Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

 

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?

That section verse 39, is as clear as anything anyone needs to understand that the plural wives a man is sealed to by the Holy Spirit of Promise in the New and everlasting Covenant will also be his wives in the hereafter, unless he breaks that covenant as did King David.

" 39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

The emphasized portion of that verse indicates that David would have still been sealed to those wives and that he wnd they would have been together in the next life phase had he not fallen. But someone else will, evidently.

This section has long been canonized, It has not been retracted. Not a single prophet since has received a revelation cancelling any portion of that section. The only thing that has been said, and repeated over and over, is that we are not currently practicing polygamy and will not do so in this world unless the Lord says otherwise.

Glenn

[bluebell]

7 hours 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, and I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, probably because I didn't say it very well. 

I didn't mean that people were safe until they died, I was asking whether or not the wording in president Ballard's quote made sense if he was talking about polygamy in heaven too. 

I'm not aware of anyone, who does believe they will be polygamists in heaven, who at this moment considers themselves to be practicing polygamy.  They believe they will eventually practice it, but aren't currently doing so, even if they are sealed to two women.

That's why it doesn't make sense to me to think that when Ballard says "we don't practice it" he meant anything other than "we don't practice it as a church on the earth."

Polygamy can still exist in heaven (for some) and that statement by Ballard can still true at the same time.

But though I believe that polygamy will exist in heaven, I don't believe that it will be necessary for exaltation.  I don't think anyone will have to choose between being with God and monogamy.  If the prophets haven't taught that it will be mandatory, no one else should either. 

[JLHPROF]

8 hours 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?

 

 

Do you not see your own contradictions here?

To say with one breath we do not have a typical separation between life and death and we move from one sphere to the next, then to say that polygamy is over is completely contradictory on the face of it.

Polygamy isn't over because it will exist in the next sphere as it has in this sphere.  In the grand scheme of eternity polygamy this period where there are no polygamous relations amongst God's people IS the aberration.  It matters not whether there are polygamists among us now if the eventual state is a community containing polygamy.  It is in no way over for good whether restored in mortality or on hold till the union of mortal and immortal.

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, and I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, probably because I didn't say it very well. 

I didn't mean that people were safe until they died, I was asking whether or not the wording in president Ballard's quote made sense if he was talking about polygamy in heaven too. 

I'm not aware of anyone, who does believe they will be polygamists in heaven, who at this moment considers themselves to be practicing polygamy.  They believe they will eventually practice it, but aren't currently doing so, even if they are sealed to two women.

That's why it doesn't make sense to me to think that when Ballard says "we don't practice it" he meant anything other than "we don't practice it as a church on the earth."

Polygamy can still exist in heaven (for some) and that statement by Ballard can still true at the same time.

But though I believe that polygamy will exist in heaven, I don't believe that it will be necessary for exaltation.  I don't think anyone will have to choose between being with God and monogamy.  If the prophets haven't taught that it will be mandatory, no one else should either. 

I can agree with that. I do agree with that.

Glenn

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Pork and alcohol doesn't add up because there's no one asserting that it'll last through the eternities or is necessary for exaltation. They are both temporal laws that in their times we are expected to obey. Furthermore if someone chooses not to eat pork now, after the law has been rescinded, you're not going to lose out on blessings and temple covenants because of doing so. 

God gives commandments all the time that are pertinent in the era given but not any longer. But we do not assume those commands may be some eternal principle or are meant to carry on in the next life. That's more what I meant, I can't think of a parallel that fits it.

[Buckeye]

18 hours ago, juliann said:

 

That becomes a support for polyandry, which isn't my topic. (Most don't really believe that and women don't want it either. The arguments begin with the, usually men, who think they will have the option of more wives and feel justified in telling women this.)  

 

How in the world are you supporting this in direct opposition to what it actually says???  DOCUMENTATION! Where do the Brethren say it wasn't their intent?

(I don't mean to sound angry guys, I so appreciate your sharing your thoughts. I see the damage our attempts to reconcile this are doing to women and I think it is time to stop privileging speculation over documentation.)

