Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[VideoGameJunkie]

4 minutes ago, Sky said:

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.    

It doesn't just have to be as long as that woman is dead. One of my 2 uncles who is sealed to 2 women had a civil divorce from his first wife, but they remain temple sealed, and then he married his 2nd wife in a civil ceremony and a couple years later got First Presidency approval to be sealed to his 2nd wife. So he's sealed to 2 women who are currently alive.

[juliann]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

A lot of members agree, unfortunately, although they would use less inflammatory words.

Are you ready to make a case that everything in the D&C is doctrine? You know that isn't the case.

Although I really am asking for solid support for a restoration of polygyny, I am really surprised at some of what I am reading.

[Sky]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

It doesn't just have to be as long as that woman is dead. One of my 2 uncles who is sealed to 2 women had a civil divorce from his first wife, but they remain temple sealed, and then he married his 2nd wife in a civil ceremony and a couple years later got First Presidency approval to be sealed to his 2nd wife. So he's sealed to 2 women who are currently alive.

It gets pretty screwed up, doesn't it?  I'm guessing he ultimately does not expect to be with his first wife in the afterlife since he divorced her in this life?  No wonder there are debates about this - and that it is sometimes contentious!    

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Sky said:

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. 

  

And one woman can be sealed to more than one man. That has nothing to do with what Hinckley said. He is saying none of it is doctrine.

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 minute ago, Sky said:

It gets pretty screwed up, doesn't it?  I'm guessing he ultimately does not expect to be with his first wife in the afterlife since he divorced her in this life?  No wonder there are debates about this - and that it is sometimes contentious!    

Actually he does expect to be with both wives in heaven and feels any problems he had with his first wife will be solved in heaven. Also that's the mother of his 2 children so families together forever comes into play.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

A lot of members agree, unfortunately, although they would use less inflammatory words.

Are you ready to make a case that everything in the D&C is doctrine? You know that isn't the case.

Although I really am asking for solid support for a restoration of polygyny, I am really surprised at some of what I am reading.

I think that everything in our Doctrine & Covenants does fit the definition of "doctrine".  Or at least one definition of doctrine.  Does that mean it is all correct?  Certainly not.

Scripture (including the D&C) represents our best reflection of our interactions with the Divine.  But our best reflection isn't always going to be an accurate image of truth.

People find support in the gospel for a wide array of ideas.  I find support in the gospel for gay marriage.  Others find support for polygamy (both here and in the eternities).

Ultimately, since I'm going to bed and may not find my place back in the conversation in the morning, I'll just say that I don't disagree with where you are headed in this thread.  I find the fruits of polygamy to be quite negative.  And I wish our leaders would, more clearly, denounce it (both past, present, and future).

 

[strappinglad]

If there is to be no polygamy for the exalted, then there will have to be quite a few " As you were " ceremonies for those who already have covenanted , starting with Abraham and perhaps earlier .

[Sky]

My brain feels like it gets twisted into knots just thinking about it.  I don't understand it.  It's either doctrine or it's not.  I don't understand why it's so complicated.  I also agree with Rockpond that I don't see much "good fruit" to have come from the practice of plural marriage.  In any case, we do not practice it currently, so I feel no obligation to defend it.  But that's just me.  I stand with President Hinckley and the current prophets.      

[juliann]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

The issue is that we still have a large segment of members who insist that women can expect the restoration of polygyny even though they can't actually support that and even Elder Ballard has said it is over.

What I see is people trying to have their cake and eat it, too. One of the most remarked upon positives of our religion is that we do not have the typical separation between life and death. We see it as a continuation of life, we simply move from one sphere to another. So I do not accept that here is here and there is there and never the two shall mix. Maybe I have a different perspective because of the death of a husband and the expectation of a continuation of our existing relationship. One of the first questions my 4 yr old asked was did her daddy have other daughters instead of her now. That is why I value sealings. She was able to go to the temple and be assured that she would not be replaced.

In my opinion it is no comfort to tell anyone struggling with this that you are safe.... as long as you are alive. And certainly no purpose in telling someone struggling anything other than what we have been told more than once. It is behind us. It is over. What is the point of speculating beyond that when it is doing such damage?

 

 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

If there is to be no polygamy for the exalted, then there will have to be quite a few " As you were " ceremonies for those who already have covenanted , starting with Abraham and perhaps earlier .

This is about us, not Abraham. Thanks.

[Sky]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

The issue is that we still have a large segment of members who insist that women can expect the restoration of polygyny even though they can't actually support that and even Elder Ballard has said it is over.

What I see is people trying to have their cake and eat it, too. One of the most remarked upon positives of our religion is that we do not have the typical separation between life and death. We see it as a continuation of life, we simply move from one sphere to another. So I do not accept that here is here and there is there and never the two shall mix. Maybe I have a different perspective because of the death of a husband and the expectation of a continuation of our existing relationship. One of the first questions my 4 yr old asked was did her daddy have other daughters instead of her now. That is why I value sealings. She was able to go to the temple and be assured that she would not be replaced.

In my opinion it is no comfort to tell anyone struggling with this that you are safe.... as long as you are alive. And certainly no purpose in telling someone struggling anything other than what we have been told more than once. It is behind us. It is over. What is the point of speculating beyond that when it is doing such damage?

 

 

I agree.  So then let's stop sealing people to more than one person!  

[VideoGameJunkie]

Perhaps polygamy is done on earth so everyone can have the sealing temple ordinance completed so they can have all the ordinances complete. And maybe during the Millennium it will all be sorted out and everyone will wind up with only 1 companion because the Millennium is supposed to be when everything is sorted out. Maybe Joseph Smith got sealed to all those women so the women could have the saving ordinances completed in this life and will be paired with another man instead in the Celestial Kingdom. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

And here's 2 websites making a claim why there won't be polygamy in heaven. http://mormonnerd.com/mormon-mythbusters-4-reasons-why-there-will-not-be-polygamy-in-heaven/ and here http://www.gregtrimble.com/what-every-mormon-really-needs-to-know-about-polygamy/

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

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  

You see this kind of thing all the time. No pork one dispensation then okay the next. No alcohol this dispensation but in others fine. I fully expect polyandry and polygyny to both exist in the eternities and I am okay with it. As to something that carries through in the eternities: My brothers and sisters were also my brothers and sisters in premortality along with everyone else. How does that continuing have any meaning?

Don't know.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I find that statement, as well as Pres. Hinckley's comments in the Larry King interview, to be disingenuous and prevarications.

I find that accusation absolutely amazing and gob-smacking. Are you even going through the motions of trying to give a Prophet, Seer and Revelator the benefit of the doubt?

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 I suppose they were saying what they felt needed to be said for PR purposes.

Kinda-sorta like a diligently proselytizing apostate claiming to be an oh so faithful Mormon, just for example?

Because, just so you know, I don't agree. I suppose he was answering the question put before him, honestly, truthfully and straightforwardly.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 If a section of our own canon isn't "doctrine" than what is doctrine?

Nobody ever said a section of our own canon isn't doctrine.

Absolutely. Nobody.

[provoman]

moved and formatted

Edited February 17, 2016 by provoman

[strappinglad]

From my perspective , a large percentage of those sealings for time and eternity, are strictly contingent sealings. We are told that those sealings must be sealed again by the Holy Spirit and if not, then they are not in force in the eternities. This holds for monogamous as well a plural marriages. Also, it is my opinion that, aside from the time of Enoch which we have little info on,  most of the people who have lived the Lord's law of polygamy did so from 1830 to 1900.

 

  That is why all this concern over who is sealed to whom in this life  is quite unnecessary. The Brethren do their best to maintain some order in the kingdom and still keep people happy but they know the contingency rule very well. Even baptisms are contingent on faith and endurance. The priesthood has the power to bind on earth as well as heaven, but not against God's will or an individual's will for that matter.

[provoman]

Section 132 is a canonized revelation from God. THE PROPHET - President Monson - has not stated otherwise. It is one thing to mingle philosophies with scripture for a gospel hobby, it is quite another, to throwout scripture and revelation for a gospel hobby.

[VideoGameJunkie]

All this talk about polygamy and I just want to make sure I don't spend eternity alone.

[provoman]

16 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Nobody ever said a section of our own canon isn't doctrine.

Absolutely. Nobody.

Did you see this?

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 

Are you ready to make a case that everything in the D&C is doctrine? You know that isn't the case.

 

[juliann]

42 minutes ago, Sky said:

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

Did you see this?

 

 

Good grief, start a new thread to explain how you live out everything ever mentioned in the D&C and throw in the Bible for good measure.

[Glenn101]

Joseph Smith's teachings on plural marriage from the beginning indicated that all of those marriages that were sealed on earth would be sealed in heaven. That was the comfort he gave to his brother Hyrum, whose first wife had dies before that sealing power was restored. His current wife, Mary Fielding was sealed to him and stood in proxy for him to be sealed to his first wife, Jerusha.

Nothing that then President Hinckley said has anything to do with plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom. It only has to do with the Kingdom of God here on this earth.

I have been promised by a General authority that I will be with my first wife in the next life, as well as my current wife. I am sealed to both of them.

Juliann's exegesis of President Hinkley's words and the Proclamation on the family are at odds with what has been taught throughout the decades on the subject as to the eternities.

What has our current prophet, Thomas S. Monson said on the subject? After all, Juliann is quoting a dead prophet for her authority. I can quote another or two dead ones that say something else. And what they said has never been repudiated by a later prophet. They kind of wish the subject would go away, or so it seems.

But, one can believe what they wish.

Glenn 

[Russell C McGregor]

55 minutes ago, provoman said:

Did you see this?

 

When somebody asked Brigham Young if the Bible was the word of God, he famously replied that yes, it contains the words of God; and the words of men, and the devil, and a donkey (Equus africanus asinus) that rebuked a prophet.

Saying that an entire section of the canon isn't doctrine is a different matter.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Russell C McGregor
Edited to remove a naughty word.

[provoman]

34 minutes ago, juliann said:

Good grief, start a new thread to explain how you live out everything ever mentioned in the D&C and throw in the Bible for good measure.

 

Perhaps I will start a thread titled "Members Who Reject Revelation and Scripture".  

Is section 132 Doctrine? If not, which parts are not Doctrine? There are at least 3 mains topics in Section 132, 1. The New and Everlasting covenant; 2. Joseph  Smith is commanded to restore all things (the build up to the statement is about multiple wives); 3. The Law of Priesthood. Are any of the those 3 NOT Doctrine?

[Senator]

9 hours 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?

Ughh..

I dislike that statement from E. Ballard.

Why are we treating such a rich part of our religious history as the red-headed step child? It's because right now those in the great and spacious building are pointing their fingers at it, and therefore at us, and we're embarrassed about it.

The day will come when the practice will become a more social norm. Then we will begin to see lessons in our Sunday school manuals about section 132 that will actual praise the faithful saints of that era, and draw out the symbolic Abrahamic sacrifice they faithfully succeeded in giving.