Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[Sky]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

No.  The message is this - President Nelson has two wives.  His first wife has two choices - stay with him or don't.
She has no say against his second wife's agency.

So she can be married and receive exaltation, or choose to be single and lose exaltation.
It's not "get in line".  It's "your husband has another wife, do you still want to be married to him?"

If she doesn't want to live polygamy, why couldn't she have the option of choosing another man that will only be with her?  

She was faithful in every way during her mortal life; she shouldn't have to lose her exaltation.  Why is the onus all on her?  

What if Russell M. Nelson has to end up choosing one or the other?  

The take home message I still get is "if you don't like it then too bad.  This is just how it has to be."  

Male privilege.   

 

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Sky said:

You seem to be insinuating that polygamy is required for exaltation in the highest degree of the CK.  Russell M. Nelson's first wife simply has to accept this or be damned, or accept a lower place in the CK.      

The take home message for the wives seems to be along the lines of "get in line or get out."  

Sounds like coercion to me.   

Yes!  This is exactly what many feel.  Their wishes and desires and what brings them joy are ignored and only obedience is asked for.

Not saying that is a correct view of what God's blessings mean to us no matter what they might be (and I am up in the air about plural marriage because it doesn't make logical sense to me given other commandments but I also wonder about those who have had multiple loves in mortality), but it is one view that many have of plural marriage.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

...His first wife has two choices - stay with him or don't.
She has no say against his second wife's agency....
 

Which makes no sense to me.  Why is his second wife's agency given priority over the first wife's...or the first wife's to the second or the husband's to the wives?

How can all their agencies be truely respected if one person's choice preempts what the others gets to choose?

Edited February 19, 2016 by Calm

[mtomm]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which makes no sense to me.  Why is his second wife's agency given priority over the first wife's...or the first wife's to the second or the husband's to the wives?

How can all their agencies be truely respected if one person's choice preempts what the others gets to choose?

Now this strikes at the heart of how polygamy is hurtful. 

(As practiced today.) 

 

[Calm]

Sometimes it takes me awhile to get there, but I do eventually.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, and the covenant of the marriage sealing ceremony may also apply here.

Where in the temple marriage sealing ceremony does it state that we are making a covenant with God to live polygamy after this life?

I don't remember that being part of the covenant I made.

So if I die before my husband and he is then sealed to another wife, I have made a covenant to stay in a polygamous relationship with them?  

[Glenn101]

I am going to make my final landing here on this thread. We all are repeating ourselves it seems.

I do not reject the Proclamation on the Family. I accept and believe that is an inspired document. I just do not accept Juliann's interpretation/exegesis of that "a." The Proclamation was produced without polygamy in mind.

I also do not accept Juliann's assessment of what President Hinckley meant with his various statements on the subject of polygamy. At the time of the interview and up to this point, I have understood his remarks to be concerning polygamy here on this earth. Nothing that President Hinckley has said prior or subsequent to that interview has lead me, and most others to believe that he meant anything else.

As far as I know, President Monson has not issued any statements concerning polygamy in the next life.

So we are left with Section 132 and the teachings of the past prophets on the subject. Those teachings indicate that at least some people, but maybe not all will engage in polygamy.

I do not know what my situation will be. I am like quite few other people who have had a wife die, remarried, and have been sealed to my second wife. I have no idea if my first wife approves of and will accept polygamy.

I do not know if I will be allowed to practice polygamy in the next life, because God did not specifically command me to marry or be sealed to my second wife. So, yes, their is some uncertainty there.

What I am certain about is that God is a loving, kind, and compassionate Father. I trust Him completely.

I trust that when I get through that next portal, I will see what an insanely glorious future that He has in store for me (providing that I live worthily) and that I will be eager beyond all understanding  to do things the way that God wants me to do them.

Glenn

[provoman]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

What is contortion is one of the things being debated as well as what is scripture.  Of course I say no to your question, but that pretty much only means I don't think you should contort it because I definitely don't think I am contorting anything and I believe I am paying very close attention to scripture as well (as is Juilann imo).  I assume you feel the same way.

Juliann pretty much throws out section 132, so, no I do not think she is paying close attention to the scripture. She arrogantly accuses those who do not agree with her that they are not following the Prophet. And yet, the Prophet has not put a stop to individuals to being sealed to more than one legal and lawful spouse - that fact speaks volumes to what the Prophet has said on the subject.  Elder Oaks statement on polygamy in the afterlife has been misrepresented.  I do not doubt that many people are troubled with the thought of polygamy whether re-instituted on earth by common consent in the same manner in which the practice was ceased. But that an aspect of the Gospel troubles one, few, or many, does not mean we scratch, claw, ridicule and shout down others in an attempt to trumpet one own pet interpretation.