I see there's been a lot of posts since this one. Sorry if my comments are redundant of other's. 

To be clear, I'm not supporting historical church doctrines of polygamy. I'm just saying that the Proclamation was not intended to undermine those teachings. I come to that conclusion because the context surrounding the Proclamation was gay marriage, not polygamy. Hawaii's supreme court had just taken up the issue; the church wanted to make it's position clear. I won't cite anything on that here, but you can find lots of it online (and even on other threads on this board). Also, in speaking of the Proclamation in 1995 and since then, church leaders' focus has been on gender roles and man/woman stuff, not polygamy. If the intent were to change doctrine on polygamy, they would need to be a lot more explicit - especially because polygamy was taught as a doctrine very very strongly for many years. Perhaps the Proclamation may help steer members in preparation for a renunciation of polygamy, but the document alone does change the doctrine.

FWIW, I also see a lot of pain around the subject of polygamy. I would have no problem personally renouncing the doctrine, but then, my ancestors didn't practice it. Rather than polygamy, my historical burden to bear is slave holding.

And if it helps, the arrangement I have with Sister Buckeye is that neither one of us will ever suggest/request/hint/etc. about taking another spouse of the opposite gender. The only way I'd ever take a second wife is if my wife makes the request, and even then she'd have to make a very good case since I have no personal interest in it. If for whatever reason she wanted me to marry another woman, I'd probably say "fine, but you're also taking another husband."

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Buckeye

[Garden Girl]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

That's why it doesn't make sense to me to think that when Ballard says "we don't practice it" he meant anything other than "we don't practice it as a church on the earth."

Polygamy can still exist in heaven (for some) and that statement by Ballard can still true at the same time.

But though I believe that polygamy will exist in heaven, I don't believe that it will be necessary for exaltation.  I don't think anyone will have to choose between being with God and monogamy.  If the prophets haven't taught that it will be mandatory, no one else should either. 

I agree with this... For instance, a man is married/sealed to a woman and has children with her... say she dies of cancer fairly young and he remarries/is sealed to another woman and has children with her also... of course he wants to have both of his families with him in the eternities.  Why shouldn't he... temple sealing ordinances provide for this.

As for me, I'm sealed to my dear one only and do not intend to be sealed to any other...  and I have no doubt we will be able to be exalted as an eternal couple...

We may not have a full understanding... but I do know that in God's kingdom, there will be nothing that is not in keeping perfectly with his will and purposes... 

GG

 

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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.

I agree...I'll wait till heaven to figure it out. that said, I get the sense from many who do believe polygamy will happen are also those who believe that polyandry can't and such sealings were somehow extra contingent. In my mind the only way I'm ok with polygamy being there is if polyandry is as well. Not that I'm interested to be apart of either. I think all polyamory is inherently inferior to monogamy...that's right, I'm bigoted...I'll deal with that later.  

 

with luv,

BD

Edited February 17, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Gray]

16 hours ago, USU78 said:

Not necessarily.  Abraham was tested twice:  once wrt Sarah/Hagar; once wrt Isaac.  He was released from the test wrt Isaac without actually having to go through with it after demonstrating his willingness to follow through.  He was not released wrt Sarah/Hagar, though it broke everybody's heart and ended up in the functional equivalent of divorce.  Abrahamic tests, accordingly, are of two kinds:  the kind you have to follow through on; the kind you get rescued from.

Hagar was Sarai's idea. That wasn't the Abrahamic test. 

 

Quote

Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; ² so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Gray

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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. 

Juliann, is the foregoing summary a correct statement of your position?  If not, could you please provide a statement of your position?  I am not understanding your point of view, and I would like to. 

I am not sure why you are blowing me off.  I am really, honestly, truly trying to understand your position...

1. You 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 asked: "Which members of the Church are you talking about here?"

You have yet to respond to this inquiry.

2. You said: "I can see this is a common response. I have to admit it is a face palm for me."

I asked: "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?"

You have yet to respond to this inquiry.

3. You said: "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 asked: "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)?"

You have yet to respond to this inquiry.

