Future of the church

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My own view is that the conditional, temporary practice of plurality of wives is included within the doctrine of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. (That is, the Lord, at certain times and for His own purposes, has decreed the practice of plurality of wives for a limited period of time.)

You are entitled to disagree with that belief.

But you are not entitled to apply an out-of-context meaning to a statement made by President Hinckley in an interview.

 

Wow, you are quick, as you will notice I added more to my post within seconds of posting.  Hopefully you take note of the edit.  

Edited June 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please don't presume to respond for me when you obviously have no clear understanding of my position.

 

I didn't.  I said what I think you would say.  I see I was wrong.  Which I very much accept.  But, I meant no offense to you.

I think you are being wholly unfair to Tacenda on this though.  The context also suggests they were at one point talking about polygamy as practiced by Church members in the 19th century too.  Sure, he was clear in that he didn't support 1990s polygamy.  He condemned the practice of polygamy and said it was not doctrinal.  he did not say the way it was practiced in the 90s means the principle is non doctrinal. 

This is more of a disagreement about what it seems he might have meant, from both of your positions.  There's no reason to attack her because of the disagreement. 

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Listening to the interview, as I type. You will be disappointed in me and I may appear thick headed but doctrine and practice are two different things in my mind.  That he put it in the same few sentences, in my mind, doesn't make a difference.  But on second thought I will give this to you.  Sorry, I'll be careful in the future.

 

doctrine  ˈdäktrən/

noun

a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

The official LDS doctrine is stated explicitly in the Book of Mormon, Jacob Chapter 2. 

 

Quote

 

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

 32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

 

 

Plural marriage is to be practiced only when commanded by God and only for the purpose of "raising up seed" unto him. Otherwise, no go. This doctrine is consistent with the Old Testament practice. It predates Latter-day plural marriage by more than a decade.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't.  I said what I think you would say.  I see I was wrong.  Which I very much accept.  But, I meant no offense to you.

I think you are being wholly unfair to Tacenda on this though.  The context also suggests they were at one point talking about polygamy as practiced by Church members in the 19th century too.  Sure, he was clear in that he didn't support 1990s polygamy.  He condemned the practice of polygamy and said it was not doctrinal.  he did not say the way it was practiced in the 90s means the principle is non doctrinal. 

This is more of a disagreement about what it seems he might have meant, from both of your positions.  There's no reason to attack her because of the disagreement. 

I say a reasonable reader/listener could be expected see the statement quoted from President Hinckley in the context of questions about the current illegal practice of polygamy, not the principle of plurality of wives as it was practiced historically in the Church of Jesus Christ. It would take an uncharitable reading indeed to apply it to the latter.

And there is no need to go back and forth about this. I've made my position clear -- and documented it.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I say a reasonable reader/listener could be expected see the statement quoted from President Hinckley in the context of questions about the current illegal practice of polygamy, not the principle of plurality of wives as it was practiced historically in the Church of Jesus Christ. It would take an uncharitable reading indeed to apply it to the latter.

That you see it as an uncharitable reading is, of course, irrelevant.  It might very well be.  But that doesn't mean anyone is bearing false witness. it means they disagree with you about how the wording is to be read. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, you are quick, as you will notice I added more to my post within seconds of posting.  Hopefully you take note of the edit.  

Your edit is noted. Thank you.

 

[The Nehor]

In the future we will have VR church and astronaut ice cream instead of bread in the sacrament as it tastes more like the actual body of Christ.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That you see it as an uncharitable reading is, of course, irrelevant.  It might very well be.  But that doesn't mean anyone is bearing false witness. it means they disagree with you about how the wording is to be read. 

Thanks stemelbow, I am glad you don't see me to have broken a commandment.  At least it wasn't my intent.  Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part, that it isn't doctrinal, or never was, but practice only.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That you see it as an uncharitable reading is, of course, irrelevant.  It might very well be.  But that doesn't mean anyone is bearing false witness. it means they disagree with you about how the wording is to be read. 

On the contrary, whether the reading is uncharitable is not irrelevant. It can make a crucial difference as to the accuracy of the interpretation that is being applied.

But as I've indicated, I made my position clear and I'm not interested in protracted quibbling over the matter.

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part, that it isn't doctrinal, or never was but practice only.

The doctrine is explicitly stated in Jacob 2.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks stemelbow, I am glad you don't see me to have broken a commandment.  At least it wasn't my intent.  Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part, that it isn't doctrinal, or never was, but practice only.

I daresay all of us break one or more commandments every day, intentionally or not.

[Tacenda]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I daresay all of us break one or more commandments every day, intentionally or not.

Thanks for reminding me.  I do need to watch my words, I type out things on this board and post very swiftly, I need to show some restraint.  Just glad someone gives me the time of day!  

[why me]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It is you and Scott who won't give him a break.  Why change his words, do you ever stop and think that it might be what he felt in his heart?

Here is the interview: from 11.10-14.50. He begins by talking about the polygamy that was practiced as the church headed west. And then he made mention of polygamy not being doctrinal when questioned about the polygamists in utah. I think that he misspoke. Unfortunately, critics seems to want to make a touchdown from it. They fumbled but still find believers. It is a great interview where he also takes questions from the viewers. It is not about changing his words. It is about understanding and context. By the way, is polygamy now doctrinal? Is your husband now being asked to take another wife? It is not doctrinal.

