Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 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.

Not really.  This refers to the post-resurrection.  Proxy work is still performed "in the world".
ALL proxy work will be completed by the end of the Millennium, at which point people will neither marry nor be given in marriage.  That is when it will be too late.
 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

I disagree. My read (and I'm with smac on this thread and juliann's intent or argument being confusing) on the OP and juliann's subsequent commentary in this thread is that juliann is very much saying that polygyny in the hereafter is not doctrinal because of President Hinckley's statement that polygamy is "not doctrinal." And because the Proclamation uses the singular article "a" (or something like that).

I think she's saying that we, one and all, should stop saying even that there might be polygamy in the hereafter for some people, because this is "not doctrinal." And referring to past polygamy, statements, justifications, explanations, and current polygamous sealings in temples should be completely off the table for discussion.

But maybe I'm confused . . .

[smac97]

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. 

Yes, we do it all the time.  On this earth.  The entire purpose of temples is to perform those ordinances that, for reasons apparently not disclosed to us, cannot be performed for persons "when they are out of the world."

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

A guy came up to me in church last Sunday and asked me a question about this kind of thing

He has had a rough life and has come back to the church.  His wife is a non-member.  He has one daughter who is mentally disabled an another who was not raised in the church.

 He wants to be sealed to his wife and daughters after all are dead, but there will be no one to do it for him.  He asked me if he could leave a statement or something in his will to make sure it happens

I just told him not to worry about it.  We do the best we can here on earth, but we have no idea the details of how all this works in the eternities.  I told him to do his family history so the records would be available to others and put it in the Lord's hands and not worry about it.

Thinking about that later, I think it was pretty good advice for anyone.  We are here to learn to live by faith, not fear and trust in God that he knows what he is doing and that our ways are not his ways.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I disagree. My read (and I'm with smac on this thread and juliann's intent or argument being confusing) on the OP and juliann's subsequent commentary in this thread is that juliann is very much saying that polygyny in the hereafter is not doctrinal because of President Hinckley's statement that polygamy is "not doctrinal." And because the Proclamation uses the singular article "a" (or something like that).

I think she's saying that we, one and all, should stop saying even that there might be polygamy in the hereafter for some people, because this is "not doctrinal." And referring to past polygamy, statements, justifications, explanations, and current polygamous sealings in temples should be completely off the table for discussion.

But maybe I'm confused . . .

Well if that what was meant, then that's even more wrong.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not really.  This refers to the post-resurrection.  Proxy work is still performed "in the world".
ALL proxy work will be completed by the end of the Millennium, at which point people will neither marry nor be given in marriage.  That is when it will be too late.
 

Dead people are out of the world though, right?

Edited February 17, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, we do it all the time.  On this earth.  The entire purpose of temples is to perform those ordinances that, for reasons apparently not disclosed to us, cannot be performed for persons "when they are out of the world."

Thanks,

-Smac

There are a couple of places in the D&C that seem to indicate that the efficacy of proxy ordinances would be somewhat limited. I guess that just shows we can't really rely on canon to fully reflect modern beliefs. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Gray said:

Dead people are out of the world thought, right?

They are, but the work being done for them is done in this world, not in theirs.  I think that's what Jlhprof is saying.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Dead people are out of the world thought, right?

Semantics

Don't worry about it either way.  It is worthless to worry about or even care about what is unknowable in principle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

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. 

I suspect that the vast majority of men in the Church would rather not be "shared."  I chalk up such squeamishness to our having a blinkered and finite perception of eternal principles.  I am likewise squeamish with other aspects of the Gospel.  Take animal sacrifice, for example.  Imagine the hullabaloo that would arise if the Church re-instituted this practice in 2016.  Imagine bishops being tasked with supervising the construction of stone altars in church parking lots.  Imagine the three-hour blog being extended for 30 minutes once a month so that the bishop could lead the congregation out to the parking lot, where he would light a fire, slaughter two pigeons, and lay their carcasses on the altar so that everyone can watch them being scorched into ashes.

Sounds weird, eh?  There would be plenty of squeamishness, wouldn't there?  Church members in the U.S. in 2016 (and in many other areas as well) would, I think, be very uncomfortable with performing such a ritual.  I don't anticipate this will ever happen.  That is not my point.  Rather, my point is that animal sacrifice was, at one point, a vital component of the Gospel, and that it's not a component practiced now, and that it would if practices trigger big time "Ick!" responses to the Saints now, and that such a response is not a result of animal sacrifice being malum in se, but rather a result of our having a blinkered and finite perception of eternal principles.  I would submit that the same goes for the "ick" factor associated with polygamy.

Quote

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.

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2016 by smac97

[Sky]

I think the thrust Juliann's point is that there are no definitive statements from contemporary LDS Church leaders stating that plural marriage will be practiced in the eternities, even though it is assumed by many members.  The current prophet has not spoken about this subject.  So we are on shaky ground when me make doctrinal statements or assumptions when our prophet has not actually said anything about it, and has even gone so far as to condemn the practice on national television, as well as numerous times in General Conference.  