Poster removed. 

[Rain]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

But it is not an "all of us" situation.  I see a number of people who get what Juliann has said (Sky, blue dreams, Rain--though apparently she is not getting that she is getting it, lol, probably ALarson off the top of my head to begin with, I don't count myself because I have had many conversations elsewhere) so it would seem to be possible.  

Sometimes I think I get it, but when she accepts a Hinckley interview not made to church members and highly unlikely for half of them to see it and doesn't see other possibilities for "a" in the proclamation, but doesn't accept some of ye things mentioned on this thread then I have to take a step back and think, "what am I missing?  Juliann is an intelligent woman. She has probably thought over this a long time. She has a reason to really want to get to the heart of the matter. So what am I missing?"

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

Where in the temple marriage sealing ceremony does it state that we are making a covenant with God to live polygamy after this life?

I don't remember that being part of the covenant I made.

So if I die before my husband and he is then sealed to another wife, I have made a covenant to stay in a polygamous relationship with them?  

I said it might apply, not that it specifically names.

But we did promise to observe all ordinances pertaining to marriage in the New and Everlasting covenant.  Which ordinances of marriage come AFTER we are sealed?

[rongo]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Spot on again imo.  We should just let you talk.

If this is what Juliann is saying ("Juliann is simply saying that there is no expectation that we (meaning us today) will be required to live polygamy in the next life.  There are no statements from current or recent Church leaders saying that.") --- and she can confirm or amend this --- that is one thing.

What I am confused about is whether she is also saying that polygamy may be lived in the next live for those who choose to and meet the criteria (through sealing ordinances). This is different from it being "required."

Or, whether she is saying that there will be no polygamy in the next life for anyone at all, worlds without end.

The latter is what I understand her to be getting at, actually. But, I will accept her clarification at face value if this is an incorrect read.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Sky said:

Juliann is simply saying that there is no expectation that we (meaning us today) will be required to live polygamy in the next life.  There are no statements from current or recent Church leaders saying that. 

That is what I think she is saying.  She can correct me if I'm misreading her.   

If that's all she's saying then I can completely agree with that.  

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

  14 hours ago, Sky said:

Juliann is simply saying that there is no expectation that we (meaning us today) will be required to live polygamy in the next life.  There are no statements from current or recent Church leaders saying that.

That is what I think she is saying.  She can correct me if I'm misreading her.

If that's all she's saying then I can completely agree with that.

If that's all she's saying I can agree with that too.  There are no statements from current Church leaders requiring polygamy in the next life.

I don't think that's all she's saying.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

 

Or, whether she is saying that there will be no polygamy in the next life for anyone at all, worlds without end.

The latter is what I understand her to be getting at, actually. But, I will accept her clarification at face value if this is an incorrect read.

You are a late comer and you would be a bit crazy to read 20 pages of posters. From the OP, the very beginning, I set down a rule that this conversation was to be about today, not our ancestors. That is because we have no idea what will happen in a situation where there actually were polygamist marriages and it was considered doctrine.  Whether they remain in polygamist relationships will be up to them and the Lord.  I have never said there will be no polygamy in the next life. I cannot speak for them.

We have women struggling now and even leaving the church because of the pervasive belief that polygyny will return at some point in their existence. That leads to sadly absurd conversations where members feel they have to make promises to not remarry in mortality to prevent it. Yet there is no evidence beyond strongly held opinion that post-polygamy members would ever be part of such a situation given that monogamy has always been the Lord's preferred form of marriage with polygamy as the rare deviation.

I have presented three quotes from a modern prophet, and two apostles confirming this. This has created what is to me a fairly disturbing rush to add disclaimers that they did not, or worse, to dismiss them completely. Not one person has produced any official quotes to counter these. They simply rewrite what we do have. This is not acceptable on any level. Especially not academically, which like it or not, apologetics must rely upon. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by juliann

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

No one will be sealed to someone they don't want to be sealed to.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No one will be sealed to someone they don't want to be sealed to.

Yes, but that might mean they can't get sealed to the man they have chosen to be sealed to even if both are worthy of exaltation.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Sometimes I think I get it, but when she accepts a Hinckley interview not made to church members and highly unlikely for half of them to see it and doesn't see other possibilities for "a" in the proclamation, but doesn't accept some of ye things mentioned on this thread then I have to take a step back and think, "what am I missing?  Juliann is an intelligent woman. She has probably thought over this a long time. She has a reason to really want to get to the heart of the matter. So what am I missing?"

 

Such interviews are highly publicized by the church, even appearing on LDS.org. So I have to challenge the assumption that fewer members would be aware of it. It is easier to google than a conference talk. Most members don't see the CHI so I don't think how many people see something is a measure of our doctrine.

