Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree with that statement...

I appreciate you answering, but deleted it when I saw her request (just so people aren't confused)

[BlueDreams]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

But with this logic, isn't polygamous marriages the exception, not the rule as well? Most marriages ever were monogamous, including when the practice was commanded historically with living partners. Multiple sealings period are still the exception, not the rule, for what most people will experience in their lives.  

 

On the OP. I think it's fairly difficult to prove that polygamous marriages will be mandated for exaltation. That is most definitely speculative. And from the quotes I've seen here it would indicate that we don't currently have doctrine about what exactly will happen to polygynous marriage in the here after. The proclamation does feel a little weak to me in argument for the reasons mentioned. Polyandry and polygamy are not the same as group marriages (all partners are married to each other) so each marriage would fit that definition. I know you weren't a fan of that, Juliann and it could come off as lawyer-speak (sorry smac). But it would still work. The quotes are harder to work around unless you assert flat out that they are wrong.

And either way it's hard to pull off polygamy-only marriages will reach the highest exaltation period from any immediate quote/policy/current doctrine. You would also have a hard time proving polygamy will be allowed but polyandry won't based off our current quotes/policies (and not inferences/speculations/assumptions). The only marriages that's really certain are monogamous ones. 

 

With luv,

BD     

Edited February 17, 2016 by BlueDreams

[juliann]

Smiley, we have been told by our leaders that we are a church of living prophets. They have specifically said that we are to listen to them over dead prophets...and just about in those words. I don't have the quotes but would consider this to be common knowledge. I'm actually rather surprised to hear you say this. 

And no....I am not interested in speculation anymore. What I have seen is virtual meltdowns because I have not accepted speculation over our most recent prophets. I am hoping that won't happen here. Yours is the first post to derail with derogatory personal comments and I hope the last.

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by juliann

[VideoGameJunkie]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

I'm still not sure what you want this thread to be about then.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

there is no evidence those involved believed they would be polyandrous in heaven....

I don't think there is any actual reference to it being excluded in heaven.  Could you point out where you think it says this?

Not saying it does, just think we need to be careful not to take anything further than what stuff actually says.

[SmileyMcGee]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

But Calm, how would you propose explaining how what is taught now or what we interpret as being taught now isn't speculation? The issue isn't that these people don't know what GBH said about polygamy, they likely know that. The issue is likely the contradictory statements by men who held the same office at different times. And how do you explain that the "current trumps past" is also not speculation? 

[Calm]

Just now, VideoGameJunkie said:

I'm still not sure what you want this thread to be about then.

How should we talk about plural marriage to people in the here and now who are wondering what will happen to them in the future...more or less.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

Your OP topic appears to be:

• 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?

I consider this a false separation.  You are attempting to make a division that doesn't exist.
To directly address topic #3 cannot be done without looking at the part you thread ban in topic #2, which might be your point from the beginning.
But there is no reason why we shouldn't use topic #2 to answer topic #3.

Why are women being told there may be polygyny in the Celestial realms?  Because of all the polygynist sealings of the saints and in previous dispensations.
 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Thanks for the honesty.  I think it is exactly that. The prophets are either right or wrong.

This is a great issue you raise, Juliann.

I know that a number of my Mormon friends have thought the Proclamation talks about marriage between "man and woman" and I have pulled it up and showed them it talks about "a man and a woman."

I think the Proclamation is a political document, pure and simple.  It does not reflect any real attempt to codify received revelation, but only to serve as a primary source document of fundamental doctrinal teachings so as to qualify for standing to join in the gay-marriage issue being appealed in Hawaii back in the mid-1990s.

As a political document, the Proclamation is meant to convey a message to those outside the Church.  It is not meant to convey a message to those inside the Church.

Those inside the Church understand not only that polygamy was practiced with divine sanction (and command) in the early history of the LDS Church, but is also practiced today in certain circumstances where a widower is sealed to a second wife in the temple.

The problem comes when members, who are the ones for whom the insider messages are intended, take the message for the outsiders at face value and try to make the two fit.

The outsider messages sometimes conflict with the insider messages.

When an insider (such as you) takes an outsider message and tries to make it square with insider understanding, there can often be a contradiction.

I think the issue you raise is a good example.

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

But Calm, how would you propose explaining how what is taught now or what we interpret as being taught now isn't speculation? The issue isn't that these people don't know what GBH said about polygamy, they likely know that. The issue is likely the contradictory statements by men who held the same office at different times. And how do you explain that the "current trumps past" is also not speculation? 

I ask again, what does President Monson currently teach regarding polygamy?  Has he made statements about the "current" teachings?

Or what teachings are you referring to when you state "current trumps past" or "what is taught now"?

.

Edited February 17, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

And how do you explain that the "current trumps past" is also not speculation? 

Demonstrate that this qualifies as speculation in terms of church doctrine, either past or present (if Juliann feels it is going off topic, drop the past)

hmm...I may have misunderstood this.

The difference imo is that "current trumps past" has been taught pretty much since the beginning of the Church and if you can come up with any prophet teaching something else, I would like to see it.

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Calm

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

How should we talk about plural marriage to people in the here and now who are wondering what will happen to them in the future...more or less.

If the question is distilled like that, I think the best answer is we don't know. It is possible there will be only polygamy among the exalted or monogamy or polyandry. Maybe a combination of all the above. People are allowed to have their own opinions on what they believe. Regardless, the Lord will make it right and we will understand it all and will be able to view it without the clouding lens of mortality and its prejudices and insecurities.

[SmileyMcGee]

46 minutes ago, juliann said:

Smiley, we have been told by our leaders that we are a church of living prophets. They have specifically said that we are to listen to them over dead prophets...and just about in those words. I don't have the quotes but would consider this to be common knowledge. I'm actually rather surprised to hear you say this. 

And no....I am not interested in speculation anymore. What I have seen is virtual meltdowns because I have not accepted speculation over our most recent prophets. I am hoping that won't happen here. Yours is the first post to derail with derogatory personal comments and I hope the last.

 

Exaggerate much? Derogatory? Derail? I said you're just like everyone else--I commented on the assumptions underlying your initial post and your subsequent posts that appeared to not care what others had to say.  

I am aware of the "living trumps dead" teaching since I actually quoted President Benson in my previous post. My issue wasn't that I am not aware of that being taught but that people choose that idea in the same way that they choose to believe that polygamy is required practice for exaltation, and that you seem to be unaware that you are ulitimately just as speculative as those you are arguing against; i.e., you pick and choose and interpret like the rest of us. If others want to have "virtual meltdowns" over polygamy in the next life then that sounds like a pathetic personal problem that you probably aren't in a position to help them with anyways. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[Calm]

Got to bow out...the thread will likely be too long to catch up when I come back, sick kid, sorry.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

If the question is distilled like that, I think the best answer is we don't know. It is possible there will be only polygamy among the exalted or monogamy or polyandry. Maybe a combination of all the above. People are allowed to have their own opinions on what they believe. Regardless, the Lord will make it right and we will understand it all and will be able to view it without the clouding lens of mortality and its prejudices and insecurities.

It's really very simple, and not really speculative at all.  There are really only two options.

Either
1. Polygamy will be required for exaltation and everyone will have the opportunity to accept it and practice it.
or
2. Polygamy won't be required for exaltation but there will be polygamist relationships in the eternal community anyway.

Choosing one or the other may be up for debate, but neither possibility is outside currently accepted Church teachings (whether taught explicitly by current prophets or not).
I don't know why this is so mysterious.  It's pretty clear.

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, juliann said:

I can see this is a common response. I have to admit it is a face palm for me.

I'm afraid I do not understand your position here.  Are you arguing that polygamy has never been authorized by God?  What position are you staking out here?

Quote

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. 

We also have a Church that has posited a revelatory and doctrinal basis for polygamy.  Are you suggesting that the Church has rejected polygamy as a divinely-authorized institution (in certain circumstances)?

Quote

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.

Again, I'm confused.  The Church has, in the relatively recent past, published an essay to the world on this topic: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

Some excerpts:

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that monogamy—the marriage of one man and one woman—is the Lord’s standing law of marriage.

The footnote for this opening statement references the Proclamation.

The second sentence reads as follows:

Quote

In biblical times, the Lord commanded some of His people to practice plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman.

And here's the third sentence:

Quote

Some early members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also received and obeyed this commandment given through God’s prophets.

And the fourth:

Quote

After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates.

And so on.  The Church has owned polygamy.  This is unequivocal fact.  It's a part of our biblical and more recent heritage.  We do not presently practice it, but we also do not deny that in the relatively recent past we did, and that we did so under the auspices of divine command.

The Church is publicly saying such things.  The Church is also speaking clearly about its position on monogamy.  So I'm not sure why your "wildest dreams" cannot conceptualize such things.  They're there in black and white.

What am I misunderstanding here?

Quote

When we go to these lengths to support ingrained but unsupported (and unnecessary) speculation,

What "speculation" are you referencing here?