 

B

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by why me

[why me]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The doctrine is explicitly stated in Jacob 2.

Is it still doctrinal? Where is the church practicing polygamy?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, why me said:

Is it still doctrinal? Where is the church practicing polygamy?

I think the doctrinal point has already been defined: The Lord, at certain times and for His own purposes, has decreed the practice of plurality of wives for a limited period of time. That statement will always be true and is thus doctrinal.

Likewise, the passage cited by Bernard is doctrinal; that is, the Lord temporarily commands His people to practice plural marriage "to raise up seed." That is still true, though we today live under the default condition in which the practice of plural marriage has not been commanded. So yes, it is still doctrinal.

What is not doctrinal, according to President Hinckley, is polygamy as practiced today by apostate offshoot groups from Mormonism.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, why me said:

Here is the interview: from 11.10-14.50. He begins by talking about the polygamy that was practiced as the church headed west. And then he made mention of polygamy not being doctrinal when questioned about the polygamists in utah. I think that he misspoke. Unfortunately, critics seems to want to make a touchdown from it. They fumbled but still find believers. It is a great interview where he also takes questions from the viewers. It is not about changing his words. It is about understanding and context. By the way, is polygamy now doctrinal? Is your husband now being asked to take another wife? It is not doctrinal.

 

B

 

We've already linked to a trasncript of this interview.

I disagree that he misspoke. In the context of the discussion and the questions put to him, he did not misspeak. He clearly had reference to the polygamy that is being practiced today by apostate offshoot groups from Mormonism.

 

[why me]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is not doctrinal, according to President Hinckley, is polygamy as practiced today by apostate offshoot groups from Mormonism.

And that was my point. And it is this is what President Hinckley meant.

[california boy]

The church still practices polygamy today.  The only difference from the time of BY and now is that one of the wives has to be deceased.  When a man is sealed to more than one wife for eternity, that by definition is a plural marriage.  The only way the church could claim that such marriages are not polygamist marriages is if church doctrine states that at death, the marriage to the first wife is terminated.  Am I missing something here?

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

The church still practices polygamy today.  The only difference from the time of BY and now is that one of the wives has to be deceased.  When a man is sealed to more than one wife for eternity, that by definition is a plural marriage.  The only way the church could claim that such marriages are not polygamist marriages is if church doctrine states that at death, the marriage to the first wife is terminated.  Am I missing something here?

Yeah, but almost everyone else wouldn't call that polygamy.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It could also say far more about revelation and process of it in the Church.  It is not foolproof and we, compared to God, are nothing but fools.  That is it may mean if stupor of thought it wasn't God's doing, maybe He was trying to break through Himself and say, "Hey kids, there was never a need for the ban in the first place.  No need to ask me about this."  After all there's no indication that the ban was put into place because of revelation. 

Correct, except that Pres McKay had already determined that it was policy and not doctrine.  Ending the policy was difficult, because he had close associates who wanted a revelation, while he was ready to simply change policy immediately.  We all live in the real world, and he was hamstrung by the need for unanimity among the Twelve and First Presidency.  So we had to wait a few more years.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

I................................

.........................The doctrine of the church must be taught frequently and by many, otherwise it is no longer doctrinal. 

Is this the general rule now?  If it isn't constantly taught, then it goes away?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is this the general rule now?  If it isn't constantly taught, then it goes away?

No, but since doctrine is "teaching" it is hard to say something we are not actively teaching is doctrine. Whether it is true is another matter.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In my opinion, neither the Church nor the world was prepared. It happened just at the right time.

You may be too young to remember how things were only a few decades before 1978.  Racism and segregation were still quite common..  Equal rights in education, voting, and public access were still major issues.  By 1978 many of  those issues had become settled law, and I was no longer marching with the NAACP and Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).  The shift in opinion had affected Mormons just as it had most other Americans.  The entire nation was far less racist.  Maybe God was waiting for lower levels of racism before he allowed a change to take place, or for higher levels of righteousness among the "Saints."

[california boy]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but almost everyone else wouldn't call that polygamy.

I don't think it matters what everyone else would call polygamy.  Polygamy and marriage defined by God is still church doctrine.

[Sky]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

The church still practices polygamy today.  The only difference from the time of BY and now is that one of the wives has to be deceased.  When a man is sealed to more than one wife for eternity, that by definition is a plural marriage.  The only way the church could claim that such marriages are not polygamist marriages is if church doctrine states that at death, the marriage to the first wife is terminated.  Am I missing something here?

 

No, that is not correct.  The Church does not practice polygamy today.  The truth is that nothing has been revealed to the Church from the current prophet regarding the practice of polygamy in the afterlife.  It may be assumed or speculated about in some cases, but we do not know that to be the case for certain.  We can only say for certain that plural marriage was the doctrine of the Church at one point in time.  But it is not now.  We are told to avoid speculations and the spreading of spurious doctrines.  The current prophet has not said anything about this subject.   

Edited June 7, 2016 by Sky