I have not just used the Proc. I supported the "a," which shouldn't even be necessary given its meaning, with the recent polygamy essays that say ONE man and ONE woman. That makes the usage consistent. 

Once I have presented evidence, it is not my burden to disprove opinions that merely reject the evidence. Those opinions must be supported with something other than... 

1. You are wrong

2. The prophet is wrong.

3.  Hinckley/Oaks/Ballard meant something else, they just didn't say it so I will.

4. I want to talk about something else that happened in a different culture and time instead. 

5. You are ugly

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 There are no statements from current Church leaders requiring polygamy in the next life.

 

At last.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Such interviews are highly publicized by the church, even appearing on LDS.org. So I have to challenge the assumption that fewer members would be aware of it. It is easier to google than a conference talk. Most members don't see the CHI so I don't think how many people see something is a measure of our doctrine.

I have not just used the Proc. I supported the "a," which shouldn't even be necessary given its meaning, with the recent polygamy essays that say ONE man and ONE woman. That makes the usage consistent.

Once I have presented evidence, it is not my burden to disprove opinions that merely reject the evidence. Those opinions must be supported with something other than...

1. You are wrong

2. The prophet is wrong.

3.  Hinckley/Oaks/Ballard meant something else, they just didn't say it so I will.

4. I want to talk about something else that happened in a different culture and time instead.

5. You are ugly

 

Come on Juliann.
You cannot set such limits in scope and expect a clear picture of true doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, but that might mean they can't get sealed to the man they have chosen to be sealed to even if both are worthy of exaltation.

True, such is the consequence of agency.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, but that might mean they can't get sealed to the man they have chosen to be sealed to even if both are worthy of exaltation.

Wasn't that one of the major selling points for polygamy when it was being practiced?  That a worthy woman could be sealed to any worthy man even if he already had a wife.
Nobody will be required to stay in a sealing they don't want.  Sometimes staying may require accepting something they weren't expecting.  But leaving is always an option.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

At last.

Never debated it.

I've only ever said that polygamous relationships will exist in God's kingdom according to every action of the Church and canonized scripture.  But there will be no requirement.  There's no requirement for anyone to live any law of the gospel.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Come on Juliann.
You cannot set such limits in scope and expect a clear picture of true doctrine.

 

Once I have presented evidence, it is not my burden to disprove opinions that merely reject the evidence. Those opinions must be supported with something other than...

1. You are wrong

[rongo]

Thanks, juliann!

I want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. Cutting through all of the clutter of CFRs and counter-CFRs, and regardless of each person's personal views/orientation on this (whatever they may be), are you saying that no one should teach that there might be polygamy in the hereafter for some people (even while stating that it won't be a requirement)? Or, are you okay with people teaching that there might be polygamy for some people in the hereafter (while emphasizing that it won't be a requirement), as long as it is emphasized that this is speculation in the absence of definitive declarations from modern Church leaders? Or, are you really saying that we should scrupulously avoid any speculation that is not unanimously grounded in clear statements from modern Church leaders?

I understand you wanting to  limit the discussion in this thread to only statements from modern Church leaders. I personally think that the discussion is not really possible (or at least not possible to fully discuss) without doctrinal statements from all Church leaders in this dispensation, but I think I understand your parameters. What I'm not clear on (and your answer might be "I don't want to discuss it and it's not relevant to us today what polygamy-era Church leaders taught") is what you are arguing about faithful members who lived under the Church's teachings about polygamy at that time. In other words, are you arguing against the view that people at different times can be held to different standards and expectations (i.e., that our requirements vis a vis polygamy are different from members in 1865)? Is it acceptable, in your view, to regard us today as not under requirements that people of a different era may have been under?

I feel that your overarching concern is helping people (primarily women) for whom polygamy past, present (in sealings), and future (the hereafter) is a deal-breaker concern. I think we all share that concern, and this discussion is one of tactics and approaches (how best to help people with this genuine concern). What I think you're saying is that some approaches are not helpful and may be harmful (which I don't think anyone disputes). What I'm unclear of is whether or not you are dogmatically calling for an end of using certain concepts in the conversation (polygamy in the hereafter, etc.), or whether your position is more nuanced than that (e.g., be mindful of people's concerns, stay grounded in what is actually revealed, there might be polygamy, but it isn't required, etc.).

Answering these things would better help me and others be able to discuss under your parameters.

Thanks!

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

Once I have presented evidence, it is not my burden to disprove opinions that merely reject the evidence. Those opinions must be supported with something other than...

1. You are wrong

No, your burden is to accept ALL evidence of a truth, not just a limited scope of evidence.
You cannot limit to one type of evidence only.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF