygamy is "doctrine."  As to whether it may be reinstated in the future, we are only able to speculate (which I won't do).   AoF 9 pretty much requires us to keep an open mind about such things.

If by "polygamy is 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.

And if by "polygamy is 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 "polygamy is 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 (seeD&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.

Polygamy is undeniably a doctrine of the Church in the sense that we believe it was a teaching given to a prophet by God.  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."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 18, 2016 by smac97

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Without a link or full quote. And I responded when someone else provided that and you still haven't noticed. It doesn't say what you want it to. You aren't paying attention, VGJ.  I can't respond to everything and I'm not going to respond to incomplete or unreferenced quotes no matter how much you badger.

Pot meet kettle. 

Your quotes don't say what you want them to say. You aren't paying attention, juliann. You are the one who has been badgering for quotes and sources when your own are insufficient. 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I'm not responding to any one person here, but just throwing in this statement by Richard G Scott. It was made during an interview with Sheri Dew and quoted at length in an article on lds.org (which, interestingly, includes his statement about not wanting to mess things up by adding another person to his marriage with Jeanene--I wonder how some of his co-apostles feel about that statement):

Quote

I don’t believe that the temple ordinance guarantees that we’ll be together forever. There will be a time before that sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise that makes it eternal where we’ll be in the presence of the Savior, as individuals, and there will be a choice whether we continue with the sealing or not. And I want to do everything in my power to qualify so that she’ll choose for that sealing to be eternal.

Link:

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/sure-witness-elder-scott?lang=eng

this statement gives me a lot of hope that people will have a choice--even if they did engage in temple-sealed polygamy in this life. 

Nothing about salvation will be compulsory.  The only people who get there will be the people who want to be there.  God will not impose conditions that are noxious to us.

I am not persuaded that God authorized sealing ordinances for tens of thousands of polygamous marriages, only to pull the rug out from under them on Judgment Day and say "Just kiddin!  None of these sealings will continue in the eternities."

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

At the very least she is requesting proof texts for something that is not required to be proven.
And she knows it.

That is not how apologetics is done.  I am requiring a CFR like we do everyday on this board. CFRs are required to prevent exactly what is happening here. There is a board rule that those who refuse to supply it need to leave the thread so nothing is out of bounds in what I am asking. I am requiring what I have for 20 years and no one has complained except the anti-Mormons/critics. Until now.

This is the take away from these interactions. There is an inexplicable demand that opinions overrule official sources. There is an expectation that the person with the official sources accede to opposing opinions without them. When the person does not change positions and a CFR is admittedly not going to happen, the person standing her ground is repeatedly bullied with adjectives so strong they probably should be banned. (I'm not reporting, I do find this useful for my own purposes.)

In other words, we have some people having a literal meltdown on this board because the other guy...with the sources...won't step down. It is quite a spectacle. And this board gets a lot of traffic.

 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I am not persuaded that God authorized sealing ordinances for tens of thousands of polygamous marriages, only to pull the rug out from under them on Judgment Day and say "Just kiddin!  None of these sealings will continue in the eternities."

 

Which I have claimed. NEVER. Again, off topic. This is about today.

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is not how apologetics is done.  I am requiring a CFR like we do everyday on this board. CFRs are required to prevent exactly what is happening here. There is a board rule that those who refuse to supply it need to leave the thread so nothing is out of bounds in what I am asking. I am requiring what I have for 20 years and no one has complained except the anti-Mormons/critics. Until now.

This is the take away from these interactions. There is an inexplicable demand that opinions overrule official sources. There is an expectation that the person with the official sources accede to opposing opinions without them. When the person does not change positions and a CFR is admittedly not going to happen, the person standing her ground is repeatedly bullied with adjectives so strong they probably should be banned. (I'm not reporting, I do find this useful for my own purposes.)

In other words, we have some people having a literal meltdown on this board because the other guy...with the sources...won't step down. It is quite a spectacle. And this board gets a lot of traffic.

