Future of the church

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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."

I'm going on 70.... There was a major shift from the attitudes of my parent's and grandparent's toward race and we who grew up in the 50s and 60s. By 1978, the Church was prepared to make the change, and from what I observed, it was pretty much seamless and did not cause division. Had it happened earlier, I believe it could have created rifts in the Church. Mrs Gui and I were driving on the freeway just outside Liberty, Missouri, when we heard the breaking news. We shed tears of joy, and immediately thought of our mixed-marriage friends back in Illinois who could now fulfill their long-anticipated dream to be sealed in the temple. I believe the change happened at exactly the right time.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, why me said:

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

The passage in Jacob 2 contains the words of God in the first person. I don't think it can get any more doctrinal than this.

Quote

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.

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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?

Yes. The obvious fact that a man cannot be sealed to more than one living wife except he is commanded by God. There is a huge difference. One is kosher and the other is not. Jacob 2 and D&C 132 are still in the canon.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. The obvious fact that a man cannot be sealed to more than one living wife except he is commanded by God. There is a huge difference. One is kosher and the other is not. Jacob 2 and D&C 132 are still in the canon.

But in the church's eyes and in God's eyes, he is practicing polygamy, if polygamy is defined as being married to more than one woman.  right??

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

But in the church's eyes and in God's eyes, he is practicing polygamy, if polygamy is defined as being married to more than one woman.  right??

Of course, in the light of D&C 132. But this should not be conflated with the usual notion that is perpetuated in the general culture, for example, Fundamentalists, the Larry King interview, sensationalistic pop culture tv shows, and my son Pasticcio's non-LDS parents-in-law who disowned their daughter when they were sealed in the temple because they believed he would later marry other women. They're ok now. The statement, "Mormons still practice polygamy" requires explanation.

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

But in the church's eyes and in God's eyes, he is practicing polygamy, if polygamy is defined as being married to more than one woman.  right??

Just because widows and widowers worldwide remarry does not mean that they are practicing polygamy or polyandry.  As in Islamic countries, polygamy is really only practiced by those who marry multiple living wives.  In the USA, that is the only form of polygamy that the state is concerned with.

For those who do not believe in the Mormon God, why would it seem like "polygamy" to them?  They couldn't care less.  It is only of interest to the anti-Mormon crowd.  There will come a time in the near future when polygamy (and other non-traditional marriages) will be legal, and the LDS Church will not be practicing it.  That is the distinction worth noticing.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just because widows and widowers worldwide remarry does not mean that they are practicing polygamy or polyandry.  As in Islamic countries, polygamy is really only practiced by those who marry multiple living wives.  In the USA, that is the only form of polygamy that the state is concerned with.

For those who do not believe in the Mormon God, why would it seem like "polygamy" to them?  They couldn't care less.  It is only of interest to the anti-Mormon crowd.  There will come a time in the near future when polygamy (and other non-traditional marriages) will be legal, and the LDS Church will not be practicing it.  That is the distinction worth noticing.

I specifically made a distinction between what a Mormon believes and what a nonMormon believes.  I am surprised you didn't understand that.

Given that understanding, does that mean you don't think that in the eyes of the church and the eyes of God, they are not really married to more than one wife?

 

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Sky said:

 

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.   

Wait a second, so if a man has been sealed to two women, one having passed, it is not taught that he would remain sealed to both women into eternity, provided all involved keep their covenants and all that?  

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

According to Elder Anderson, yes:

 

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

 

[HappyJackWagon]

The church has a HUGE problem.

When the average member (and even prophets) can't agree if something like polygamy is doctrinal or not, they may want to take a clear look in the mirror and challenge the clarity of their message. There is so much confusion (largely because the church has changed dramatically on many of these issues) that members can cite prophets to make their point, whatever that point may be. The church is in a massive state of confusion.

The church absolutely teaches polygamy as an eternal doctrine. It gets confused because current policy overrides eternal doctrine.

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm going on 70.... There was a major shift from the attitudes of my parent's and grandparent's toward race and we who grew up in the 50s and 60s. By 1978, the Church was prepared to make the change, and from what I observed, it was pretty much seamless and did not cause division. Had it happened earlier, I believe it could have created rifts in the Church. Mrs Gui and I were driving on the freeway just outside Liberty, Missouri, when we heard the breaking news. We shed tears of joy, and immediately thought of our mixed-marriage friends back in Illinois who could now fulfill their long-anticipated dream to be sealed in the temple. I believe the change happened at exactly the right time.

Wouldn't be much more awesome if the Church took more of a lead on this stuff?  I mean your friends in Illinois might have ever had to worry about the Church's dogma against inter-racial marriages at all, if the Church was the leader on civil rights.  It's too bad it had to lag so far behind, in that sense. 

What would have been really cool is if back in JS's day and BY's day this stuff was resolved, there was no priesthood ban and no need to be so heavily influenced by the evils and prejudices of their day. 

Wishful thinking becomes easy, though, when you just assume it was the best time.  It could have happened in the 40s and been the best time.  We simply wouldn't know.  But, more confidently I'd say the best would have been if there wasn't such a strong influence to support racism in the Church. 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church has a HUGE problem.

When the average member (and even prophets) can't agree if something like polygamy is doctrinal or not, they may want to take a clear look in the mirror and challenge the clarity of their message. There is so much confusion (largely because the church has changed dramatically on many of these issues) that members can cite prophets to make their point, whatever that point may be. The church is in a massive state of confusion.

The church absolutely teaches polygamy as an eternal doctrine. It gets confused because current policy overrides eternal doctrine.

Disagreeing about whether polygamy is a doctrine, or policy, or uninspired doesn't seem like a huge problem to me at all.  I don't think the Church needs to add to the dogma on this. 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Disagreeing about whether polygamy is a doctrine, or policy, or uninspired doesn't seem like a huge problem to me at all.  I don't think the Church needs to add to the dogma on this. 

I agree with you. I'm just trying to point out the failure of message and polygamy is just one example. Is it any question why the world "misunderstands" Mormonism when Mormons can't agree on what it means either?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with you. I'm just trying to point out the failure of message and polygamy is just one example. Is it any question why the world "misunderstands" Mormonism when Mormons can't agree on what it means either?

Alright.  Excellent point.  I tend to think that's why we're better off breaking down barriers, leaving things far more open and less aligning people based on preference in dogma.  Of course, that really seems to frustrate people who are very proud of the Church and themselves. 

[Sky]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Wait a second, so if a man has been sealed to two women, one having passed, it is not taught that he would remain sealed to both women into eternity, provided all involved keep their covenants and all that?  

Dallin H. Oaks, supposedly a "celestial polygamist" according to certain critics of the Church, made this statement when interviewed by Helen Whitney:   

 

Quote

HW: There still is some confusion that polygamy is definitively and unequivocally disallowed in this world. What will happen in the next? There is a perception that polygamy is part of the afterlife. Could you talk a little about that?

DHO: If I talked about that I’d be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn’t say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they’ve ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I don’t think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they don’t believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they don’t make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] they’re right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, “What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?” I have to say I don’t know. But I know that I’ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that’s anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don’t know. 

If Dallin H. Oaks and Thomas S. Monson (and the rest of the top 15) don't make doctrinal statements and assumptions about polygamy in the afterlife, then we probably shouldn't either!  

So, I'm with Elder Oaks in saying that this is something I don't know!  I know it's not generally natural for Mormons to say that we don't know...but this is a time when it's appropriate.   

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary

Edited June 7, 2016 by Sky

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Sky said:

If Dallin H. Oaks and Thomas S. Monson (and the rest of the top 15) don't make doctrinal statements and assumptions about polygamy in the afterlife, then we probably shouldn't either!  

I make no assumptions about NEW polygamy in the afterlife, given that there are no new marriages after the resurrection according to Christ.

But if we believe according to scripture:
1. Marriage is eternal and sealings matter
2. At certain times on the earth God has commanded his servants to live polygamy
3. Those in the top degree of the Celestial are those who were married/sealed by correct priesthood authority

THEN there is not a way under those three beliefs to logically say there won't be polygamous relationships in the Celestial Kingdom, at least for some people.  Polygamy will therefore be part of eternity and will never be completely gone, whether a single new polygamous marriage occurs from this day forward or not doesn't matter.  The past ones are eternal.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Alright.  Excellent point.  I tend to think that's why we're better off breaking down barriers, leaving things far more open and less aligning people based on preference in dogma.  Of course, that really seems to frustrate people who are very proud of the Church and themselves. 

I agree that it would be great to avoid the dogma.

But that's not what the church is doing. It simply has competing, contradictory dogma.

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Sky said:

Dallin H. Oaks, supposedly a "celestial polygamist" according to certain critics of the Church, made this statement when interviewed by Helen Whitney:   

 

If Dallin H. Oaks and Thomas S. Monson (and the rest of the top 15) don't make doctrinal statements and assumptions about polygamy in the afterlife, then we probably shouldn't either!  

So, I'm with Elder Oaks in saying that this is something I don't know!  I know it's not generally natural for Mormons to say that we don't know...but this is a time when it's appropriate.   

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary

Thanks.  I much prefer this approach then the assumption that they will be polygamists in eternity.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  I much prefer this approach then the assumption that they will be polygamists in eternity.

I find the statement that he just doesn't know, to be disingenuous.

It has been clearly taught in the past. I think he's being coy because he's being interviewed. You know, pearls before swine and all that.

And for someone who claims not to know how his marriage will work in eternity, he sure seems comfortable being part of a vocal church leadership which claims SSM could NEVER POSSIBLY exist in the next life, as if they know something about how these relationships will transcend the next life.

Do they claim to know or don't they? This kind of inconsistent double speak really irritates me.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find the statement that he just doesn't know, to be disingenuous.

It has been clearly taught in the past. I think he's being coy because he's being interviewed. You know, pearls before swine and all that.

And for someone who claims not to know how his marriage will work in eternity, he sure seems comfortable being part of a vocal church leadership which claims SSM could NEVER POSSIBLY exist in the next life, as if they know something about how these relationships will transcend the next life.

Do they claim to know or don't they? This kind of inconsistent double speak really irritates me.

Agreed.
We may not know everything about marriage in eternity, but if we believe in eternal marriage and the efficacy of sealings authorized by God, then Elder Oaks was just playing the tap dancing game.
I guarantee you he fully expects to be with both his wives for eternity.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I specifically made a distinction between what a Mormon believes and what a nonMormon believes.  I am surprised you didn't understand that.

Given that understanding, does that mean you don't think that in the eyes of the church and the eyes of God, they are not really married to more than one wife?

I am surprised that you didn't understand that I understand all those distinctions very well, and fully explained them.  Of course you didn't understand it only because that is inconvenient to the false point you were making.  Polygyny is a living lifestyle choice.  Polygyny with dead people hasn't the immediacy which you imagine.  Especially since you don't believe in it anyhow.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find the statement that he just doesn't know, to be disingenuous.

It has been clearly taught in the past. I think he's being coy because he's being interviewed. You know, pearls before swine and all that.

And for someone who claims not to know how his marriage will work in eternity, he sure seems comfortable being part of a vocal church leadership which claims SSM could NEVER POSSIBLY exist in the next life, as if they know something about how these relationships will transcend the next life.

Do they claim to know or don't they? This kind of inconsistent double speak really irritates me.

I'd say that he knows about SSM to be far more disingenuous.  I don't know how he would know, in fact.  I guess he could claim knowledge by traveling there, or having a vision, but that hasn't been claimed. When he says he doesn't know about polygamy in eternity, that feels genuine to me. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed.
We may not know everything about marriage in eternity, but if we believe in eternal marriage and the efficacy of sealings authorized by God, then Elder Oaks was just playing the tap dancing game.
I guarantee you he fully expects to be with both his wives for eternity.

He can fully expect and still not know.  The efficacy of sealings in polygamous unions could possibly be not authorized by God, as it is.  So he's wise to admit he doesn't know.  As per SSM, he should just admit he doesn't know. 

[Guest]

This is addressed to the OP; "The future of the Church".

The Church will continue until the second coming of Christ. There will be new converts, and those who leave for a number of reasons. Some will leave because their eyes were not set upon the perfect Christ, but instead upon the flaws of leaders past and present. They will forget that Christ said,"What manner of me out ye to be, even as I and your Father in Heaacen" (Too paraphrase). Instead they think they should be like the prophet and realize that he is flawed just like other men, past and present.

Members will fall away because their seeds of faith were cast where thrones and weeds (the cares of this world) grow up and choke them.

Other seeds fall upon stone or little fertile soil and be washed away by the driving rain falling upon them, or dry up in the hot sun.

Some people will fall in love with the idea of the restored Church, and fall out of love when the romance is gone.

Some will fall upon very fertile ground and grow mighty, able to withstand anything...these are the elect of God. But they are not the elect just because only some can be, but the elect because they chose to be, and when their faith is tested they study it out in their hearts and minds and "wait upon the Lord". Then by doing so they grow stronger, so that when Christ comes "they will see him and be like him". 

We do know that there is a straight and narrow path that leads unto him and that there will be few that find it. As my Bishop said Sunday, the Gospel will go on, with or without us...so we must choose which. It is or choice, God will force no man into heaven, he will not force us to love hm, he will not rob us,of our free will no matter what. But the Spirit will entice us, and pled calling upon our better angels to choose the right. So as Christ said, "Let those who have eyes see, and those who have ears hear". (Again too paraphrase) 

[Gray]

In the future, missionaries will leave Energon pods at people's doorsteps. When picked up the pods will released vaporized testimonies that, when inhaled, will create new converts. 

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Gray