Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[Mystery Meat]

25 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.

I think this response is very disingenuous, doesn't actually respond to the substance of what some are saying and is indicative that you don't really want to engage in meaningful and honest conversation on this particular topic. That is sad, because I think you are better than this.

[Tacenda]

2 hours 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?

 

 

Have you forgotten the "lying for the Lord" adage?  Maybe Pres. Hinckley did that.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

What I said is that every justification/speculation/traditional belief about polygyny leads to polyandry. That is a summation of every justification/speculation/traditional belief, not polyandry. As I have said, polyandry isn't the topic. I'm concerned with women who are now questioning Joseph Smith or the Church because people won't lighten up about polygamy returning in the eternities despite not only lack of support for that, but direct statements from a prophet saying it is behind us.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

There isn't any reference specifically excluding it in heaven, there is only the implication that those who took part in them did not believe they would be married to two people in heaven or that they were married to two people in mortality either.

The whole subject is all speculation on the how's and why's, even when there is a record of it happening.  It's annoying! 

This is talked about in the footnotes (number 30 I think) in the essay on nauvoo polygamy.  

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

 

I think this response is very disingenuous, doesn't actually respond to the substance of what some are saying and is indicative that you don't really want to engage in meaningful and honest conversation on this particular topic. That is sad, because I think you are better than this.

I have learned to expect this. Don't you think it would be a lot more effective to provide some documentation to counter what I am saying? This says more about the weakness of your position than me.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

What I said is that every justification/speculation/traditional belief about polygyny leads to polyandry. That is a summation of every justification/speculation/traditional belief, not polyandry. As I have said, polyandry isn't the topic. I'm concerned with women who are now questioning Joseph Smith or the Church because people won't lighten up about polygamy returning in the eternities despite not only lack of support for that, but direct statements from a prophet saying it is behind us.

 

I do get that, I just don't think it has to lead to polyandry, or that when it does that it means anything about our doctrine on polygamy.

I'm in the middle of bedtimes and babies right now so I can't elaborate but I'll try to come back to this later. Sorry for the incomplete thoughts. 

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, juliann said:

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

Again, I am not sure what the point in dispute here.  Are you disputing the idea that polygamy is required in order to achieve exaltation?  And that's it?

What about this: "Polygamy may exist between exalted persons, but so can monogamy."

I'm not trying to be dense.  I'm just not grasping the point in dispute here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

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.

 It applies to women who are sealed to more than one husband as well. All justifications for polygyny lead to polyandry. 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not sure what the point in dispute here.  Are you disputing the idea that polygamy is required in order to achieve exaltation?  And that's it?

What about this: "Polygamy may exist between exalted persons, but so can monogamy."

I'm not trying to be dense.  I'm just not grasping the point in dispute here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Please read the thread.

[ttribe]

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

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

<----[innocently walking by whistling...]

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by ttribe

[VideoGameJunkie]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

 It applies to women who are sealed to more than one husband as well. All justifications for polygyny lead to polyandry. 

No disputing that. There's either both polygyny and polyandry in heaven or neither.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

 It applies to women who are sealed to more than one husband as well. All justifications for polygyny lead to polyandry. 

 

No disputing that. There's either both polygyny and polyandry in heaven or neither.

Not necessarily.  All sealings are subject to acceptance by God.  Not all sealings are guaranteed.

Edited February 17, 2016 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

Please read the thread.

I have read the thread. It's confusing. That is why I have asked for clarification. I am not trying to be dense. I am not playing games. I am asking a sincere question.

[juliann]

The last sentence of my OP

Quote

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 have essentially asked for a CFR. Something that is the bread and butter of this board. People get run out of threads if they continue to make assertions but cannot supply support for them.