 

No, juliann, there have been numerous responses to your CFRs. You simply don't like them. The fact of the matter is your sources are no better than those provided, and are in fact worse.

And again, more mischaracterizing from the person who condemned those who mischaracterize. Nobody has said you have to step down from your opinion or your interpretation of the quotes you provided. The fact of the matter is you want your opinion to override official sources (like D&C 132) and the official sources you have provided (the Proclamation) are silent on the future of polygamy in the Church or its past validity and generally don't say what you want them to.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Pot meet kettle. 

Your quotes don't say what you want them to say. You aren't paying attention, juliann. You are the one who has been badgering for quotes and sources when your own are insufficient. 

You have not provided any official post-Hinckley documentation, sufficient or insufficient. That is why you need to demonize me, I suspect.

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

You have not provided any official post-Hinckley documentation, sufficient or insufficient. That is why you need to demonize me, I suspect.

And you have not provided any official pre, post or contemporary Hinckley documentation, sufficient or insufficient, that says what you seem to want it to say. That is why you need to demonize posters on this thread who disagree with you, I suspect (CFR me on this, I beg of you).

[Mystery Meat]

For some reason, I feel like this whole thread was meant to be some sort of trap and social experiment.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

That is not how apologetics is done.  I am requiring a CFR like we do everyday on this board. CFRs are required to prevent exactly what is happening here. There is a board rule that those who refuse to supply it need to leave the thread so nothing is out of bounds in what I am asking. I am requiring what I have for 20 years and no one has complained except the anti-Mormons/critics. Until now.

This is the take away from these interactions. There is an inexplicable demand that opinions overrule official sources. There is an expectation that the person with the official sources accede to opposing opinions without them. When the person does not change positions and a CFR is admittedly not going to happen, the person standing her ground is repeatedly bullied with adjectives so strong they probably should be banned. (I'm not reporting, I do find this useful for my own purposes.)

In other words, we have some people having a literal meltdown on this board because the other guy...with the sources...won't step down. It is quite a spectacle. And this board gets a lot of traffic.

I remain befuddled by what you are trying to accomplish in this thread.  Ambiguous terms are being thrown around willy-nilly.  Sincere and reasoned and legitimate questions are being ignored wholesale, as are requests for clarification.

I feel reasonably comfortable in relying on my posting record when saying this: I am not an idiot.  I am not ignorant of the subject matter.  I am not resorting to rhetorical games or sleights of hand.  I am trying to understand what it is you are attempting to ascertain by this thread.  I am seeking to understand your position.

And I am being ignored and my efforts frustrated at pretty much every turn.

What is this thread about?  We can't just ask "Is polygamy 'doctrine' in the LDS Church?" or "Do current leaders of the Church teach that polygamy is 'doctrinal?'".  Terms need to be defined.  Context and parameters need to be established.

You previously said "He [Dallin H. Oaks] is talking about those who practiced it. No one has questioned that 19th c. polygamy was doctrine. Most important is that he says he can't explain it.  I have posted his statement in the same interview about the prophet not seeing fit to call it doctrine today several times."

What does this mean?  How is it that polygamy "was doctrine" in the 19th century but is not "doctrine" today?

Are you conflating "doctrine" with "observance/practice of or adherence to doctrine?"  That seems to be the most likely interpretation (that polygamy is a "doctrine" in the Church in that it exists in our canon of scripture and was previously practiced, but at present the practice of the doctrine of polygamy is prohibited, or something like that).  Please let me know if this interpretation is incorrect.

And then there's all this talk about whether polygamy will exist in the eternities.  What is your position on that?  Do you believe that polygamous marriages in the 19th century that A) were sealed with the sanction and under the authority of the Presiding High Priest, B) involved persons who had testimonies of Christ, who repented of their sins, who kept their covenants, and who lived exemplary lives in all material respects, will C) have the potential of being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise and continuing as a relationship in the eternities?

Thanks,

-Smac