Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

No, it is something that appears to be spread by word of mouth at this point.

But if exceptions are officially made and at least several have been say within the last ten years, why would that be a different implication?  Do you mean that just a few women will be allowed to have multiple husbands in the next life or that it was just done to make them feel better and the ordinance itself was without meaning?  I am not sure where you see this going.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

It was taught by the leaders.
And just like today, some refused to agree with them.

 

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

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. 

I can see this is a common response. I have to admit it is a face palm for me. We have a church that is making a stand on what a marriage is, even to the point of making gay marriage a matter of apostasy resulting in a cascade of scorn and derision.  I cannot in my wildest dreams ever imagine this clarification in an interview or talk,  that marriage between one man and one woman, as stated in the Proc meant for the world, can also mean one man and several women.

When we go to these lengths to support ingrained but unsupported (and unnecessary) speculation, it is telling the world something quite different than how many people are involved. It is telling the world that our leaders are intentionally trying to fool people.

 

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

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.

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. Link

Of course maybe this statement from the LDS Church's official website isn't official either.

 

[juliann]

Please do not derail this into a discussion about the details of historical polygamy. That is an entirely different topic. This is about NOW.

Please....I can't even keep up with this topic.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

No, it is something that appears to be spread by word of mouth at this point.

But if exceptions are officially made and at least several have been say within the last ten years, why would that be a different implication?  Do you mean that just a few women will be allowed to have multiple husbands in the next life or that it was just done to make them feel better and the ordinance itself was without meaning?  I am not sure where you see this going.

Well, my thinking is that exceptions have always existed in the gospel but they have never negated the rule.

For example, i'm thinking specifically of the chapters in Acts where the believers are given the Holy Ghost before they are baptized, or when Joseph Smith baptizes Oliver Cowdery (sp?) before he's even been baptized himself.

Because we don't know why the exemptions for women being sealed to multiple men were granted, it might not be a great idea to think they mean something for the general public.  Multiple sealings for women have always been the norm, just not for living women.  But, the same rules for living women could still apply, just like the rules for those who are dead (that they would have to eventually choose one spouse and the other sealings would be invalid).  

There isn't much in the way of sealing living women that automatically demands they must therefore live polyandrous (is that even a word?) marriages in heaven.  Sealing dead women definitely doesn't mean that in our doctrine, for example.

Of course, sealing living women to multiple men could mean polyandry in the hereafter too.  My only thought is that we just don't know enough about it to make many assumptions either way.

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me (and I'm fine if we just disagree).  President Hinckley did not qualify his statement that polygamy is "not doctrinal" to mean that polygamy is just "not doctrinal right now".  Maybe he meant to, but I don't believe he ever did, IIRC.

 I also don't understand what your first sentence is regarding:

"In regards to being a polygamist in mortality, it's not."  What is "it's" and is it "not"?  Hope you follow  

.

Edited February 16, 2016 by ALarson

[VideoGameJunkie]

Let's just ask the members here, who here thinks plural marriage is eternal and approved by God and who here thinks monogamy is the ONLY way?

Edited February 16, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Please do not derail this into a discussion about the details of historical polygamy. That is an entirely different topic. This is about NOW.

Please....I can't even keep up with this topic.

My apologies.
But I have to say, we are speaking of eternal marriage.
Regardless of monogamy, polygamy, polyandry and regardless of whether the ceremonies were performed in the 1800s, the 1900s, or the 2000s, this is not simply a matter of past vs present.

People are sealed for time and all eternity in the temple of God.  Those marriages are expected to continue into the Celestial Kingdom.
That makes the time period when the ceremony was performed irrelevant, and it makes the question of future Celestial polygamy very relevant and something we cannot pretend is behind us.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me (and I'm fine if we just disagree).  President Hinckley did not qualify his statement that polygamy is "not doctrinal" to meaning just for "not doctrinal right now".  Maybe he meant to, but I don't believe he ever did, IIRC.

 I also don't understand what your first sentence is regarding:

"In regards to being a polygamist in mortality, it's not."  What is "it's" and is it "not"?  Hope you follow  

In regards to being a polygamist in mortality, it's not doctrinal.

I don't think that President Hinckley needed to qualify his statements.  He was the head of a church who was, at the very instant he said those things as well as all the years he was prophet after,  sealing men to multiple women and teaching them that they could be married to both of them in heaven.

If he believed that that was not doctrinal, as the prophet and president of the church, why did he support it?

[Calm]

deleted as off topic

Edited February 16, 2016 by Calm

[Mystery Meat]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

I can see this is a common response. I have to admit it is a face palm for me. We have a church that is making a stand on what a marriage is, even to the point of making gay marriage a matter of apostasy resulting in a cascade of scorn and derision.  I cannot in my wildest dreams ever imagine this clarification in an interview or talk,  that marriage between one man and one woman, as stated in the Proc meant for the world, can also mean one man and several women.

When we go to these lengths to support ingrained but unsupported (and unnecessary) speculation, it is telling the world something quite different than how many people are involved. It is telling the world that our leaders are intentionally trying to fool people.

 

The only reason I am inclined to disagree with the bolded portion here (and to be honest I could be convinced one way or the other) is that no one is saying that it can also mean one man and several women. Rather what people are saying is that marriage is always one man and one woman. But sometimes the Lord has allowed for one man to have more than one marriage to one woman. In other words man a is married to woman a. He is also married to woman b and woman c. Woman a is not married to woman b or woman c. So in no circumstances is a marriage one man and several women, it is always one man and one woman.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Let's just ask the members here, who here thinks plural marriage is eternal and approved by God and who here thinks monogamy is the ONLY way?

Please start your own thread for that. I am asking specific questions. I don't want this to be inter. Thanks. mingled with what happens with those who did practice polygamy.  Thanks.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

sealing men to multiple women and teaching them that they could be married to both of them in heaven.

And having women sealed to multiple men in proxy...which is taught is the same as if they were living, that no blessing will be denied the dead just because they are dead if they are worthy.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

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? 

I suppose both men and women can conclude from our current practices that they will have multiple and/or shared spouses in the eternities if given to them here, and that could well be the case. Anything that goes on in exaltation is OK by me; we will all be isafely nestled in the same order as Adam and in the same Church of the Firstborn.

We don’t practice either among the living anymore, but by virtue of temple sealings of surviving spouses to new living spouses after one couple is separated by death, it could be said such an arrangement could be still be a feature in the next life that has been initiated in this one, which is OK by me.

I think meddling with the Proclamation is unnecessary and unproductive on this point, as is second-guessing current policies and practices. In the eternities things will settle out for polygamoids, polyandroids and monogamoids alike. There is only one way a marriage will be eternal anyway, and by the way most loudmouths act about it, that should be the least of their expectations.That sounds like a cop-out, but I think it’s better than arguing over a dead issue (OD1) by appealing to dead prophets or arguing with people who do.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

In regards to being a polygamist in mortality, it's not doctrinal.

I don't think that President Hinckley needed to qualify his statements.  He was the head of a church who was, at the very instant he said those things as well as all the years he was prophet after,  sealing men to multiple women and teaching them that they could be married to both of them in heaven.

If he believed that that was not doctrinal, as the prophet and president of the church, why did he support it?

(Thanks for clarifying  )

And in regards to your question, I don't know.  Why would President Hinckley make such a definite statement that polygamy is "not doctrinal"?  We can impose our own meaning on what we think he meant to say, but unless he clarified it, we simply can't know.  Maybe he believed that it wasn't doctrinal but that men would be allowed to be sealed to multiple women (and women to men) in the Celestial Kingdom under certain circumstances?  

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In regards to being a polygamist in mortality, it's not doctrinal.

I don't think that President Hinckley needed to qualify his statements.  He was the head of a church who was, at the very instant he said those things as well as all the years he was prophet after,  sealing men to multiple women and teaching them that they could be married to both of them in heaven.

If he believed that that was not doctrinal, as the prophet and president of the church, why did he support it?

He made the distinction between doctrine and practice quite clearly. And that makes a difference. Again, women can be sealed to all of their husbands now and if even a few women have been sealed to additional husbands in the temple it does mean that it isn't forbidden. So we have polyandry. But that isn't my topic. :-)

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

just like the rules for those who are dead (that they would have to eventually choose one spouse and the other sealings would be invalid).  

But that is not a rule.  It has been removed from the handbook so it appear that it was speculation.

Quote

There isn't much in the way of sealing living women that automatically demands they must therefore live polyandrous (is that even a word?) marriages in heaven.

Not saying that it does.  Just pointing out that currently for the dead the rules are identical for men as they are for women and it appears to be becoming closer for the living as well (not saying that it will, just saying that justification there are two separate set of rules, one for men and one for women isn't as strong as some people think).

Edited February 17, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My apologies.
But I have to say, we are speaking of eternal marriage.
Regardless of monogamy, polygamy, polyandry and regardless of whether the ceremonies were performed in the 1800s, the 1900s, or the 2000s, this is not simply a matter of past vs present.

People are sealed for time and all eternity in the temple of God.  Those marriages are expected to continue into the Celestial Kingdom.
That makes the time period when the ceremony was performed irrelevant, and it makes the question of future Celestial polygamy very relevant and something we cannot pretend is behind us.

Yes, what we actually have is polyandry. That is well attested by this thread because every single defense of polygyny has led to polyandry. But that isn't my topic. That isn't what women who are struggling are being told.

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Of course maybe this statement from the LDS Church's official website isn't official either.

 

" A single statement made by a single leader "  

This wasn't a single statement by a single leader. sigh

[SmileyMcGee]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

 

 

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? 

Juliann, 

I think you're asking a question that you have researched to the point that you aren't genuinely interested in responses on this board but instead want to make a point. At the same time, you hold an assumption--that modern prophets are more reliable than slightly less modern prophets--that has no justification. What reason would have to listen to GBH over prior leaders whose teachings appeared different? "The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet," said a dead prophet...but he was living when he said it...but now he is dead.......You're doing the same thing as those who believe that plural marriage is the preferred marriage arrangement in the celestial kingdom: speculating about the meaning and authority of individual statements by prophets. Everybody seems to do it....but for some reason we can't seem to recognize our own speculations. In the end I think you just have to hold your beliefs without trying to prove everyone else wrong.

Edited February 17, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Calm said:

But not everyone was given the opportunity to live plural marriage.  Do you have evidence that many of these people believed they were okay because they would be doing it in the next life?

I disagree with that statement.  In my opinion people had as much opportunity to live plural marriage as they did any other law of God.
But Juliann asked we not stray into historical polygamy.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

In the end I think you just have to accept what you believe without trying to prove everyone else wrong.

For those of us who do talk to those who are in faith crisis over plural marriage (or any other topic for that matter), we need to be careful to remove speculation and personal opinion and only depend on what is being taught now though...at least as far as making claims about what is church doctrine, imo.

I think this is Juliann's point and why she keeps asking for current documentation of claims that are made about plural marriage.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Juliann, 

I think you're asking a question that you have researched to the point that you aren't genuinely interested in responses on this board but instead want to make a point. At the same time, you've introduced assumption--that modern prophets are more reliable than slightly less modern prophets--that has no justification. What reason would have to listen to GBH over prior leaders whose teachings appeared different? "The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet," said a dead prophet...but he was living when he said it...but now he is dead.......You're doing the same thing as those who believe that plural marriage is the preferred marriage arrangement in the celestial kingdom: speculating about the meaning and authority of individual statements by prophets. Everybody seems to do it....but for some reason we can't seem to recognize our own speculations. In the end I think you just have to accept what you believe without trying to prove everyone else wrong.

Has President Monson made any statements regarding polygamy, if it's doctrinal, or if it will be lived in the Celestial Kingdom?   (Sincere question.)

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

And having women sealed to multiple men in proxy...which is taught is the same as if they were living, that no blessing will be denied the dead just because they are dead if they are worthy.

Exactly.  

Though i know of no instance where the church teaches that this means the women will be polyandrous, though it does teach that men in similar situations will be polygamous, which is confusing.  Even the church essays on the subject specify that they don't know the reasons for polyandrous marriages in JS's time but that there is no evidence those involved believed they would be polyandrous in heaven or functioned as if they lived in a polyandrous relationship while in mortality.

(I'm sure there are those who disagree with the conclusions of the church's essays on the subject but since the essays were approved by the apostles and prophet, that they took the time to specifically mention those conclusions could imply what our leaders personally believe on the subject, if nothing else.)