4. You said: "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."

I asked: "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.  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?"

You have yet to respond to this inquiry.

5. You said: "When we go to these lengths to support ingrained but unsupported (and unnecessary) speculation,"

I asked: "What "speculation" are you referencing here?"

You have yet to respond to this inquiry.

6. You said: "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."

I asked: "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?"

You have yet to respond to this inquiry.

7. You said: "Do we really have to start pulling out dictionaries to prove that the singular article A means ONE? Seriously?"

I asked: "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.

You responded: "Please read the thread."

I responded to that: "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."

8. Russell C. McGregor said: "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."

You have not responded to this.

I think these are generally reasonable inquiries.  I am not gaslighting you.  I am not insulting you.  I am not deviating from the topic of the thread.  I am attempting to advance the discussion.  I would like to understand your position and your argument.  That is, after all, the intended purpose of this board.  But that purpose is stifled when you blow off reasonable responses to your statements.  I of course am not expecting an itemized response to each any every point I raise (or even every question I pose).  The foregoing pattern of not responding at all is troubling.  If you are not interested in having a dialogue, just say so and I won't waste my time or yours any further.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

God gives commandments all the time that are pertinent in the era given but not any longer. But we do not assume those commands may be some eternal principle or are meant to carry on in the next life. That's more what I meant, I can't think of a parallel that fits it.

I think the difference with polygamy is that we believe these marriages (those in the past and those happening right now where one of the spouses is dead) are for eternity.  That is what being sealed is supposed to mean-the union is supposed to be eternal if all conditions are met.  If that's right, polygamy will exist in heaven.

But, I don't think that's the point you are even talking about.

I think you are saying that even if God had given a commandment that people must practice polygamy in the past it doesn't meant the commandment still stands and that everyone must practice it in the future.  You aren't talking about whether or not polygamist marriages will exist in heaven, but are saying the commandment doesn't have to exist in heaven just because it sometimes existed on earth.  

Is that the point you are making?  (just want to be sure i'm not completely reading the post wrong).

[Senator]

I don't understand.

Why is there a concern that there will be plural marriages in Heaven?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Pork and alcohol doesn't add up because there's no one asserting that it'll last through the eternities or is necessary for exaltation. They are both temporal laws that in their times we are expected to obey. Furthermore if someone chooses not to eat pork now, after the law has been rescinded, you're not going to lose out on blessings and temple covenants because of doing so. 

God gives commandments all the time that are pertinent in the era given but not any longer. But we do not assume those commands may be some eternal principle or are meant to carry on in the next life. That's more what I meant, I can't think of a parallel that fits it.

Here's my thought:

1. God commanded some of the early Latter-day Saints to enter into polygamy.

2. God commanded some of the early Latter-day Saints to enter into polygamous marriages solemnized in sealing ceremonies of the Church.

3. Many polygamous marriages were, in fact, solemnized in sealing ceremonies authorized by the Presiding High Priest.

Is there are argument being made here that these polygamous sealings were subsequently voided?  That they will have no force or effect in the eternities?  If so, what is the evidentiary basis for such an argument?

This is a weird thread.  There seems to be a whole subtext and set of assumptions that I am not grasping.

Thanks,

-Smac

(I edited this post to add "some of" to items 1 and 2.)

Edited February 17, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Senator said:

I don't understand.

Why is there a concern that there will be plural marriages in Heaven?

I think there are two reasons-

1) If someone hates the idea of polygamy and believes it's evil, and that JS was completely wrong for instituting it, then that person has to also believe that there won't be any polygamy in heaven (because nothing evil will exist there).  Therefore any talk that there is polygamy in heaven would be a concern.

2) If someone does not believe polygamy is evil but very very very much does not want to be a part of it, any teaching that polygamy is sometimes commanded by God would be concerning because that means there is a chance that they would be under that commandment sometime in the future as well.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Senator said:

I don't understand.

Why is there a concern that there will be plural marriages in Heaven?

Many LDS women think about it with a great deal of dread. It's a stumbling block.