In six pages, not one person has provided a CFR for what I can see are strongly and deeply held positions. I have provided CFRs.  I actually have more but I don't think it will make a bit of difference. I don't intend this as a criticism, only an observation. Rather than provide CFRs for their own positions, I have only seen efforts to dispute the meaning of the Proclamation and Pres. Hinckley himself. (I don't know which came first, but the one does support the other since he was responsible for both, so it really cannot convincingly be said that he didn't just goofed up in an off moment.) The responses are familiar to all of us and tend to run in categories. I will summarize them at some point. I am neglecting some serious stuff right now.

I think polygamy and the priesthood ban...and now the gay policy are the most difficult for many people. I have had two instances this week in which women have been led to believe that they should expect polygamy in the eternities. It doesn't matter what it "really" is. It matters what the thought of it elicits. It matters that it puts women in a subordinate situation, as even Brian Hales says, it expands the man's opportunities and decreases the woman's.

So we have a situation where no one can really even defend a belief that it is always going to be just around the corner.  The "comforting" comments we make are another matter. "Oh, not everybody will have to!" Even "we don't know" is saying we do know it isn't gone for sure. 

This is a great group. Almost no one has resorted to personal attacks when questioned or asked to rethink their position or provide support for it. 

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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. 

I think that's consistent with what I wrote...

[VideoGameJunkie]

I find it interesting that when a member dies, they can be sealed to everyone they were married to in life, but what makes it odd is that this includes people they divorced.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

The last sentence of my OP

I have essentially asked for a CFR. Something that is the bread and butter of this board. People get run out of threads if they continue to make assertions but cannot supply support for them.

In six pages, not one person has provided a CFR for what I can see are strongly and deeply held positions. I have provided CFRs.  I actually have more but I don't think it will make a bit of difference. I don't intend this as a criticism, only an observation. Rather than provide CFRs for their own positions, I have only seen efforts to dispute the meaning of the Proclamation and Pres. Hinckley himself. (I don't know which came first, but the one does support the other since he was responsible for both, so it really cannot convincingly be said that he didn't just goofed up in an off moment.) The responses are familiar to all of us and tend to run in categories. I will summarize them at some point. I am neglecting some serious stuff right now.

I think polygamy and the priesthood ban...and now the gay policy are the most difficult for many people. I have had two instances this week in which women have been led to believe that they should expect polygamy in the eternities. It doesn't matter what it "really" is. It matters what the thought of it elicits. It matters that it puts women in a subordinate situation, as even Brian Hales says, it expands the man's opportunities and decreases the woman's.

So we have a situation where no one can really even defend a belief that it is always going to be just around the corner.  The "comforting" comments we make are another matter. "Oh, not everybody will have to!" Even "we don't know" is saying we do know it isn't gone for sure. 

This is a great group. Almost no one has resorted to personal attacks when questioned or asked to rethink their position or provide support for it. 

Well join the crowd, it's like nailing jelly to the wall, another adage.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Have you forgotten the "lying for the Lord" adage?  Maybe Pres. Hinckley did that.

What "'lying for the Lord' adage" is that?

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not sure what the point in dispute here.  Are you disputing the idea that polygamy is required in order to achieve exaltation?  And that's it?

What about this: "Polygamy may exist between exalted persons, but so can monogamy."

I'm not trying to be dense.  I'm just not grasping the point in dispute here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe the point of the original poster is that the Family Proclamation states marriage between 'a' man and 'a' woman (the original poster taking the indefinite article 'a' to be synonymous with the word 'one') is ordained of God. So because the original poster believes the word 'a' refers to one and only one husband or wife, therefore modern revelation (the Family Proclamation) trumps D&C 132, rendering that former revelation presently invalid and no longer applicable. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Have you forgotten the "lying for the Lord" adage?  Maybe Pres. Hinckley did that.

 Please leave the thread. 

Quote

 

 

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

The last sentence of my OP

I have essentially asked for a CFR. Something that is the bread and butter of this board. People get run out of threads if they continue to make assertions but cannot supply support for them.

In six pages, not one person has provided a CFR for what I can see are strongly and deeply held positions. I have provided CFRs.  I actually have more but I don't think it will make a bit of difference. I don't intend this as a criticism, only an observation. Rather than provide CFRs for their own positions, I have only seen efforts to dispute the meaning of the Proclamation and Pres. Hinckley himself. (I don't know which came first, but the one does support the other since he was responsible for both, so it really cannot convincingly be said that he didn't just goofed up in an off moment.) The responses are familiar to all of us and tend to run in categories. I will summarize them at some point. I am neglecting some serious stuff right now.

I think polygamy and the priesthood ban...and now the gay policy are the most difficult for many people. I have had two instances this week in which women have been led to believe that they should expect polygamy in the eternities. It doesn't matter what it "really" is. It matters what the thought of it elicits. It matters that it puts women in a subordinate situation, as even Brian Hales says, it expands the man's opportunities and decreases the woman's.

So we have a situation where no one can really even defend a belief that it is always going to be just around the corner.  The "comforting" comments we make are another matter. "Oh, not everybody will have to!" Even "we don't know" is saying we do know it isn't gone for sure. 

This is a great group. Almost no one has resorted to personal attacks when questioned or asked to rethink their position or provide support for it. 

From my perspective only, I see your references (which support your side) and other people's references (which support their's) to be equally valid. 

What I mean is, you have given quotes and such that you interpret to support your position but which never actually come out and say "there won't be polygamy in heaven."

Others have provided quotes and such to support their position but which never actually come out and say "there will be polygamy in heaven."

I don't see either position more supported than the other one because both rely almost entirely on interpretation and assumptions about context.

I think that is probably some of what has confused me in this thread. I see now that you presented the OP as fact supported by references but I saw it more as interpretation of evidence with no clear conclusion which can't reasonably be disagreed with.

It could be right, but I don't find the quotes in the OP to definitively support that polygamy won't exist in the next life because I think they can reasonably be interpreted in a different way than the OP interprets them.

Having said all that, I fully support the argument that no one can declare as fact that everyone who is exalted will live polygamy.  Just as no one can declare it a fact that we won't.  Neither position is supportable with any references we have access to.

 

 

[juliann]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well join the crowd, it's like nailing jelly to the wall, another adage.

Seriously, LEAVE.

[juliann]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective only, I see your references (which support your side) and other people's references (which support their's) to be equally valid. 

What I mean is, you have given quotes and such that you interpret to support your position but which never actually come out and say "there won't be polygamy in heaven."

Others have provided quotes and such to support their position but which never actually come out and say "there will be polygamy in heaven."

 

 Then it comes down to a disagreement over "it's not doctrine" means.  And I think "it is behind us" is about as close to there won't be polygamy in heaven as we could ever expect to get.

So do we take Pres. Hinckley at his word or not? Do we put a winkie after "a woman" in the Proc or not? I don't think it is any more complicated that that. If anyone wants to challenge how the First Presidency uses "a" they have to find other instances of them using "a" to mean two or more. I'm not being contrary....that really is what scholars have to do when there are contested words.

Most of all, if both positions are equally valid, why use the position that is damaging testimonies? (Just wondering out loud.)

(I am getting quote windows that I can't get rid of..)

 

Quote

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by juliann

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

 Please leave the thread. 

 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_integrity/%22Lying_for_the_Lord%22

Sorry, really didn't know I was doing anything wrong.  Really thought the reason for Pres. Hinckley's denial would be a little of both, which includes laying pearls before swine.  Good luck in finding out some answers, hope to find some myself.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Here's a quote from Deseret News from Gordon B Hinckley at Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife Inis Hunter's funeral which makes me think Hinckley believes there will be polygamy in heaven:

 

President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister [Inis] Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery.

Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990. ("Sister Hunter's humor and cheerfulness remembered as she is laid to rest," Deseret News, Oct. 22, 2007).