Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, juliann said:

 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.

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

 

 

 

I think the issue is that I believe I am taking him at his word.  I think he meant that it is behind us as a church (i.e. The church won't authorize polygamy again in mortality). I don't see my interpretation as complicating the issues but rather I see it as the simplest interpretation.

It doesn't make any sense to me to interpret "it is behind us" to mean "it won't exist in Heaven for anyone personally" when he never bothered to actually teach that to the church, especially knowing as he did that members generally believed it would exist under certain circumstances. 

Even the old handbook 1 instructions on sealings after a spouse has died supported the idea that men who remarried in the temple would be polygamists.  It's odd to me that Hinckely would have been ok with people almost universally interpreting it in that way if he believed it contradicted doctrine on the matter.

And then we have apostles who also don't seem to interpret Hinckely's words the way you have (because we know they have shared in church settings that they consider themselves to be polygamists and they likely would not have shared that if they thought they were contradicting a teaching of the prophet.)

My position seems reasonable to me, given the evidences that I have provided. 

But as I said before, I don't think it's reasonable at all for anyone to teach that it's doctrine that everyone who is exalted will have to be a polygamist. I see no support of that whatsoever.

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by bluebell
To clarify

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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.  

Definitely. That's how the church currently teaches it-polygamy is the exception. 

[Russell C McGregor]

57 minutes ago, juliann said:

 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.

1. To say that "a" state of affairs is ordained of God is not to say that no other state of affairs is or ever could be ordained of God. You are right that "a" or "an" means "one"; but it doesn't mean "one and only" as far as I've ever seen. "The" is the article to use when we want to say that something is exclusive or exhaustive. Thus, "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" does not exclude the possibility that one man can participate in multiple concurrent marriages.
2. Furthermore, Smac97's interpretation is sound, and doesn't require that anyone is trying to deceive anyone. Brigham Young was a husband in 50-odd separate marriages; each of those marriages had exactly two participants, and they were one man and one woman. None of the wives were married to any of the other wives. When Ann Eliza divorced him, that didn't change the status of any of the other marriages. The "Big Love" model of "Mormon" polygamy in which everyone is sort of married to everyone else is not what the Latter-day Saints have ever contemplated by plural marriage.
3. I absolutely take President Hinckley at his word. Context matters. He was answering a specific question about contemporary polygamy, i.e. that practiced by those who are sometimes called "Mormon fundamentalists," a descriptor President Hinckley repudiated. Since doctrinally sound plural marriage relies upon divine commandment, and the consent of the one and only person on earth who has authority to exercise the sealing keys in their fullness -- who, at that time, was President Hinckley -- it follows that polygamy as practiced by apostate groups is absolutely non-doctrinal. But that was the only question that was before him when he said that.

 

Quote

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

When I get them, if I can get both above and below them, I can usually get rid of them like this:

1. Here is an empty quote window.

 

Quote

 

 

2. Insert a character both above and below it, thus:

a

 

Quote

 

 

z

3. Highlight from a to z and press delete.

And now: To accuse other Latter-day Saints of rejecting the Proclamation because we don't interpret it the same way you do is to set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what it means.

I'm unaware of your qualifications to fill that post.

Sorry.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[The Nehor]

4 hours 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 section of the proclamation quoted was a repudiation of the growing acceptance of homosexuality. It was not intended as a repudiation of polygamy. I suppose they could have specified that in certain circumstances when those with Priesthood keys allow it that a man may enter more then one marriage simultaneously but I really think that would dilute the core message of the Proclamation quite a bit. Our website does have an article on polygamy and it does not disavow it.

While you seem to be arguing that the Proclamation trumps all you also seem to be suggesting that the Brethren suffer from an alarming degree of bureaucratic schizophrenia is getting their message out.

[BlueDreams]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The section of the proclamation quoted was a repudiation of the growing acceptance of homosexuality. It was not intended as a repudiation of polygamy. I suppose they could have specified that in certain circumstances when those with Priesthood keys allow it that a man may enter more then one marriage simultaneously but I really think that would dilute the core message of the Proclamation quite a bit. Our website does have an article on polygamy and it does not disavow it.

While you seem to be arguing that the Proclamation trumps all you also seem to be suggesting that the Brethren suffer from an alarming degree of bureaucratic schizophrenia is getting their message out.

I know you meant the last line tongue-in-cheek, but to me at least just the scriptural history can be schizophrenic on this....in one verse it's condemned in the next its commanded. The commencement of humanity is monogamous and one of the most divinely ascribed marriages. In a few chapters over comes some polygamy. The verses talk about two becoming one flesh over and over again, not a man being splitzed between several relationships. Monogomy is extolled. Polygamy is accepted and/or condemned, depending the peoples and who they were marrying. So to me it wouldn't be all that crazy if we didn't get a uniform message in our day either.

 

With luv,

BD

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I know you meant the last line tongue-in-cheek, but to me at least just the scriptural history can be schizophrenic on this....in one verse it's condemned in the next its commanded. The commencement of humanity is monogamous and one of the most divinely ascribed marriages. In a few chapters over comes some polygamy. The verses talk about two becoming one flesh over and over again, not a man being splitzed between several relationships. Monogomy is extolled. Polygamy is accepted and/or condemned, depending the peoples and who they were marrying. So to me it wouldn't be all that crazy if we didn't get a uniform message in our day either.

 

With luv,

BD

Well said.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I know you meant the last line tongue-in-cheek, but to me at least just the scriptural history can be schizophrenic on this....in one verse it's condemned in the next its commanded. The commencement of humanity is monogamous and one of the most divinely ascribed marriages. In a few chapters over comes some polygamy. The verses talk about two becoming one flesh over and over again, not a man being splitzed between several relationships. Monogomy is extolled. Polygamy is accepted and/or condemned, depending the peoples and who they were marrying. So to me it wouldn't be all that crazy if we didn't get a uniform message in our day either.

 

With luv,

BD

Yeah, but the monogamy messages we push come from dispensations it appears it was never practiced. The standing law is monogamy and it appears that that is what most saints throughout history lived.

We actually get a pretty consistent message now. Live monogamously. Polygamy can be authorized but it is not happening right now and you will be severed from the ordinances of salvation if you live it right now so don't.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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..)

To be fair, both can be discomforting or even damaging. Polygamy makes me squeemish for several of the reasons you mention. It's not an equitable relationship and the way it's discussed makes women sound more like posessions/tools or needed object for male centered power. Oh sure no one says in, but the inequality/inequity is inherent.

At the same time, the other position can be just as painful to many. In no scenario do I get to keep all of my familial relationships as is in sealing terms. So a song like "Families can be Together Forever" kinda has a more sarcastic end note in my head of unless they look like mine. There's just no promise for me in the traditional structure. It's not exactly comforting or a major selling point for people in my circumstances. And it would still be bitter for those who earnestly loved all of their husbands/wives and don't want to be separated from them come death.

Honestly, there can be comfort in acknowledging "we don't know"....because for me it ends with "but we can trust that He promised to wipe away all tears and our hearts will find their peace." It allows space for our piece of heaven to have enough customization that there may be balance in both divine order/balance and fairness and the promise of mercy and grace.  

 

With luv,

BD

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wouldn't want to live polygamy in this life anyway. It seems too hard and complicated to make work. However, I'm willing to live it in heaven as I feel we will handle things much easier and the right way there.

[BlueDreams]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but the monogamy messages we push come from dispensations it appears it was never practiced. The standing law is monogamy and it appears that that is what most saints throughout history lived.

We actually get a pretty consistent message now. Live monogamously. Polygamy can be authorized but it is not happening right now and you will be severed from the ordinances of salvation if you live it right now so don't.

True...but that still leaves it's state in the eternities with a big ?. It's not even eternal enough to show up in every dispensation. And it can be so wrong that practicing it at the wrong time can leave you condemned by God and/or excommunicated out from His Church. I can't think of a parallel practice/principle that we do expect to continue with us in the eternities having such a spotty and inconsistent record. If you can think of one, please tell me.

 

With luv,

BD  

[juliann]

Quote

 

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

 

No one has an official quote to counter Pres. Hinckley saying it isn't doctrine? A source, a quote? All I am seeing is attempts to explain it away.

(Ignore the darn quote windows)

[provoman]

The Doctrine and Covenants has not been rescinded.

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified;

 

Applying Hinckley's statement about an apostate group does not, in my opinion, go very far in speaking about the Church.

 

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

No one has an official quote to counter Pres. Hinckley saying it isn't doctrine? A source, a quote? All I am seeing is attempts to explain it away.

(Ignore the darn quote windows)

Our practice of sealing men to more than one woman, our published policy that states women may not be sealed to more than one man, and Section 132 in our canon is the best official response I have for you.

If you want to explain away those things that is fine.  Personally I believe that polygamy is not of God and that the Church's practice of it was and is in error.  I was just trying to answer your OP question.

Edited February 17, 2016 by rockpond

[juliann]

 

Quote

 

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by juliann

[juliann]

 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive

Quote

Our Church members have too often allowed others to set the conversational agenda. An example is polygamy. This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2009. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on. If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge it was once a practice but not now, and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our Church. In ordinary conversations, don’t waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during the Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church.

This followed the Hinckley statement and the Proclamation. He did not correct Pres. Hinckley. He did not attempt to diminish his words or explain them away.

Is Elder Ballard also to be dismissed?

[rockpond]

Just now, juliann said:

 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive

This followed the Hinckley statement and the Proclamation. He did not correct Pres. Hinckley. He did not attempt to diminish his words. He also calls it a practice rather than doctrine. Are Elder Ballard's words also to be explained away?

I find that statement, as well as Pres. Hinckley's comments in the Larry King interview, to be disingenuous and prevarications.  I suppose they were saying what they felt needed to be said for PR purposes.  If a section of our own canon isn't "doctrine" than what is doctrine?

[Russell C McGregor]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive

This followed the Hinckley statement and the Proclamation. He did not correct Pres. Hinckley. He did not attempt to diminish his words or explain them away.

Is Elder Ballard also to be dismissed?

The "also" implies that someone else has been dismissed.

Who?

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive

This followed the Hinckley statement and the Proclamation. He did not correct Pres. Hinckley. He did not attempt to diminish his words or explain them away.

Is Elder Ballard also to be dismissed?

I have 2 uncles who are sealed to 2 different women each in the temple. Are you suggesting their 2nd temple sealing done through the Melchizedek priesthood in the house of the Lord doesn't mean anything? Then why should they go through with the ceremony?

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Our practice of sealing men to more than one woman, our published policy that states women may not be sealed to more than one man, and 

 

This isn't true.  It has been repeatedly addressed by more than one poster.

Quote

Section 132 in our canon is the best official response I have for you.

Celestial marriage has been separated from polygamy since Heber J. Grant.

Quote

 

"Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonomous terms.  Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages."James R. Clark, Messages Of The First Presidency, 5:329.   

Heber J. Grant

Anthony W. Ivins,

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

 

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive

This followed the Hinckley statement and the Proclamation. He did not correct Pres. Hinckley. He did not attempt to diminish his words or explain them away.

Is Elder Ballard also to be dismissed?

I don't see the issue. The practice has ended. That's true whether or not polygamy exists in heaven. 

Even people who are currently sealed to two people and believe they will be polygamists in heaven don't consider themselves to be practicing polygamy, do they?

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I have 2 uncles who are sealed to 2 different women each in the temple. Are you suggesting their 2nd temple sealing done through the Melchizedek priesthood in the house of the Lord doesn't mean anything? Then why should they go through with the ceremony?

Section 132 has not been rescinded, nor has it been diminished.  Section 132 covers your Uncles.

The op has not addressed the scriptures. THE PROPHET is President Monson, I am unaware that  THE PROPHET (President Monson) has made any statement rescinding "The Law of THE PRIESTHOOD" or that THE PROPHET - President Monson - has rescinded Section 132.   How can not claim to follow THE PROPHET - President Monson - and ignore scriptures that THE PROPHET has not rescinded.

Edited February 17, 2016 by provoman

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive

This followed the Hinckley statement and the Proclamation. He did not correct Pres. Hinckley. He did not attempt to diminish his words. He also calls it a practice rather than doctrine. Are Elder Ballard's words also to be explained away?

I don't want to be contrarian, but if the best argument against future polygamy from "modern" prophets we have is the phrase "a wife" in the proclamation and a newsmedia interview with Pres. Hinckley...that's hardly the word of the Lord on the matter.  And Elder Ballard makes no statement about future polygamy either.

A bit more of "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." or "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Hardly doctrinal slam dunks.  And certainly nowhere near the validity of D&C 132 or even a Brigham Young conference address on the subject.
I don't believe there is a single definitive doctrinal teaching from ANY modern prophet that polygamy is gone for good.  That is a complete stretch.
 

Edited February 17, 2016 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

This isn't true.  It has been repeatedly addressed by more than one poster.

Celestial marriage has been separated from polygamy since Heber J. Grant.

 

 

As I said, I don't really need to debate it because I don't think polygamy is divinely originated anyway.  Your OP asked how people who believe in eternal polygyny justify it.  I've provided the scriptures, the policy, and the practice that people use to backup their belief in it.  You are certainly free to dismiss those things (I do) but you asked for documentation to justify it.  Anecdotal examples about a few women being allowed to be sealed to multiple men do not satisfy your own request for documentation.

If your point is that their is ambiguity in our doctrine than you have my agreement. 100%.  As you've demonstrated with the Heber J Grant quote, we can pick and choose and prove all sorts of things.  Our theology is chock full of contradictions and ambiguity.

 

[Sky]

Whether plural marriage happens in the afterlife, or if it's required for some of us, I simply don't know.  The fact that one man can be sealed to more than one woman (as long as one of them is dead) is hard for me to simply ignore, in spite of what Gordon B. Hinckley said. 

If some men get to have more than one wife, then I think some women should get to have more than one husband, too.  At least then it doesn't feel so one-sided and sexist and male-centered…I don't think anybody wants heaven to resemble something like Colorado City, Arizona or Hildale, Utah!  If it does, then count me out at least.         

I think that polyamory, in a broader sense where everyone involved and has consent, is more reasonable than the old patriarchal system of one man many wives.  Perhaps we weren't meant to be with only one person for eternity?  Just a thought.  Joseph Smith and Brigham Young seemed to think so anyway.         

Nobody should be forced into something they don't want to do, and especially when it comes to sharing a spouse.    

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, provoman said:

Section 132 has not been rescinded, nor has it been diminished.  Section 132 covers your Uncles.

The op has not addressed the scriptures. THE PROPHET is President Monson, I am unaware that  THE PROPHET (President Monson) has made any statement rescinding "The Law of THE PRIESTHOOD" or that THE PROPHET - President Monson - has rescinded Section 132.   How can not claim to follow THE PROPHET - President Monson - and ignore scriptures that THE PROPHET has not rescinded.

It has been suspended tho.