If plural marriage is still a core, integral part of our doctrine (in spite of not currently being practiced), then our leaders should say so.  But they haven't.      

The Melchizedek Priesthood (for men) and the temple endowment and marriage sealing (for men and women) are necessary for our exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  It says nothing about Plural Marriage being required for exaltation.  See:     https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/eternal-life.p1?lang=eng.

Those of us who do not have the opportunity of being sealed in the temple, through no fault of our own, will be given that opportunity in the hereafter.  Same-gender attraction is one of those reasons.  No blessing will ultimately be denied to anybody that stays faithful and endures to the end of this life.  

That is my understanding of the doctrine.     

Juliann can correct me if I'm wrong.  

 

 

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

There are a couple of places in the D&C that seem to indicate that the efficacy of proxy ordinances would be somewhat limited. I guess that just shows we can't really rely on canon to fully reflect modern beliefs. 

CFR.  I'm interested in reading the passages you reference here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect that the vast majority of men in the Church would rather not be "shared."  I chalk up such squeamishness to our having a blinkered and finite perception of eternal principles.  I am likewise squeamish with other aspects of the Gospel.  Take animal sacrifice, for example.  Imagine the hullabaloo that would arise if the Church re-instituted this practice in 2016.  Imagine bishops being tasked with supervising the construction of stone altars in church parking lots.  Imagine the three-hour blog being extended for 30 minutes once a month so that the bishop could lead the congregation out to the parking lot, where he would light a fire, slaughter two pigeons, and lay their carcasses on the altar so that everyone can watch them being scorched into ashes.

Sounds weird, eh?  There would be plenty of squeamishness, wouldn't there?  Church members in the U.S. in 2016 (and in many other areas as well) would, I think, be very uncomfortable with performing such a ritual.  I don't anticipate this will ever happen.  That is not my point.  Rather, my point is that animal sacrifice was, at one point, a vital component of the Gospel, and that it's not a component practiced now, and that it would if practices trigger big time "Ick!" responses to the Saints now, and that such a response is not a result of animal sacrifice being malum in se, but rather a result of our having a blinkered and finite perception of eternal principles.  I would submit that the same goes for the "ick" factor associated with polygamy.

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

And why has that changed?  Because God has changed?

No, because we have changed and now learn the principles differently than humans of those times learned and understood their world

Again, God teaches us what we need to learn using the techniques we can understand.   That is why an open canon is so important.  You do not teach a kindergartener the same way you teach a post graduate student.  "Let go and let God".

Edited February 17, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Semantics

Don't worry about it either way.  It is worthless to worry about or even care about what is unknowable in principle

Sure, I agree. I was just operating within the premise of the thread.

 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR.  I'm interested in reading the passages you reference here.

Thanks,

-Smac

The passage I already quoted from D&C 132, plus:

Quote

 

D&C 76:

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of themoon differs from the sun in the firmament.

 72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

 73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept inprison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospelunto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

 74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

 75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

 76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

 

 

We talk about these kinds of people today as potential candidates for exaltation. 

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Dead people are out of the world though, right?

Nope.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Sky said:

I think the thrust Juliann's point is that there are no definitive statements from contemporary LDS Church leaders stating that plural marriage will be practiced in the eternities, even though it is assumed by many members.  The current prophet has not spoken about this subject.  So we are on shaky ground when me make doctrinal statements or assumptions when our prophet has not actually said anything about it, and has even gone so far as to condemn the practice on national television, as well as numerous times in General Conference.

If plural marriage is still a core, integral part of our doctrine (in spite of not currently being practiced), then our leaders should say so.  But they haven't.

Why should they need to speak on the subject?
D&C 132 is still canon.  Eternal polygamous sealings in the past are considered valid by the Church.  Eternal polygamous sealings performed by current GA's are considered valid.
There doesn't need to be an explicit current teaching that "there will be polygamy in the next life" because the explicit current practices and validations do the teaching for us.
 

Quote

The Melchizedek Priesthood (for men) and the temple endowment and marriage sealing (for men and women) are necessary for our exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  It says nothing about Plural Marriage being required for exaltation.  See:     https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/eternal-life.p1?lang=eng.

This interpretation was not the original interpretation.  D&C 131 originally was considered to refer to plural marriage, not eternal marriage.
This was changed later on.

[Senator]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This interpretation was not the original interpretation.  D&C 131 originally was considered to refer to plural marriage, not eternal marriage.
This was changed later on.

Can you link your sources for this claim?

Not being argumentative......I am interested in the history of this.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Sky said:

I think the thrust Juliann's point is that there are no definitive statements from contemporary LDS Church leaders stating that plural marriage will be practiced in the eternities, even though it is assumed by many members.  

There are no definitive statements that plural marriage will not be practiced in the eternities.  It seems rather odd to suggest that the thousands (tens of thousands?) of 19th-century plural marriages solemnized in sealing ceremonies with the sanction and approval of the Presiding High Priest are not going to be effective in the hereafter.  On what basis would such a proposal be based?

Quote

The current prophet has not spoken about this subject.  So we are on shaky ground when me make doctrinal statements or assumptions when our prophet has not actually said anything about it, and has even gone so far as to condemn the practice on national television, as well as numerous times in General Conference.  

I think we are shakier ground when we suggest that thousands (tens of thousands?) of 19th-century plural marriages solemnized in sealing ceremonies with the sanction and approval of the Presiding High Priest are not going to be effective in the hereafter.

President Hinckley was condemning contemporary polygamy that is not authorized by the Presiding High Priest, and which is instead an apostate practice meriting excommunication.

Quote

If plural marriage is still a core, integral part of our doctrine (in spite of not currently being practiced), then our leaders should say so.  But they haven't.      

With respect, I do not think it is incumbent on the Saints to instruct the Presiding High Priest what he "should say."  We are told in Jacob 4:10 to "seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  I submit that this generally applies to the Lord's Presiding High Priest as well.  "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38)

The "core" of our doctrine is, as Joseph Smith said, "the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."  The Brethren are testifying of this on a constant basis.  The Brethren are also counseling us as to the "appendages" that pertain to us in our day.  Polygamy is not an "appendage" that is particularly relevant in our day (nor is animal sacrifice, nor are any number of other "appendages" from days gone by), so I disagree that it merits particular and ongoing attention today.  Even so, the Church has recently published three detailed essays on this subject:

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

I recommend that all persons interested in this topic review these essays in detail.  The endnotes in these essays are also worthy of serious examination and further study.

Quote

The Melchizedek Priesthood (for men) and the temple endowment and marriage sealing (for men and women) are necessary for our exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  It says nothing about Plural Marriage being required for exaltation.  See:     https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/eternal-life.p1?lang=eng.

Okay.  Is this thread about whether plural marriage is "required for exaltation"?

Quote

Those of us who do not have the opportunity of being sealed in the temple, through no fault of our own, will be given that opportunity in the hereafter.  Same-gender attraction is one of those reasons.  No blessing will ultimately be denied to anybody that stays faithful and endures to the end of this life.  

That is my understanding of the doctrine.     

I think you are correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think she's saying that we, one and all, should stop saying even that there might be polygamy in the hereafter for some people, because this is "not doctrinal." And referring to past polygamy, statements, justifications, explanations, and current polygamous sealings in temples should be completely off the table for discussion.

It may not be doctrinal, but is a reasonable assumption. But I’m not sure how valuable that assumption is in guiding anyone’s daily walk (to me it smacks of “dreaming of mansions above.”). Past statements have given way to additional lines upon lines and precepts upon precepts, and the current statements are what is best to live by, especially canon. Case in point:

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This interpretation was not the original interpretation.  D&C 131 originally was considered to refer to plural marriage, not eternal marriage.
This was changed later on.

It was changed to reflect greater light and knowledge since that is how the kingdom rolls forth.

Edited February 17, 2016 by CV75
spelling

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

We talk about these kinds of people today as potential candidates for exaltation. 

Those referred to in D&C 76:71-76 are those who received the testimony of Jesus in the spirit world, but did not receive the covenants by proxy or live by them "according to God in the spirit." Those who do receive the testimony of Jesus in the spirit world and accept and live by the covenants "according to God in the spirit" may certainly become exalted.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It was changed to reflect greater light and knowledge since that is how the kingdom rolls forth.

That's your assumption based on no actual light and knowledge teaching.
If we are going on assumptions I could just as easily say it was changed as a press release in 1933 to attempt to shut down fundamentalist claims.

Neither statement can be proven by CFR because there is no record as to why it was changed.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, rongo said:

I disagree. My read (and I'm with smac on this thread and juliann's intent or argument being confusing) on the OP and juliann's subsequent commentary in this thread is that juliann is very much saying that polygyny in the hereafter is not doctrinal because of President Hinckley's statement that polygamy is "not doctrinal." And because the Proclamation uses the singular article "a" (or something like that).

I think she's saying that we, one and all, should stop saying even that there might be polygamy in the hereafter for some people, because this is "not doctrinal." And referring to past polygamy, statements, justifications, explanations, and current polygamous sealings in temples should be completely off the table for discussion.

But maybe I'm confused . . .

Juliann, can you clarify this for us please?  Is Rongo's summary in the second paragraph above an accurate reflection of your position?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nope.

I don't see dead people.

In fact, in the resurrection they're back in the world. The celestial kingdom is supposed to be just this world, celestialized. So the only chance people have to be "out of the world" would seem to be in death. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Gray

[provoman]

 

Can someone explain why a condemnation of apostates, apparently revokes any part of Section 132?

 

Not to change the subject but to illustrate the point, was it also stated by the Prophet on Larry King or to Mike Wallace that the Word of Wisdom prohibits caffeine?

Edited February 17, 2016 by provoman