JLHPROF Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: If polygamy is essential for the highest kingdom, then how do people born in the church during this time period where it isn't practiced get to that highest kingdom? Is there a way for people to get sealed in the next life or during the Millennium, and in your mind how does this square with the teaching about no marriage in the next life from the NT? I think we may be derailing the thread a little. Although we are talking about a big compromise in a way. But to answer your question: D&C 137:7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Brigham Young - ...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. President Lorenzo Snow- ...There is no Latter-day Saint who dies after having lived a faithful life who will lose anything because of having failed to do certain things when opportunities were not furnished him or her. In other words, if a young man or a young woman has no opportunity of getting married, and they live faithful lives up to the time of their death, they will have all the blessings, exaltation and glory that any man or woman will have who had this opportunity and improved it. That is sure and positive. [Millennial Star, vol. 61, 31 August 1899, p. 547] So yes, the millennium will fix many of our errors and missed opportunities. No marriage in the next life refers to post-final judgment (ie, "in the resurrection" they neither marry nor are given in marriage)
hope_for_things Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Do you mean from the SSM campaign pov (they are in the position the Church was then) or the attempt of the Church to be allowed to practice their religious freedom which was violently and viciously at times prevented? I was thinking since the church was practicing a form of marriage (not between one man and one woman) which mainstream society believed was abnormal and the church was making a constitutional argument that they should have the freedom to practice this non standard form of marriage. Today the church's position I see as essentially opposite to this old position, the church is arguing to restrict marriage to between one man and one woman. But interestingly they are trying to use the same constitutional argument to accomplish an opposite goal. The freedom of religion is being used to try and restrict others from marrying. It seems to be a bizarre reversal of positions. 1
hope_for_things Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I think we may be derailing the thread a little. Although we are talking about a big compromise in a way. But to answer your question: D&C 137:7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Brigham Young - ...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. President Lorenzo Snow- ...There is no Latter-day Saint who dies after having lived a faithful life who will lose anything because of having failed to do certain things when opportunities were not furnished him or her. In other words, if a young man or a young woman has no opportunity of getting married, and they live faithful lives up to the time of their death, they will have all the blessings, exaltation and glory that any man or woman will have who had this opportunity and improved it. That is sure and positive. [Millennial Star, vol. 61, 31 August 1899, p. 547] So yes, the millennium will fix many of our errors and missed opportunities. No marriage in the next life refers to post-final judgment (ie, "in the resurrection" they neither marry nor are given in marriage) Ok, so the Millennium will be the corrective measure, lots of polygamy happening along with the temple work. Sounds like that will be a busy time for sure! Thanks for indulging me.
hope_for_things Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 20 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Yes. If we are commanded by God to practice it. It is only held in abeyance for this life. No. However if God commands it then it is not a sin. It is not original to the Book of Mormon, PoGP, or the Bible. I like to see your source for where it is original to D&C. Yes history is very messy. Interesting that you also think polygamy will be required for the highest kingdom. I kind of expect that position to be a minority one. See this link, lots of good information on the history of section 101 in the 1835 D&C. It was removed in 1876. This is a pretty even handed article by FAIR, so I was pleased to see that when I just read it. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy
CV75 Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: The history is messy.... So are the politics of the legislative process in free nations! That is why we have constitutions, and some of them guarantee religious freedom! 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: This whole issue has so many parallels to the plural marriage position of the church a little over 100 yrs ago, its uncanny. I predict that the church will continue to moderate its stance on this issue, incrementally becoming less discriminatory and more in alignment with society. What do you see as the parallels that would point to the Church issuing an OD revealing [...what, exactly]? An OD isn't exactly a means of becoming "less discriminatory [how was polygamy debated in terms of protected class discrimination?] and more in alignment with society [what ordinance would the Church voluntarily cease performing?]."
JLHPROF Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I was thinking since the church was practicing a form of marriage (not between one man and one woman) which mainstream society believed was abnormal and the church was making a constitutional argument that they should have the freedom to practice this non standard form of marriage. Today the church's position I see as essentially opposite to this old position, the church is arguing to restrict marriage to between one man and one woman. But interestingly they are trying to use the same constitutional argument to accomplish an opposite goal. The freedom of religion is being used to try and restrict others from marrying. It seems to be a bizarre reversal of positions. I think it is. A little. But there is a difference between a different form of marriage and a redefinition of marriage from the original. Polygamy didn't change the meaning of marriage. SSM did. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. This should sound familiar to anyone who has had a temple wedding.
thesometimesaint Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Interesting that you also think polygamy will be required for the highest kingdom. I kind of expect that position to be a minority one. See this link, lots of good information on the history of section 101 in the 1835 D&C. It was removed in 1876. This is a pretty even handed article by FAIR, so I was pleased to see that when I just read it. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy I didn't say that. I said that if God commands it then it is required. On a personal level I have problems with polygamy, and am perfectly content with the one and only wife I have. If for some reason she were to die before me, I have no desire to marry again. However if God commands me to I'll obey, whether in this life or the next. Nice article, but I don't see where it supports your proposition.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4093249-155/compromise-not-division-is-the-way The Church seems far more about wanting religious freedom defined as right to discriminate, then it is about compromise (the Church continues to push losing political fights in other countries regarding SSM). Is it possible for the church to compromise (meaning give) if the Church claims to be run by God, teaching things that are eternally true, as it pertains to this issue? The church currently exists in a world with the majority of society rejecting it's so called standards and yet it survives. There is no reason that it won't continue to do so in a world that is tolerant of everyone...Mormons not withstanding edit to add:. It even survives with other adult cohabitation circumstances that it disagrees with such as non married cohabitation and polygamy. There is no reason to assume that it can't survive in a world at embraces SSM Edited July 8, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I was thinking since the church was practicing a form of marriage (not between one man and one woman) which mainstream society believed was abnormal and the church was making a constitutional argument that they should have the freedom to practice this non standard form of marriage. Today the church's position I see as essentially opposite to this old position, the church is arguing to restrict marriage to between one man and one woman. But interestingly they are trying to use the same constitutional argument to accomplish an opposite goal. The freedom of religion is being used to try and restrict others from marrying. It seems to be a bizarre reversal of positions. Except for the huge, massive, tremendous starting and ending point that the Church was asking the government to not interfere and establish laws to support plural marriage as a legal practice, but rather allow the Church religious freedom to continue to practice and teach what they believe without interference; it was not asking for the government or society for protection (the government being the one they need protection from), to get involved, but to step back...the opposite of what advocates for SSM have generally pursued. If one completely ignores the fundamental attribute that ran through the Church's experience of plural marriage, I suppose it is possible to come up with parallels. Otoh, if one addresses the core experience, the government stepping in and shutting down by force a religious practice and requiring a public disavowal of religious belief to be accepted in the greater society (they would not even seat a monogamous Mormon who had been freely elected by the state in the federal government, took four years of fighting for the right), there is a closer parallel to the desire to uphold religious freedom and prevent limits from being placed on it and thus there is no bizarre reversal of positions. 2
hope_for_things Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I think it is. A little. But there is a difference between a different form of marriage and a redefinition of marriage from the original. Polygamy didn't change the meaning of marriage. SSM did. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. This should sound familiar to anyone who has had a temple wedding. The church's argument today is for traditional marriage between one man and one woman. I think both polygamy and SSM are a redefinition of marriage when you consider the one man and one woman argument that is being promoted by the church today. 2
hope_for_things Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 30 minutes ago, Calm said: Except for the huge, massive, tremendous starting and ending point that the Church was asking the government to not interfere and establish laws to support plural marriage as a legal practice, but rather allow the Church religious freedom to continue to practice and teach what they believe without interference; it was not asking for the government or society for protection (the government being the one they need protection from), to get involved, but to step back...the opposite of what advocates for SSM have generally pursued. If one completely ignores the fundamental attribute that ran through the Church's experience of plural marriage, I suppose it is possible to come up with parallels. Otoh, if one addresses the core experience, the government stepping in and shutting down by force a religious practice and requiring a public disavowal of religious belief to be accepted in the greater society (they would not even seat a monogamous Mormon who had been freely elected by the state in the federal government, took four years of fighting for the right), there is a closer parallel to the desire to uphold religious freedom and prevent limits from being placed on it and thus there is no bizarre reversal of positions. I will agree with you that this definitely felt like an overreach for the Saints by the federal government. At the same time, the right of free practice of religion has never been an unlimited right, in that religions that want to practice animal sacrifice, or do a number of things that are against the laws of society, can't use the freedom of religion as an excuse for violating laws. Its interesting how the SSM ruling opens up the doors for a legal practice of polygamy again.
theplains Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: The Church can get things wrong or make a wrong change and still be God's Church. And he will correct those errors in his own due time (probably sooner than we think). Other than that, this is still God's Church and he will decide when he needs to set it back in order. Gospel Principles says, "We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray". They need to stop feeding us this line because the current light (if false) will be corrected by future light. This is the same methodology the Jehovah's Witnesses use to explain how some were led astray by past leaders. Thanks, Jim
ERMD Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Jesus compromised when those around him disagreed with His teachings. Oh, wait... 1
JLHPROF Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The church's argument today is for traditional marriage between one man and one woman. I think both polygamy and SSM are a redefinition of marriage when you consider the one man and one woman argument that is being promoted by the church today. Polygamy maintains the established purpose in scripture of marriage. SSM does not. Polygamy is a different form of marriage. SSM is a redefinition of marriage from the original.
CV75 Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I was thinking since the church was practicing a form of marriage (not between one man and one woman) which mainstream society believed was abnormal and the church was making a constitutional argument that they should have the freedom to practice this non standard form of marriage. Today the church's position I see as essentially opposite to this old position, the church is arguing to restrict marriage to between one man and one woman. But interestingly they are trying to use the same constitutional argument to accomplish an opposite goal. The freedom of religion is being used to try and restrict others from marrying. It seems to be a bizarre reversal of positions. Yes, the Church was defending its constitutional religious freedom; the US government was speaking in terms of prohibiting barbarism ("It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856.htm ), and not an “abnormality”—big difference. It is bizarre to represent them as the same. For the purposes of public debate, the Church isn’t calling ssm an “abnormality,” an abomination, a barbarism, or anything of the sort. It is bizarre to represent her as if she does, The Church still is defending religious freedom in principle. With regards to ssm, she speaks in terms of prohibiting its legal practice in jurisdictions where it is being debated, and not where it is already being practiced under law – another big difference. It is bizarre to represent them as the same. 2
JLHPROF Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 15 minutes ago, theplains said: Gospel Principles says, "We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray". They need to stop feeding us this line because the current light (if false) will be corrected by future light. This is the same methodology the Jehovah's Witnesses use to explain how some were led astray by past leaders. Brigham Young - It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still. 1
Mystery Meat Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The church's argument today is for traditional marriage between one man and one woman. I think both polygamy and SSM are a redefinition of marriage when you consider the one man and one woman argument that is being promoted by the church today. Polygamy doesn't change that. Brigham Young had multiple marriages - each of them between one man and one woman - not one marriage between one man and multiple women. There is a big difference. Marriage has always been and always will be one man and one woman. 2
Jeanne Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said: Polygamy doesn't change that. Brigham Young had multiple marriages - each of them between one man and one woman - not one marriage between one man and multiple women. There is a big difference. Marriage has always been and always will be one man and one woman. You might want to talk to their wives about that...after you know...you die. 1
gopher Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Its interesting how the SSM ruling opens up the doors for a legal practice of polygamy again. I think it's just a matter of time before polygamy is legal in the US. It'll be interesting to see how the LDS church responds. I wonder if LDS members will become part of the new LGBTP community. 1
JLHPROF Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, Jeanne said: You might want to talk to their wives about that...after you know...you die. The marriage ceremony recorded for plural marriages still pronounce "husband and wife" not "husband and wives". As Mystery Meat said "a marriage between one man and one woman - not one marriage between one man and multiple women" Each marriage was separate. Or at least, was supposed to be.
Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Another way of looking at it...plural wives divorced their husband, not the other wives of their husband. Not saying there was no relationship between sister wives, just not a marriage or sealing relationship. 2
bluebell Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 hour ago, gopher said: I think it's just a matter of time before polygamy is legal in the US. It'll be interesting to see how the LDS church responds. I wonder if LDS members will become part of the new LGBTP community. It's legal in other countries where the church is right now and it hasn't impacted the church's teachings on polygamy yet. 2
gopher Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's legal in other countries where the church is right now and it hasn't impacted the church's teachings on polygamy yet. True, the church's teachings may not change if/when polygamy becomes legal in the US. But I wonder how many believing members will then embrace it the way some have embraced SSM. It seems they would have a more legitimate argument to make to the church leadership to change policy than the SSM proponents. Of course, I will think they are nuts, but I can imagine it happening.
3DOP Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 The key? To what? Eternal life? Spiritual death? Getting along? Truth? Is this key universally desirable? 2
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 4 hours ago, gopher said: True, the church's teachings may not change if/when polygamy becomes legal in the US. But I wonder how many believing members will then embrace it the way some have embraced SSM. It seems they would have a more legitimate argument to make to the church leadership to change policy than the SSM proponents. Of course, I will think they are nuts, but I can imagine it happening. Hmmm...in my experience those who are most vocal in a positive way about SSM are also most vocal about plural marriage being a bad thing for the Church, not a revelation, etc. (not that nonSSM supporters have only good things to say about plural arriage, not even close). If it does become legal and even included in civil marriage and along with polyamory becomes socially acceptable (with all genders being able to participate in polygamy and ppolyamory, it has a good chance of occurring at a higher rate than SSM), it would be interesting to see how attitudes change in this group with extended exposure to it. If more positive, will that assessment be applied to early church marriage or will there be reasoning found to continue to label that nonrevelatory, etc.
Recommended Posts