Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

1. The Proclamation begins with  ". .  marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . "  The indefinite article "a" cannot be modified to mean more than one.  Since the remainder of the Proc uses "man and woman" the addition of "a" in the first paragraph indicates intent to make that clear from the get go.

However, I continually see those that would like to see the Proc canonized also say that polygyny, or "marriage between a man and many women"  awaits us in heaven. (The stock wiggle room qualifiers like "oh, but not everybody will have to!"  that accompany it to be discussed later.)

I would like to understand members who disqualify everything said by modern prophets to hold on to a 19th c. practice can consider themselves to be following THE prophet.

 

2. I think the clearest statement we have that polygamy is over and I mean over, is Pres. Hinckley's Larry King interview. Celestial polygyny advocates typically say he made an off the top of his head comment, i.e., he was wrong, or that he was talking about fundamentalist Mormons not being "doctrinal." That is not only bizarre for our prophet to be telling another group what is doctrinal, as if we see anything else they do as doctrinal, and it does not explain away what he said previously.      

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/larry_king_1998.shtml

And he continues,

His wording is consistent throughout: permitted, limited, restricted. He describes it as a "practice" not just once but twice, before finalizing that it is not doctrine. Then he says, unequivocally, "It's behind us." He never corrected this, he never reworded it. In contrast he did revisit, in a joking manner, another interview when he was widely criticized for saying we don't talk about deification much.

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to make this prophet into a messenger of false information and without providing any documentation that his words were rescinded or overruled by Pres.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.

 

3. I see these two strong statements as the basis for what is doctrinal in our modern era. I see no way to wiggle out of it. Yet we still have members who want to appeal to earlier prophets over our living prophets.

I have asked for years for a statement by a modern prophet telling women they can expect to see polygyny in the eternities, in essence, monogamy is not the preferred form of marriage.  Polygyny is not a discarded historical practice. (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.)

How are these members justifying their speculation about celestial polygyny of post-Manifesto women in direct contradiction of the Proc and without the support of modern and living prophets? 

This is a great post and you make great points.  The biggest barrier though to your argument is the fact that men can be sealed to more than one woman in the temple (Spouse has died and man marries again and can be in the temple, man is divorced from a woman he was sealed to...all he needs to be sealed to another woman is permission but the woman needs a sealing cancellation) seems to diminish it very much so.

The only way a woman can be sealed to more than one man is if she and all her prior husbands are dead.

So if the Church has really put this behind us the Church needs to modify its temple sealing practices.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

1. The Proclamation begins with  ". .  marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . "  The indefinite article "a" cannot be modified to mean more than one.  Since the remainder of the Proc uses "man and woman" the addition of "a" in the first paragraph indicates intent to make that clear from the get go.

This is true but it does not discount the idea of polyandry or polygyny. In historical LDS plural marriage it was one man having multiple marriages between "a man" and "a woman" not a group sealing of "a man" and "some women" within one marriage. They were separate marriages. It does discount homosexual marriage as acceptable.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

If it were Abrahamic, wouldn't the commandment have been revoked before anyone actually complied?

Not necessarily.  Abraham was tested twice:  once wrt Sarah/Hagar; once wrt Isaac.  He was released from the test wrt Isaac without actually having to go through with it after demonstrating his willingness to follow through.  He was not released wrt Sarah/Hagar, though it broke everybody's heart and ended up in the functional equivalent of divorce.  Abrahamic tests, accordingly, are of two kinds:  the kind you have to follow through on; the kind you get rescued from.

[Walden]

Considering what it states in D&C, I would interpret that as original intent with regard to polygamy being practiced in the afterlife. Per revelation from Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith, it is stated in D&C 131 that "in the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees...and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]." And in D&C 132, it states that "I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory...For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world...And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

Not sure how else to interpreting the use of "everlasting" other than to equate it to "eternal."

Furthermore, I am aware of what the Prophet stated on 60 Minutes when he said that he doesn't think that polygamy is doctrine, though I think that a revelation from Jesus Christ trumps the phrasing of a prophet conducting a publicity-related interview for a national TV program...I think of many of the Prophets statements in that 60 Minutes interview as being guarded and/or calculated, in the spirit of not "casting pearls before swine."

There is nothing in the 1890 manifesto that disavows the truthfulness of the D&C revelations previously cited; the manifesto essentially just states that "I (president Woodruff) now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is the closest we have, I think. However, even he backed away from this in his 2007 PBS interview. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary 

He again affirms there is no doctrine.  He has relegated this to a belief or hope based on his covenants. But most significant, although using his situation as an example, he talks about "people in multiple-situation marriages." Not just men. We are again into polyandry and a really messy situation where any wife could remarry after a man's death and accumulate another husband and sealing.

So we are back to polyandry.

 

Thanks for providing that quote from him.  It's a very interesting topic and always great to hear how our leaders view it.  It seems that he believes that he will live in a polygamist marriage after death, but that he does not feel it is his place to teach that as doctrine. 

At very least his words seem to imply that, in his mind, Pres. Hinckley's quote on the subject does not extend to the afterlife.

[Duncan]

So, what happens when a lady has a husband, who she is sealed to, dies and she wants to get remarried in the Temple? is it just for life or what if she wants to be sealed to her second husband? 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Walden said:

Considering what it states in D&C, I would interpret that as original intent with regard to polygamy being practiced in the afterlife. Per revelation from Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith, it is stated in D&C 131 that "in the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees...and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]." And in D&C 132, it states that "I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory...For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world...And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

Not sure how else to interpreting the use of "everlasting" other than to equate it to "eternal."

Furthermore, I am aware of what the Prophet stated on 60 Minutes when he said that he doesn't think that polygamy is doctrine, though I think that a revelation from Jesus Christ trumps the phrasing of a prophet conducting a publicity-related interview for a national TV program...I think of many of the Prophets statements in that 60 Minutes interview as being guarded and/or calculated, in the spirit of not "casting pearls before swine."

There is nothing in the 1890 manifesto that disavows the truthfulness of the D&C revelations previously cited; the manifesto essentially just states that "I (president Woodruff) now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."

The church defines the new and everlasting covenant as the sealing covenant and not plural marriage specifically though.  

[Avatar4321]

You're analysis is off. A marriage between a man and a woman is not at all at conflict with plural marriasge. Even with plural marriages the marriage was between one man and one woman. There were just multiple marriages 

Polygamy isn't marrying the two wives together at all. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I feel in the Celestial Kingdom as exalted beings we will feel no jealousy and will be able to experience full love. Loving more than one companion equally in an exalted state should be like loving more than one child equally. If you're a good parent you won't have a favorite child, you will love all your children equally. I guess in that sense, in the eternities, you can love more than one spouse equally.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So, what happens when a lady has a husband, who she is sealed to, dies and she wants to get remarried in the Temple? is it just for life or what if she wants to be sealed to her second husband? 

They used to allow marriages for time only in the temple under those conditions (i've heard they don't do that anymore) but only if the husband had already been sealed in the temple to someone else as well.

In those cases, the unofficial teaching of the church is that the woman would either stay sealed to her first husband (and all her children would be considered his even if they were biologically her second husband's) or she would have to cancel that sealing (leaving her first husband without that saving covenant) and get sealed to her second husband.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

So, what happens when a lady has a husband, who she is sealed to, dies and she wants to get remarried in the Temple? is it just for life or what if she wants to be sealed to her second husband? 

This is helpful in seeing which questions and justifications keep coming up. There are going to be too many responses to keep up with and you missed it. So I'll repeat.

Women are currently being sealed to a second husband in the temple. (Posters in leadership positions have verified that on this board, please see those threads.) Women can also be sealed posthumously. We do believe that proxy sealings are valid, even for women ;-)

For members who disagree, there is simply no ground that can be gained by insisting other people's sealings are not valid so please, let's put this one away!

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

This is helpful in seeing which questions and justifications keep coming up. There are going to be too many responses to keep up with and you missed it. So I'll repeat.

Women are currently being sealed to a second husband in the temple. (Posters in leadership positions have verified that on this board, please see those threads.) Women can also be sealed posthumously. We do believe that proxy sealings are valid, even for women ;-)

For members who disagree, there is simply no ground that can be gained by insisting other people's sealings are not valid so please, let's put this one away!

 

Okay.  But I am no longer sure what your question is.  Or has it been answered?

[Calm]

Abraham did everything but the final act.  If one looks at eternal polygyny as the final act, I think using the term Abrahamic sacrifice works.

[VideoGameJunkie]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So, what happens when a lady has a husband, who she is sealed to, dies and she wants to get remarried in the Temple? is it just for life or what if she wants to be sealed to her second husband? 

She can either obtain a sealing cancellation and be sealed to the new husband, or wait until she dies and have her family seal her to all the husbands she had in her mortal life.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

This is helpful in seeing which questions and justifications keep coming up. There are going to be too many responses to keep up with and you missed it. So I'll repeat.

Women are currently being sealed to a second husband in the temple. (Posters in leadership positions have verified that on this board, please see those threads.) Women can also be sealed posthumously. We do believe that proxy sealings are valid, even for women ;-)

For members who disagree, there is simply no ground that can be gained by insisting other people's sealings are not valid so please, let's put this one away!

 

Do we have any information on the number of living women who have been sealed to two husbands?  I think we really need to know that before it can be implied that women are currently being sealed to second husbands in the temple because that makes it sound like it's a common occurrence.  If it's only ever happened to, say, 5 women, then that's a different implication.  

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The only way a woman can be sealed to more than one man is if she and all her prior husbands are dead.

And we teach that proxy ordinances mean the same thing as living ones.

PS: there are reliable reports of living women being sealed to a dead husband and a living husband.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church defines the new and everlasting covenant as the sealing covenant and not plural marriage specifically though.

At least they do since the 1930s.
In the days of Brigham Young and John Taylor they didn't.  That was one of several theological changes that occurred around the turn of the 20th century.

[Jeanne]

49 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pres. Hinckley said it is behind us.  He isn't the only one, BTW.  Would you say this same thing about everything we hold to be true? We can have no assurances past today regardless of what modern prophets are saying?

 

 

Good question.

 

 

 

 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems, in the context where he said those things, that he was speaking about polygamy in mortality. He specifically uses the example of us obeying laws to support his statements, but those examples have absolutely nothing to do with polygamy in heaven.  Laws obviously have nothing to do with what will or won't be allowed in that life.

But, President Hinckley stated that polygamy is "not doctrinal".  

I agree that he may have been condemning living polygamy today (since he did add that it's also "not legal") .  But, "not doctrinal" leaves little wiggle room regarding how he felt about polygamy (IMO).

I can't remember, did President Hinckley ever clarify what he meant with his comment:

Quote

 "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal."

 

[bluebell]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

At least they do since the 1930s.
In the days of Brigham Young and John Taylor they didn't.  That was one of several theological changes that occurred around the turn of the 20th century.

So everyone who wasn't a polygamist during that era understood they couldn't be exalted?  Wouldn't that have been like 50-70% of church membership?

[VideoGameJunkie]

President Hinckley said it's not doctrinal, yet D&C 132 is still canonized scripture from the Lord with plural marriage in the section.

[smac97]

Just now, VideoGameJunkie said:

President Hinckley said it's not doctrinal, yet D&C 132 is still canonized scripture from the Lord with plural marriage in the section.

Hence the need to understand and construe Pres. Hinckley's remarks in context.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In those cases, the unofficial teaching of the church is that the woman would either stay sealed to her first husband (and all her children would be considered his even if they were biologically her second husband's) or she would have to cancel that sealing (leaving her first husband without that saving covenant) and get sealed to her second husband.

I believe this explanation even used to be in the Handbook, but it has been removed (at the same time that other manuals were being updated to remove a lot of the speculation iirc).

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

She can either obtain a sealing cancellation and be sealed to the new husband, or wait until she dies and have her family seal her to all the husbands she had in her mortal life.

Or ask for an exception to be able to keep her sealing intact and have a new sealing given.  It has happened both historically and recently.  See other threads in the past on the board for those discussions.  I think one poster reported it happening to his mother or grandmother, possible more than one for the historic ones.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, President Hinckley stated that polygamy is "not doctrinal".  

I agree that he may have been condemning living polygamy today (since he did add that it's also "not legal") .  But, "not doctrinal" leaves little wiggle room regarding how he felt about polygamy (IMO).

I can't remember, did President Hinckley ever clarify what he meant with his comment:

 

In regards to being a polygamist in mortality, it's not.  His words don't contradict the current teachings of the church on the subject (which are that monogamy is the rule but that polygamy is allowed under certain circumstances set forth by God).

That's the doctrine.

So, anyone who is practicing polygamy right now, is doing so in a non-doctrinal way.

Edited February 16, 2016 by bluebell