Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

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

It hardly seems reasonable to complaint about me going "off topic" when I have repeatedly asked you to clarify the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here's the link.

The link he very same interview Juliann is using to make her case.

 

Elder refer to polygamy as Doctrinal. Part of what he said Concerning the afterlife and plural marriages:

"“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. "

 

Oaks referred to pilygamy as Doctrine. Oaks is a modern living Prophet and Apostle. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by provoman

[Mystery Meat]

The problem with this whole thread is we are being asked to separate the inseparable. To talk about polygamy without any consideration of past and future. It can't be done in any meaningful way. Yes, it is true, that no mortal man on earth at this time is justified in being married (and sexually active) with more than one wife. I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. But to say if we still practice and believe in the doctrine of polygamy is more complex question; the author of this thread seems to want to have the conversation without the complexity (an impossible task). 

So do we practice polygamy? There are countless men who have been sealed to more than one wife; a sealing which binds in life and in death. In that regard we do. No more, no less. I would imagine and the most recent quote would indicate that Elder Oaks feels the same, that such men will be married to each of their wives in eternity.  

[juliann]

Just now, smac97 said:

 

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

 

I am asking for SOURCES! Official statements. Not big arguments based on unsupportable but strongly held positions. All you need to do is reread the OP. I don't think it is reasonable to make me repeat it nonstop. It does seem like derailment at this point.  If it will help, here are some statements from the OP. Hardly a post has gone by that what I asked not be made the topic has been made the topic. Now those who are the biggest violators are those having the biggest meltdown. It is a terrible betrayal that I won't change my topic.
 

Quote

 

So I think it very fair to say the burden of proof is on those who try to make this prophet into a messenger of false information and without providing any documentation that his words were rescinded or overruled by Pres. Monson.

 

I have asked for years for a statement by a modern prophet telling women they can expect to see polygyny in the eternities,  

(And my question is not about what the relatively few already in this situation, including my relatives, will be doing in heaven!)

It is about the messages being given to women right now for reasons I cannot comprehend.

So please do not divert this into a debate over historical polygamy and speculation about their future. This is about the living. Or quotes from two centuries ago. Or men being sealed to multiple women which is offset by posthumous sealings of women to all of their husbands (and the removal of the rule from the CHI  that they must chose only one husband.)

 

 

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am asking for SOURCES! Official statements. Not big arguments based on unsupportable but strongly held positions. All you need to do is reread the OP. I don't think it is reasonable to make me repeat it nonstop. It does seem like derailment at this point.  If it will help, here are some statements from the OP. Hardly a post has gone by that what I asked not be made the topic has been made the topic. Now those who are the biggest violators are those having the biggest meltdown. It is a terrible betrayal that I won't change my topic.
 

 

Why should anyone give you sources, when you have provided exactly none that show conclusive (let alone any) proof of your own assertions?

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[VideoGameJunkie]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

 

I believe Juliann is a strong feminist and is very anti polygamy and wants us all to be on her side. That is what I honestly gathered from this thread.

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

The problem with this whole thread is we are being asked to separate the inseparable. To talk about polygamy without any consideration of past and future. It can't be done in any meaningful way. Yes, it is true, that no mortal man on earth at this time is justified in being married (and sexually active) with more than one wife. I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. But to say if we still practice and believe in the doctrine of polygamy is more complex question; the author of this thread seems to want to have the conversation without the complexity (an impossible task). 

So do we practice polygamy? There are countless men who have been sealed to more than one wife; a sealing which binds in life and in death. In that regard we do. No more, no less. I would imagine and the most recent quote would indicate that Elder Oaks feels the same, that such men will be married to each of their wives in eternity.  

 

 

Sources please.

[Ginger Snaps]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Nor do I think that is at all what Richard G Scott is saying. Let's refrain from hyperbole. It doesn't add to the discussion. 

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Sources please.

Show me yours and I will show you mine.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

You don't know that.   Joseph lived polygamy during his life here on earth.  The rest is up for discussion and depends on your beliefs regarding the afterlife.  

Joseph may choose to just be with Emma as his eternal companion throughout the eternities.  If she feels the same about polygamy in the next life as she did as Joseph's wife here on earth, he may have to choose.  They had a very deep love for each other, from what I can tell, and I believe she truly was the love of his life.

Will Emma be forced to live polygamy if she wants to be with Joseph or will they both have a choice?  Can Joseph choose to just be with her if this is what she desires and asks of him?

.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Glenn101]

4 hours 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. 

 

Juliann,

   Gordon B. Hinckley is dead and his words hold no more or no less weight than any previous prophet. He is not here to clarify his statements. Therefore, they have to be parsed in context and in companionship with the pronouncements of all of the other prophetic utterances and scriptures that have preceded him. If you take that into account, the logical conclusion is that he was talking about polygamy in the here and now.

 You are ignoring everything that has been said in the past about polygamy, and even the context of the Proclamation on the Family. The sections I quoted from Section 132 indicate that some will have plural wives in the next phase of our existence. If I live worthy, I will.

But, yes, no prophet since Gordon B. Hinckley has addressed the subject, that I know of.

 

Glenn

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am asking for SOURCES! Official statements.

Sources about what?  Official statements about what?  I don't even know what you are looking for.

If you are looking for recent "official statements" by General Authorities about whether polygamy will exist in the eternities, then I will point you to this post of mine from yesterday.  

 

Quote

Quote

Those essays speak to the past practice, not the existence of polygamy in the eternities... which I believe is Juliann's point.

Well, I think that's incorrect.  One of the essays [which "have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles"] specifically addresses polygamy in the eternities in at least two ways.  Here's a link to the essay in question: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

Here are the relevant excerpts:

• "As early as 1840, Joseph Smith privately taught Apostle Parley P. Pratt that the “heavenly order” allowed Pratt and his wife to be together “for time and all eternity.” Joseph also taught that men like Pratt—who had remarried following the death of his first wife—could be married (or sealed) to their wives for eternity, under the proper conditions..."
• "During the era in which plural marriage was practiced, Latter-day Saints distinguished between sealings for time and eternity and sealings for eternity only. Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone...Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings. The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown..."

Moreover, I have previously noted (at least I think I did) that there are probably tens of thousands of 19th century polygamous marriages that were solemnized in the Church's sealing ceremonies.  Nobody has yet to explain why the Church would conduct such ceremonies if there was no intention of having them endure in the eternities (or at least have the potential of so enduring).  Juliann has not yet addressed this point.

The existence of thousands of sealings for thousands of polygamous marriages would seem to be sort of a res ipsa loquitur sort of thing as far as whether polygamy will exist in the eternities.  Of course it will.  Why else would God authorize these sealings?

So there you are.  The essay above was reviewed and approved by the current First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  

Quote

Not big arguments based on unsupportable but strongly held positions. All you need to do is reread the OP.

Again, I am not an idiot.  Again, I have thread this thread.  Again, I have asked for clarification several times.  Again, I remain unclear on what you are looking for.

Quote

I don't think it is reasonable to make me repeat it nonstop. It does seem like derailment at this point.  If it will help, here are some statements from the OP. Hardly a post has gone by that what I asked not be made the topic has been made the topic. Now those who are the biggest violators are those having the biggest meltdown. It is a terrible betrayal that I won't change my topic.

Okay, let's break this down:

Quote

So I think it very fair to say the burden of proof is on those who try to make this prophet into a messenger of false information and without providing any documentation that his words were rescinded or overruled by Pres. Monson.

Who is making a prophet "into a messenger of false information?"  CFR.  Chapter and verse.  Who is doing this?  Where?  When?  Links, please.

 

Quote

I have asked for years for a statement by a modern prophet telling women they can expect to see polygyny in the eternities,  

What does "[women] can expect to see polygyny in the eternities" mean?  Are you suggesting that polygamy will not exist in the eternities?  Or are you suggesting that the Church teaches that women will be forced into a polygamous relationship in the eternities?

And what about the essay I have repeatedly referenced?  The one that was reviewed and approved by the current First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles?  The essay that specifically discusses polygamy in the eternities?

Quote

It is about the messages being given to women right now for reasons I cannot comprehend.

CFR, please.  What are these "messages?"  Who is giving them?  When?  Where?  Chapter and verse, please.  Links.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by smac97

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours 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.

Have we really seen this in this thread?

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Quote

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.

Have we really seen this in this thread?

Indeed.  I have never met a faithful, observant Latter-day Saint who doesn't believe that "polygamy is over."  Yeah, it is.  Since 1890ish.

So CFR, Juliann.  Which "devout TBMs" are you referencing here?  Chapter and verse, please.  Links to statements from "devout" Mormons indicating that they "would never accept a prophet and apostle saying polygamy is over."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

I hope I can return Juliann...just to mention something that might tie this thing up.  When JS and BY and the rest of the apostles started/lived polygamy, they believed that the second coming was at hand.  They believed that they were starting their own kingdoms on the earth.  They were sealing these women and family members or even men, so that they could live in the same kingdom or dare I say, world.  This has been my reading of the history.  We no longer are starting our own kingdoms on the earth this way.  I think the fundamental Mormons are, but not the TCOJCOLDS.  I believe we have veered more in keeping with Christian thought.  It might be possible that JS got the timing all wrong.  Since he did say that Jesus would be back at a certain time within his or others lifetimes.  If we look at it in that context, it changes matters.  Or just kick me off again for spouting this things.  But I think Pres. Hinckley was great for PR in the church.  He had to watch what he said, not only for non members but for members themselves that might think they do have to live polygamy to be exalted such as the FLDS.  The church keeping things on the low down, such as keeping it out of our Sunday School lesson books etc.  Might not be to make us look good, but to make sure some in the church don't think it's the way to go because JS lived it etc.  

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Quote

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

Nor do I think that is at all what Richard G Scott is saying. Let's refrain from hyperbole. It doesn't add to the discussion. 

My statement, while having a bit of levity (perhaps inappropriate given the subject matter) is not hyperbole.  Is Juliann arguing that polygamous marriages will not exist in the eternities?  If so, then how do we account for a string of Presiding High Priests authorizing tens of thousands of sealings for polygamous marriages in the 19th century?  Were they in error?  If so, how has this error been established?

Juliann?

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

37 minutes ago, provoman said:

The link he very same interview Juliann is using to make her case.

 

Elder refer to polygamy as Doctrinal. He said he would speak about afterlife; though he did 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. "

 

Oaks referred to pilygamy as Doctrine. Oaks is a modern living Prophet and Apostle. 

Except, as has already been noted, he was talking about 19c polygamy. Which no one has said wasn't considered "doctrine." EVER.

I think this is a good example, since it keeps coming up, that sometimes we do not read sources carefully when we are intent on proving an opinion rather than providing relevant documentation. Speaking about today Oaks said that he would not make doctrinal statements where the prophet had chosen (not the word chosen) not to.

I hope this is the last time I have to revisit this.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is Juliann arguing that polygamous marriages will not exist in the eternities?  If so, then how do we account for a string of Presiding High Priests authorizing tens of thousands of sealings for polygamous marriages in the 19th century?  Were they in error?  If so, how has this error been established?

Just because tens of thousands polygamous marriages were authorized, this doesn't mean they will be enforced in the afterlife or that anyone will be forced to live polygamy.  

I think the word "force" is the key word here.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that's the word that many women today are worried about.

I think that Juliann is looking for quotes from current (or at least recent) leaders who state that women will have a choice and can still be in the Celestial Kingdom and not participate in polygamy.  (I may be way off here though....?)

.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope I can return Juliann...just to mention something that might tie this thing up.  When JS and BY and the rest of the apostles started/lived polygamy, they believed that the second coming was at hand.  They believed that they were starting their own kingdoms on the earth.  They were sealing these women and family members or even men, so that they could live in the same kingdom or dare I say, world.  This has been my reading of the history.  We no longer are starting our own kingdoms on the earth this way.  I think the fundamental Mormons are, but not the TCOJCOLDS.  I believe we have veered more in keeping with Christian thought.  It might be possible that JS got the timing all wrong.  Since he did say that Jesus would be back at a certain time within his or others lifetimes.  If we look at it in that context, it changes matters.  Or just kick me off again for spouting this things.  But I think Pres. Hinckley was great for PR in the church.  He had to watch what he said, not only for non members but for members themselves that might think they do have to live polygamy to be exalted such as the FLDS.  The church keeping things on the low down, such as keeping it out of our Sunday School lesson books etc.  Might not be to make us look good, but to make sure some in the church don't think it's the way to go because JS lived it etc.  

Thoughtful.  Never looked at it this way before.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Just because tens of thousands polygamous marriages were authorized, this doesn't mean they will be enforced in the afterlife or that anyone will be forced to live polygamy.  

I quite agree.  

Quote

I think the word "force" is the key word here.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that's the word that many women today are worried about.

Why?  Has some General Authority somewhere suggested that women will be "forced" into polygamous marriages in the eternities?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.  

Why?  Has some General Authority somewhere suggested that women will be "forced" into polygamous marriages in the eternities?

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you have a statement from a General Authority stating that women will not be expected to live polygamy?  

I know that's currently assumed (which contradicts early leader's statements), but I think those are the quotes Juliann is looking for here.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Mystery Meat]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Except, as has already been noted, he was talking about 19c polygamy. Which no one has said wasn't considered "doctrine." EVER.

I think this is a good example, since it keeps coming up, that sometimes we do not read sources carefully when we are intent on proving an opinion rather than providing relevant documentation. Speaking about today Oaks said that he would not make doctrinal statements where the prophet had chosen (not the word chosen) not to.

I hope this is the last time I have to revisit this.

He was certainly not referring to 19c polygamy in the portion reference, unless he Elder Oaks himself is very old.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope I can return Juliann...just to mention something that might tie this thing up.  When JS and BY and the rest of the apostles started/lived polygamy, they believed that the second coming was at hand.  They believed that they were starting their own kingdoms on the earth.  They were sealing these women and family members or even men, so that they could live in the same kingdom or dare I say, world.  This has been my reading of the history.  We no longer are starting our own kingdoms on the earth this way.  I think the fundamental Mormons are, but not the TCOJCOLDS.  I believe we have veered more in keeping with Christian thought.  It might be possible that JS got the timing all wrong.  Since he did say that Jesus would be back at a certain time within his or others lifetimes.  If we look at it in that context, it changes matters.  Or just kick me off again for spouting this things.  But I think Pres. Hinckley was great for PR in the church.  He had to watch what he said, not only for non members but for members themselves that might think they do have to live polygamy to be exalted such as the FLDS.  The church keeping things on the low down, such as keeping it out of our Sunday School lesson books etc.  Might not be to make us look good, but to make sure some in the church don't think it's the way to go because JS lived it etc.  

 

 

 Thanks for that. Sorry for getting testy. 

(And again, I cannot get these extra quote windows to go away.)

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

He was certainly not referring to 19c polygamy in the portion reference, unless he Elder Oaks himself is very old.

Oh for heaven's sake.

[Tacenda]

Just now, juliann said:

 Thanks for that. Sorry for getting testy. 

(And again, I cannot get these extra quote windows to go away.)

I used poor word usage, I take part of the blame for using an anti Mormon title.