Quote

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 Church has publicly owned its polygamous pedigree.  The above essay explains that.  As does this one: The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

It seems to be quite an accusation (and a public one at that) to suggest that the leaders of the Church "are intentionally trying to fool people."  Who is being deceptive?  How?  About what?  What are you saying here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2016 by smac97

[VideoGameJunkie]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's really very simple, and not really speculative at all.  There are really only two options.

Either
1. Polygamy will be required for exaltation and everyone will have the opportunity to accept it and practice it.
or
2. Polygamy won't be required for exaltation but there will be polygamist relationships in the eternal community anyway.

Choosing one or the other may be up for debate, but neither possibility is outside currently accepted Church teachings (whether taught explicitly by current prophets or not).
I don't know why this is so mysterious.  It's pretty clear.

It would seem unfair with number 2 that some get to live plural marriage and enjoy the blessings and others don't get to. Why are they so lucky?

[juliann]

Quote

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a  woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

There, I fixed it!

Strangely, this could be the axus mundi of many of those who defend the church.... or attack the church.

Edited February 17, 2016 by juliann

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Exaggerate much? Derogatory? Derail? I said you're just like everyone else--I commented on the assumptions underlying your initial post and your subsequent posts that appeared to not care what others had to say.  

Uh...I am aware of the "living trumps dead" teaching since I actually quoted President Benson in my previous post. My issue wasn't that I am not aware of that being taught but that people choose that idea in the same way that they choose to believe that polygamy is required practice for exaltation, and that you seem to be unaware that you are ulitimately just as speculative as those you are arguing against; i.e., you pick and choose and interpret like the rest of us. If others want to have "virtual meltdowns" over polygamy in the next life then that sounds like a pathetic personal problem that you probably aren't in a position to help them with anyways. 

For accuracy, I said it is those who demand there be polygamy in the next life who have the meltdowns when I won't accept speculation over the statements of modern prophets. 

[juliann]

Do we really have to start pulling out dictionaries to prove that the singular article A means ONE? Seriously?

[VideoGameJunkie]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

There, I fixed it!

Strangely, this could be the axus mundi of many of those who defend the church.... or attack the church.

So Elder Oaks and Nelson are going against the proclamation by sealing themselves in the temple of the Lord to 2 different women? At Howard W Hunters 2nd wife Inis' funeral Gordon B Hinckley said she would be with President Hunter in the next life too. So Gordon B Hinckley admitted at Inis Hunters funeral that Howard will be with his 2nd wife in heaven.

[SmileyMcGee]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Demonstrate that this qualifies as speculation in terms of church doctrine, either past or present (if Juliann feels it is going off topic, drop the past)

hmm...I may have misunderstood this.

The difference imo is that "current trumps past" has been taught pretty much since the beginning of the Church and if you can come up with any prophet teaching something else, I would like to see it.

 

Personally, I think the issue is that there is nothing preventing us from dismissing any teaching as "speaking as men" and not prophets. I'm not saying that we should dismiss their teachings or that we should not try to have some rhyme or reason to our beliefs.  I agree with you though, that the "current trumps former" is consistently taught and that I haven't seen any to contradict it, and if consistent teaching over some period of time is the way to judge whether something is official then its about as official as anything. I do think Juliann is right in that I haven't seen any recent statements advocating for preference of celestial polygamy. It just seems so silly to say "well, it was taught but it's not taught anymore, so it's not the way it is." I don't really think that is very strong but I'm also a moron, so....

[SmileyMcGee]

error

[VideoGameJunkie]

5 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Personally, I think the issue is that there is nothing preventing us from dismissing any teaching as "speaking as men" and not prophets. I'm not saying that we should dismiss their teachings or that we should not try to have some rhyme or reason to our beliefs.  I agree with you though, that the "current trumps former" is consistently taught and that I haven't seen any to contradict it, and if consistent teaching over some period of time is the way to judge whether something is official then its about as official as anything. I do think Juliann is right in that I haven't seen any recent statements advocating for preference of celestial polygamy. It just seems so silly to say "well, it was taught but it's not taught anymore, so it's not the way it is." I don't really think that is very strong but I'm also a moron, so....

If you want current statements on Celestial polygamy read what Hinckley said in 2007 at Inis Hunters funeral about being a 2nd wife to Howard W Hunter and being with him for eternity.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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. :-)

We might have polyandry.  We don't have any doctrine on it. The best we have is a bunch of "I don't know". 

That's all I'm really saying.

We don't have a clue what it means for a living woman to be sealed to more than one husband because there are no teachings on it, we don't know how often it happens, or for what reasons, and as far as handbook one is concerned, it doesn't even exist.