The question of then, is plural marriage in the eternities a doctrinal idea in the first place? 

I don't have the answer. But D&C 132 seems to indicates that marriages can't be performed after death - "Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage." But of course we do it all the time, even outside of plural marriage. 

[BlueDreams]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the difference with polygamy is that we believe these marriages (those in the past and those happening right now where one of the spouses is dead) are for eternity.  That is what being sealed is supposed to mean-the union is supposed to be eternal if all conditions are met.  If that's right, polygamy will exist in heaven.

But, I don't think that's the point you are even talking about.

I think you are saying that even if God had given a commandment that people must practice polygamy in the past it doesn't meant the commandment still stands and that everyone must practice it in the future.  You aren't talking about whether or not polygamist marriages will exist in heaven, but are saying the commandment doesn't have to exist in heaven just because it sometimes existed on earth.  

Is that the point you are making?  (just want to be sure i'm not completely reading the post wrong).

Yeah, i believe so.

I think part of me finds some of the dialogue around it in general is inconsistent and sometimes a little disturbing. The idea that it may exist in heaven because some were sealed previously isn't really a major concern to me. But the idea that we'll be expected to live it is....or maybe it's not that, maybe it's just that when people who are defending it discuss it, it's kinda raised on this pedestal of divine commitments to God. 

Honestly, I don't think about it enough to really go on beyond the idea that the defense or expectations surrounding it smell a little fishy.

With luv,

BD

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Senator said:

I don't understand.

Why is there a concern that there will be plural marriages in Heaven?

Because as mortals who only know about marriage on earth, we can't comprehend how more than one woman can "share" a husband; now or in the eternities. So I would guess that 99% of the women in the church would rather not "share" a husband now or in heaven. 

The most important aspect of the sealing ordinance that we might forget about is that we are sealed; period.  Of secondary importance  is to who and how many. When we are sealed we join, with our brothers and sisters, into the eternal patriarchal family of our Heavenly Father, and enjoy the blessings of being so sealed. If we do become exalted we will be in a state of mind and spirit where there will be no jealousy, or selfishness, which means that women will gladly "share" (for lack of a better word) their spouse with their sister whom they love unconditionally. Hard to comprehend now but we can't see how it works with our limited minds and understanding of future eternal events.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Senator said:

I don't understand.

Why is there a concern that there will be plural marriages in Heaven?

I think the OP is more concerned with the sometimes speculated theory that polygamy will be restored to the earth at some point (Millennial period etc).
I don't think the next life is the concern of this thread.

The problem with this concern is that the theory makes ZERO difference whether it is taught by prophets or not.
If marriage is eternal (and it is) and polygamous sealings are performed with God's approval and by priesthood authority, then whether it is restored before or after the end times really becomes completely irrelevant.

If polygamous eternal marriages are valid as D&C 132 states, then this time period where polygamy in the society of the saints has been revoked can only ever be a temporary situation.  At some point in this life or the life to come or the joyously combined heaven and earth of the Millennium polygamy will once again be part of our community of saints.  Worrying about IF it will be restored becomes a pointless exercise, because it is already in existence.
 

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

1 hour ago, Garden Girl said:

I agree with this... For instance, a man is married/sealed to a woman and has children with her... say she dies of cancer fairly young and he remarries/is sealed to another woman and has children with her also... of course he wants to have both of his families with him in the eternities.  Why shouldn't he... temple sealing ordinances provide for this.

As for me, I'm sealed to my dear one only and do not intend to be sealed to any other...  and I have no doubt we will be able to be exalted as an eternal couple...

We may not have a full understanding... but I do know that in God's kingdom, there will be nothing that is not in keeping perfectly with his will and purposes... 

GG

 

But, President Hinckley stated that polygamy is "not doctrinal".  

I agree that he may have been condemning living polygamy today (since he did add that it's also "not legal") .  But, "not doctrinal" leaves little wiggle room regarding how he felt about polygamy (IMO).

I can't remember, did President Hinckley ever clarify what he meant with his comment:

 

I so admire you..so this is my hope and wish for you also! 

Edited:  I am sorry, I misquoted..this reply is a reply to GG.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Jeanne

[BlueDreams]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's my thought:

1. God commanded some of the early Latter-day Saints to enter into polygamy.

2. God commanded some of the early Latter-day Saints to enter into polygamous marriages solemnized in sealing ceremonies of the Church.

3. Many polygamous marriages were, in fact, solemnized in sealing ceremonies authorized by the Presiding High Priest.

Is there are argument being made here that these polygamous sealings were subsequently voided?  That they will have no force or effect in the eternities?  If so, what is the evidentiary basis for such an argument?

This is a weird thread.  There seems to be a whole subtext and set of assumptions that I am not grasping.

Thanks,

-Smac

Added in blue for my sense of accuracy. 

God also has a system that allows for polyandrous posthumous marriages to occur (and some with at least one living partner....enough exceptions that it shows up on this board...which tells me there's probably more than 10 or we're the most connected people on the LDS planet) and a clause in the D&C that gives a hint that these marriages may be ok if it was appointed to her (D&C 132:41-42) and are equally sealed with that same priesthood....yet people have a tendency to void these in their minds (or assume she'll have to choose which one she'll really be with)....don't know if you're one who would, it's a generalized statement.

Personally, my argument is that we don't know exactly what all marriages will look like in the next life period. That's what I get from both reads. Several keep talking about the scriptures...and yet the scriptures bounce around about the acceptability of polygamy before God in the first play and when it was practiced it was messy (divorces, marriages without sealings, sealings without marriages, marriages to already married women, etc). We already know that there will be a grand reshuffling to happen in the millenium....people who died unmarried, situations like mine where family is all sorts of messy, divorced and separated couples who are still technically sealed, that lady who married seven brothers, etc. I don't doubt that that their eternal promises will be theirs. But I don't know exactly how it'll look like for all those who have ever been sealed and/or married to multiple people (several women or men).

It is a weird thread. But honestly polygamy is a weird topic in the first place and arguments for it are equally weird/holey/conflicting.

 

With luv,

BD   

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

I don't understand.

Why is there a concern that there will be plural marriages in Heaven?

Because apparently not giving absolute credence to a statement made by GBH on a TV interview is rejecting the family proclamation...which itself is not canonized...so we have what could easily be argued as an unofficial statement being used to argue members' rejection of an important, but non-canonized document (not to mention that the OP confuses the condoning of monogamy with the rejection of polygamy). This is no different than any thread discussing "official" doctrine/teachings...it is, as Tacenda stated, like trying to nail jell-o to a wall. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Because apparently not giving absolute credence to a statement made by GBH on a TV interview is rejecting the family proclamation...

As is applying the old anti-Mormon technique to the proclamation.

Anti Mormons say -

Quote

The New Testament does prohibit clergy from having more than one wife.

Quote

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Clergy are suppose to be an example for the rest of the body of Christ.

 

Sounds a lot like this argument from the OP.
 

Quote

1. The Proclamation begins with  ". .  marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . "  The indefinite article "a" cannot be modified to mean more than one.  Since the remainder of the Proc uses "man and woman" the addition of "a" in the first paragraph indicates intent to make that clear from the get go.

Neither is a valid argument.

[SmileyMcGee]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As is applying the old anti-Mormon technique to the proclamation.

Anti Mormons say -

 

Sounds a lot like this argument from the OP.
 

Neither is a valid argument.

Sorry, I updated my previous comment before seeing this. I agree, the logic of the OP does not compute. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Many LDS women think about it with a great deal of dread. It's a stumbling block.

The question of then, is plural marriage in the eternities a doctrinal idea in the first place? 

I don't have the answer. But D&C 132 seems to indicates that marriages can't be performed after death - "Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage." But of course we do it all the time, even outside of plural marriage. 

This.  The stumbling block.  I want all of you to know (especially the women here) that I remain here on this discussion board..because I care about all of you.  I wonder what you think with the knowledge that you have.  I need to ask about this stumbling block to my friends here.  Is there any LDS women here on this board that feels that JS got it wrong? That for all the truths you believe..that this revelation of polygamy was wrong?  I will understand if this question needs to be addressed on a different thread.  I believe after over 40 year as a member..that we are arguing or trying to dissect something that need not be.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Added in blue for my sense of accuracy. 

An excellent clarification.  In discussions such as this, precision matters more than it usually does, so I appreciate your input.

Quote

God also has a system that allows for polyandrous posthumous marriages to occur (and some with at least one living partner....enough exceptions that it shows up on this board...which tells me there's probably more than 10 or we're the most connected people on the LDS planet) and a clause in the D&C that gives a hint that these marriages may be ok if it was appointed to her (D&C 132:41-42) and are equally sealed with that same priesthood....yet people have a tendency to void these in their minds (or assume she'll have to choose which one she'll really be with)....don't know if you're one who would, it's a generalized statement.Personally, my argument is that we don't know exactly what all marriages will look like in the next life period. 

I generally agree with this.

Quote

That's what I get from both reads. Several keep talking about the scriptures...and yet the scriptures bounce around about the acceptability of polygamy before God in the first play and when it was practiced it was messy (divorces, marriages without sealings, sealings without marriages, marriages to already married women, etc).

Yep.  Messy: "Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available."

And here:

Quote

Plural marriage was difficult for all involved. For Joseph Smith’s wife Emma, it was an excruciating ordeal. Records of Emma’s reactions to plural marriage are sparse; she left no firsthand accounts, making it impossible to reconstruct her thoughts. Joseph and Emma loved and respected each other deeply. After he had entered into plural marriage, he poured out his feelings in his journal for his “beloved Emma,” whom he described as “undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma.”

And here (same link as above):

Quote

According to Helen Mar Kimball, Joseph Smith stated that “the practice of this principle would be the hardest trial the Saints would ever have to test their faith.” Though it was one of the “severest” trials of her life, she testified that it had also been “one of the greatest blessings.” Her father, Heber C. Kimball, agreed. “I never felt more sorrowful,” he said of the moment he learned of plural marriage in 1841. “I wept days. … I had a good wife. I was satisfied.”

The decision to accept such a wrenching trial usually came only after earnest prayer and intense soul-searching. Brigham Young said that, upon learning of plural marriage, “it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave.” “I had to pray unceasingly,” he said, “and I had to exercise faith and the Lord revealed to me the truth of it and that satisfied me.” Heber C. Kimball found comfort only after his wife Vilate had a visionary experience attesting to the rightness of plural marriage. “She told me,” Vilate’s daughter later recalled, “she never saw so happy a man as father was when she described the vision and told him she was satisfied and knew it was from God.”

Lucy Walker recalled her inner turmoil when Joseph Smith invited her to become his wife. “Every feeling of my soul revolted against it,” she wrote. Yet, after several restless nights on her knees in prayer, she found relief as her room “filled with a holy influence” akin to “brilliant sunshine.” She said, “My soul was filled with a calm sweet peace that I never knew,” and “supreme happiness took possession of my whole being.”

Not all had such experiences. Some Latter-day Saints rejected the principle of plural marriage and left the Church, while others declined to enter the practice but remained faithful. Nevertheless, for many women and men, initial revulsion and anguish was followed by struggle, resolution, and ultimately, light and peace. Sacred experiences enabled the Saints to move forward in faith.

I recommend that all persons interested in this topic review in detail all three of the following essays published by the Church:

1. Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo
2. Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah
3. The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

The endnotes in these essays are also worthy of serious examination and further study.

Quote

We already know that there will be a grand reshuffling to happen in the millenium....people who died unmarried, situations like mine where family is all sorts of messy, divorced and separated couples who are still technically sealed, that lady who married seven brothers, etc. I don't doubt that that their eternal promises will be theirs. But I don't know exactly how it'll look like for all those who have ever been sealed and/or married to multiple people (several women or men).

It is a weird thread. But honestly polygamy is a weird topic in the first place and arguments for it are equally weird/holey/conflicting.

With luv,

BD   

Thank you for your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac