Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[Sky]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The polygamy controversy will actually end up being one of those critical issues that will separate the true believers -- those who have real testimonies by the power of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of the living God -- from those quasi-believers who will abandon the good ship Zion when the going gets really tough. The prophecy of Heber C Kimball is in the process of being fulfilled that there will be a great division in the Church between those who have true testimonies, and those who don't, before the Secomd Coming of the Savior.

Before that day comes, however, the Saints will be put to a test that will try the integrity of the best of them. The pressure will become so great that the more righteous among them will cry unto the Lord day and night until deliverance comes.

Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills, where we can close the doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery, but I want to say to you, my brethren, that the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God.

Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great shifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming. (Heber C Kimball).

The "true believers" being the ones that support the practice, and the "quasi-believers" being the ones that reject it?  So the test of a true saint is contingent on our acceptance of polygamy?  If so, mighty strange for a church that currently excommunicates people for practicing polygamy!  Unless your position is that it is coming back during the millennium - which seems dubious at best.  

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The polygamy controversy will actually end up being one of those critical issues that will separate the true believers -- those who have real testimonies by the power of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of the living God -- from those quasi-believers who will abandon the good ship Zion when the going gets really tough. The prophecy of Heber C Kimball is in the process of being fulfilled that there will be a great division in the Church between those who have true testimonies, and those who don't, before the Secomd Coming of the Savior.

Before that day comes, however, the Saints will be put to a test that will try the integrity of the best of them. The pressure will become so great that the more righteous among them will cry unto the Lord day and night until deliverance comes.

Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills, where we can close the doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery, but I want to say to you, my brethren, that the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God.

Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great shifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming. (Heber C Kimball).

Maybe it's the other way around. If you reject polygamy you've passed the test. 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's very weird.

Let's see if this makes sense.

She left the church because the church teaches that plural marriage will exist in eternity?  

• What if the principle of plural marriage in eternity is a true principle, ordained by God?  In that case, I guess she's rebelling against God.  And leaving the Church will ensure that she doesn't end up in a plural marriage.  And incidentally it ensures she ends up in the Terrestrial Kingdom.  Does she really want that?  If she does, then fine.
• If God didn't give the revelation, this means that the Church isn't true, so there's no point in leaving the Church because there will be no plural marriage in eternity, and therefore nothing to fear on this point.

It doesn't make any sense, at least to me.  If God has ordained the principle as an eternal principle, does it not make sense to people (who should be able to at least imagine the possibility that they can't see eternity yet), that God has not created plural marriage to make women's lives miserable in eternity?  Why is it that LDS people, who of all people should understand that "heaven" is infinitely better and far more powerful than our earth life, cannot understand that Eternal Life is entirely beyond their present understanding? The Endowment contains all kinds of superlative language that should say to people that Eternal Life is NOTHING like the life we live here.  And that we cannot possibly understand what it will be like, that trying to compare it with this life is unendingly foolish, and to make judgement calls on what they will really see in that day is completely nuts?  

If one says: "God has said there will be plural marriage in eternity -- well, I reject that."  Does this not clearly mean that one rejects God?  That strikes me as entirely foolish.

 

All I know is that she found the idea highly disturbing and painful to consider. I don't know if she concluded from that that the church is "false", or if she thought it was "true" but just didn't like the doctrines. I suspect the former. 

She was never endowed, though. I think she was introduced to the idea in seminary. 

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It is near the top for why people leave the church, probably for many reasons. I never really thought about it until I learned of JS's style of polygamy. It wasn't an issue, I don't know why that is. I must not have been taught much about it, thus my faith crisis over learning about Joseph. 

Then why aren't you an atheist? I don't mean to be disrespectful but every religion on earth has had some form of polygamy. Ours just applies to the next life.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Then why aren't you an atheist? I don't mean to be disrespectful but every religion on earth has had some form of polygamy. Ours just applies to the next life.

Because I believe something or somebody started this world, I also believe a few NDE's, I believe my niece who is a Medium, I look at the human and animal and insect and plant life, and can't believe it happened because of something colliding, it may have collided, but something had to be behind that too.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The polygamy controversy will actually end up being one of those critical issues that will separate the true believers -- those who have real testimonies by the power of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of the living God -- from those quasi-believers who will abandon the good ship Zion when the going gets really tough. The prophecy of Heber C Kimball is in the process of being fulfilled that there will be a great division in the Church between those who have true testimonies, and those who don't, before the Secomd Coming of the Savior.

Before that day comes, however, the Saints will be put to a test that will try the integrity of the best of them. The pressure will become so great that the more righteous among them will cry unto the Lord day and night until deliverance comes.

Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills, where we can close the doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery, but I want to say to you, my brethren, that the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God.

Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great shifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming. (Heber C Kimball).

Sorry, but I'm pretty certain that this "test" is not that we have to accept and live polygamy.

I'm one that feels it was a mistake and a man inspired practice.  Prophets are not infallible and I believe this is where a mistake was made.  The consequences are still being felt and have been devastating for the church.

.

Edited July 21, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe it's the other way around. If you reject polygamy you've passed the test.

The ONLY correct answer is "whatever God requires in this life or the next I will do."

All else is rebellion against God, and we know how well that turns out.

So if God requires polygamy you'd better be prepared to live it.  If God doesn't require polygamy you have nothing to worry about unless you are foolish and attempt to live it without his requirement.  (And given how many polygamists God had as his chosen servants, I don't see much evidence for his disapproval.)

Edited July 21, 2016 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Because I believe something or somebody started this world, I also believe a few NDE's, I believe my niece who is a Medium, I look at the human and animal and insect and plant life, and can't believe it happened because of something colliding, it may have collided, but something had to be behind that too.

Not sure how that is relevant. This discussion is about Polygamy in the Church, not NDE's, Cosmology, Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The ONLY correct answer is "whatever God requires in this life or the next I will do."

All else is rebellion against God, and we know how well that turns out.

So if God requires polygamy you'd better be prepared to live it.  And if God doesn't require polygamy you have nothing to worry about unless you are foolish and attempt to live it without his requirement.

Agreed.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

interesting. My first concern was similar to Calm's.....how'd they get the participants and numbers. Snow-ball research can have a problem for filtering out issues. And the number of 85% with "extreme" pain while 15% being ok also seems to be too extreme in descriptors. 

From the comments section in the RNS article:

Quote

Carol Lynn states that more than 8,000 people responded to her questionnaire. I was one of the people who did. I found out about it on Facebook and took it online. It posed a bunch of questions on a graded scale about how one felt on various things related to the concept/practice/doctrine of plural marriage and then at the end one could write any thoughts. Of course, the type of person who would have known about the questionnaire and responded would probably lean towards a certain type of crowd.

And from Sis. Pearson's FB page:

Quote

SENDING DEEP THANKS TO THE MORE THAN 8000 PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE SURVEY MAKING POSSIBLE MY NEW BOOK: THE GHOST OF ETERNAL POLYGAMY. Just over two years ago I sent out a survey through social media, asking Mormons and former Mormons—men, women, conservative, liberal, active, inactive--to express their opinions on the LDS teaching about eternal polygamy and the inequality in the sealing practices. On day one, more than 2400 people completed the survey. Four weeks later, the number was more than 8000.

...

Your stories were sacred to me. I spent a summer reading through more than 2500, categorizing them, choosing many for my book. This week I am going to share just a few of those stories, showing the terrible pain that continues to be inflicted on thousands in our community.

So, yeah.  An online poll.  Participants were self-selected.  No controls.  Self-selection bias.  Big time.  And yet Sis. Pearson is treating the results of this poll as substantive and meaningful.

Meanwhile, however, there seems to be some pushback to the narrative Sis. Pearson is presenting, as evidenced from the comments on her FB post about the poll:

• You know what.... THIS is nothing to waste your emotional energy on in the life time. Know that God loves you and knows you, He is just, He is good, and He is fair. These things will all work out in the end, because THAT is the God I believe in. So relax! Live your life to its fullest. Be a good person, do your best and God will take care of the rest. "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy path."
• I struggled with this doctrine but at the same time had a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the Restoration. I couldn't equate those two facts with Joseph being a "fallen prophet". So, as we should do whenever we question a troubling point of doctrine, I took it to the Lord. It took some faith and fasting and prayer, but I received the spiritual witness that despite my "mortal lenses" that this doctrine is a true one and it is anything but demeaning and derogatory to women. Quite the contrary. I will take flack for saying so, but it doesn't matter because I know what I now know.  I had a profound experience in the temple that laid out this doctrine before me and helped me to understand. God's ways are not our ways, and for some doctrines to make any sense, you MUST take away the mortal/temporal way of viewing things. I cannot explain in words the understanding I now have, but I will express just a couple of thoughts that will hopefully get people out of their myopic view of this subject...
• Polygamy doesn't seem like punishment to me. You are not forced to live any of God's laws. You can choose to or not. I know for myself that I will choose polygamy because nothing will be taken away from me! I will only be added upon in the next life! I can't imagine the joy I will feel as many daughters of our Heavenly Father will be sealed to my husband so they can receive their exaltation!

And lest I be accused (again) of "mansplaining" anything, the above quotes are from women.

BTW, usage of such a derogatory and inherently sexist term - derogatory against men and to our faces -  comes across as something along the lines of "Shut up.  You are a man, and therefore are not allowed to have a voice in this discussion.  Contributions to this topic only have value if they come from women."  Ironic, no?

Here are a few thoughts and observations on the term:

Use of the term “Mansplaining” is pejorative, and you should be ashamed for using it 

Quote

The term “mansplaining” is however, pejorative; an expression designed to cast aspersion on one group of people based solely on an inborn inherited trait.  The term “mansplaining” should never be used unless one wishes to belittle and denigrate all men.  

Clearly, a term that insult all the members of one gender has no part in a struggle for gender equality.  

...

{A}nyone who believes that “mansplaining” accurately reflects some truism about how the different sexes behave is only perpetuating a stereotyped misunderstanding of the sexes.  Such beliefs and views undermine the idea of a baseline equality of all people, regardless of gender.

The term “mansplai{ni}ng” carries a nice combination of mocking scorn, disgust, and shame, and seems perfectly suited for taunting political attacks.  It is also insulting to half the human population.  It is a good way to let your readers know your low opinion of conservative gender politics, and also reveals your low opinion of men in general. 

Allow me to explain why we don't need words like 'mansplain'

Quote

{B}ad behaviour is not exclusive to the male half of the species. I’m guilty of using at least a few of these terms. I’ve had the odd fracas with tortoise-paced members of the public during a frenzied morning commute. Not because of their gender, but because in the awful time-sparse world of a city dweller they were – and I’m not proud of this – collateral damage. On the tube, I find it comfortable to sit with one leg crossed over the other, despite the fact that it sometimes means accidentally kicking standing passengers. I have patronisingly explained the obvious to intelligent people on more occasions than I care to recount and, sometimes, on intercity trains, I leave my coat on the seat next to me so people think I have a friend in the toilet.

Entitlement is still a problem. However, before we go smooshing any more man-words together, it might be worth remembering that a prat is a prat, whatever their gender.

Why You’ll Never Hear Me Use the Term “Mansplain” (some language):

Quote

I hate the word “mansplain.” I’ve never liked it; I didn’t like it even when it was gaily burning through feminist conversations like a cleansing fire lighting up all the annoying crap guys say and do when they feel threatened by feminism, or by feminists. A guy has injected himself into your conversation to tell you why you’re all being unreasonable? MANSPLAINER! It was funny, and empowering, a self-aware scarlet M applied to anyone who failed to choose his words with care.

...

The anger that spawned the word is legitimate. I'm angry too. I get it. But I’ve never used it -- I am pretty sure this post is the first time I’ve ever done so -- because humor aside, I have a bunch of problems with it.

For one, it’s mad essentialist, and by this I mean it assumes a certain universal set of truths shared by all men. Men mansplain, because they are men, and this is an attribute of a masculine gender. Except there are lots of men who don’t mansplain, and who would rightly be a little irritated by the assumption that something in their chromosomes or genitalia or gender identity somehow operates to make them all susceptible to a particular shared behavior.

...

More than that, "mansplaining" is kind of lazy and dismissive. Folks, there are few things as deeply satisfying as deconstructing a dude’s ****** argument point by point. Even if you do happen to be married to him. Throwing down the mansplaination gauntlet to end a pointless fight may well turn the tables on a rude jerk’s efforts to dismiss your points, and it may even offer gratification (and certainly self-protection) of a sort. But it also impresses upon that dude that he has no business in discussing or stopping sexism. Which is not a great outcome.

...

Finally, it assumes that men are bad. Like, inherently bad. While I’ll cop to the notion that many aspects of masculine gender socialization utterly suck, I try really hard not to survey all the men in my life with wariness and suspicion.

...

More than that, whenever we call a dude a mansplainer, we're knee-jerkily assuming that he is unable to understand anything we're talking about. Which is both a depressing and terribly hopeless way of seeing things. Men are entirely capable of getting sexism and recognizing these issues, but the constant use of mansplaining makes it sound like they're not. It sends expectations through the floor, when really we ought to be expecting guys to step up in these conversations, and learn something.

Arguments should not be silenced because of their author’s race or sex 

Quote

Joshua, a black law graduate interested in anti-discrimination, also had his opinion challenged based on his identity. In a Facebook discussion about the definition of “racism,” he was accused of “mansplaining” – even though the issue centred on race, not gender – and of displaying “white privilege” – by a commenter unaware that Joshua is not white. In so doing, Joshua’s opponents emphasized his identity (both real and perceived), rather than his arguments, in the debate that followed.

...

The use of terms such as “mansplaining” (and its racial counterpart, “whitesplaining”) can cause disengagement. These labels are sometimes used to dismiss arguments when men and white people simply disagree. But if a man or white person makes a poor argument, why not just refute it? Without such engagement, these terms become unconstructive ad hominem attacks that sidestep meaningful debate when an opponent conveniently possesses privilege.

Terms like “mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” provide easily-digestible labels for complex ideas, which can then be used to point out subject positions and inform discussion. However, silencing someone solely because of their privilege stifles dialogue and stereotypes them – an ironic consequence for social-justice movements that are committed to opposing the stereotypes that continue to plague marginalized communities.

I wish we could jettison the Gender Wars from the Restored Gospel, or at least the tactics and rhetoric of those wars, which have aptly been described as "{having} almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes."  It's just not a good fit.  We are supposed to be seeking unity.  "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."  On this board we are trying to discuss and sort out complex and challenging issues facing the Saints.  I think we all have voices that can and should be expressed without being slurred because a voice happens to be male (or female, for that matter).

So for all you women who read my remarks and evaluate them on their merits rather than on my gender, I really appreciate that.  I try hard to do the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe it's the other way around. If you reject polygamy you've passed the test. 

Personally, I don't think we have to take this test.  I don;t ever see the requirement for this by God. 

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This keeps popping up in other threads.  Nice to have one dedicated to it.

I don't know what people would like the Church to do about it.  President Monson could get up and say there will be no eternal polygamy and that would do nothing to negate all the plural sealings performed in the past 150+ years nor the scripture on which they are based.
Also, if said without revelation on the subject it would be little more than his opinion.

So what is the Church supposed to do?  Lie to make people feel better?

The Church could decanonize D&C 132.  That would be my preference, and would change the theological debate completely.  

Short of decanonization, I think the church could realistically just allow the free market to work with respect to sealings.  Allow women or men to be sealed to new spouses without any restrictions on previous sealings.  Also allow for a cancelation of sealings to be at the discretion of the members.  No restrictions, make it just like doing baptisms for the dead, anyone can perform a baptism for any family member they want, even those who've already had them performed.  Whether an ordinance happens or not should not be regulated strictly by the central church.  Let members perform these at their discretion.  You can always use the "it will all be sorted out in the millennium" excuse for those having heartburn about mistakes.  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Church could decanonize D&C 132.  That would be my preference, and would change the theological debate completely.  

And the reason for "decanonization" would be . . . what?  That some people dislike it?  Regardless of what God has to say about the matter?  No revelation is to be sought?  No divine guidance given?  We just toss it based on the preferences of some members of the Church?  Don't you think there are some real risks with such an approach to scripture?  As in . . . that is likely how parts of the Bible came to be tossed out or corrupted in centuries past?  Do we really want to start doing the same to the D&C?

On the other hand, if you think D&C 132 should be decanonized because you reject it as revelation, then please explain the basis for that argument.  If you reject it as revelation because you don't like it, then just say so.  But if you have some sort of argument against D&C 132 based on evidence, analysis, reason, stuff like that, then I would like to see it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 21, 2016 by smac97

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The polygamy controversy will actually end up being one of those critical issues that will separate the true believers -- those who have real testimonies by the power of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of the living God -- from those quasi-believers who will abandon the good ship Zion when the going gets really tough. The prophecy of Heber C Kimball is in the process of being fulfilled that there will be a great division in the Church between those who have true testimonies, and those who don't, before the Secomd Coming of the Savior.

Before that day comes, however, the Saints will be put to a test that will try the integrity of the best of them. The pressure will become so great that the more righteous among them will cry unto the Lord day and night until deliverance comes.

Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills, where we can close the doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery, but I want to say to you, my brethren, that the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God.

Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great shifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming. (Heber C Kimball).

If polygamy is THE test for sifting, I wonder why current and recent Prophets haven't spoken of this and taught this?  It would be very important for members to be aware of, if it truly was the test.

Edited July 21, 2016 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the reason for "decanonization" would be . . . what?  That some people dislike it?  Regardless of what God has to say about the matter?  No revelation is to be sought?  No divine guidance given?  We just toss it based on the preferences of some members of the Church?  Don't you think there are some real risks with such an approach to scripture?  As in . . . that is likely how parts of the Bible came to be tossed out or corrupted in centuries past?  Do we really want to start doing the same to the D&C?

On the other hand, if you think D&C 132 should be decanonized because you reject it as revelation, then please explain the basis for that argument.  If you reject it as revelation because you don't like it, then just say so.  But if you have some sort of argument against D&C 132 based on evidence, analysis, reason, stuff like that, then I would like to see it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think this is wrong...what if you are wrong...what if JS used the revelation to okay his relationships with these women. This statement may get me in trouble, but if it's true, there are greater repercussions for those that didn't follow the right plan.

[Tacenda]

50 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not sure how that is relevant. This discussion is about Polygamy in the Church, not NDE's, Cosmology, Abiogenesis, or Evolution.

You asked the question...

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think this is wrong...what if you are wrong...what if JS used the revelation to okay his relationships with these women.

I don't understand.  Are you conceding that D&C 132 is a "revelation?"  That it came from God?  Or are you proposing that it was not a revelation, and instead was fabricated by Joseph Smith to - as you put it - "okay his relationships with these women?"

If the latter, then what is the basis for that speculation?  What evidence/argument do you have that D&C 132 is not revelatory?

We can pose "what ifs" all the day long.  This particular "what if" is loaded with all sorts of assumptions that would need to be unpacked and analyzed before we even get to the actual hypothetical.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you conceding that D&C 132 is a "revelation?"  That it came from God?  Or are you proposing that it was not a revelation, and instead was fabricated by Joseph Smith to - as you put it - "okay his relationships with these women?"

If the latter, then what is the basis for that speculation?  What evidence/argument do you have that D&C 132 is not revelatory?

We can pose "what ifs" all the day long.  This particular "what if" is loaded with all sorts of assumptions that would need to be unpacked and analyzed before we even get to the actual hypothetical.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's not that complicated.

[smac97]

Just now, Tacenda said:

It's not that complicated.

What's "not that complicated?"  I don't understand your position, so I have asked for clarification.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Church could decanonize D&C 132.  That would be my preference, and would change the theological debate completely.

Well that is never going to happen.  I can't say there will never be a new "revelation" replacing it, but until that day the Church wouldn't remove the only scriptural explanation for on eternal marriage.
 

Quote

I think the church could realistically just allow the free market to work with respect to sealings.  Allow women or men to be sealed to new spouses without any restrictions on previous sealings.  Also allow for a cancelation of sealings to be at the discretion of the members.  No restrictions, make it just like doing baptisms for the dead, anyone can perform a baptism for any family member they want, even those who've already had them performed.  Whether an ordinance happens or not should not be regulated strictly by the central church.  Let members perform these at their discretion.  You can always use the "it will all be sorted out in the millennium" excuse for those having heartburn about mistakes.

I can see that happening.  And I can see God considering all sealings outside of his law to be invalid.
So yes, there will be a lot of sealings and loosings to occur in the Millennium to fix the mess we've made prior to the resurrection when it is too late.  Like, 1000 years worth to get the entire family of Adam in order.
 

Edited July 21, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

What's "not that complicated?"  I don't understand your position, so I have asked for clarification.

Thanks,

-Smac

You either believe it's a revelation or it's not and go from there. 

Honestly though smac97, I'm no match for your explanations. That's all I have. In another thread I was so impressed at how well you write, are you a writer? You've a gift, so I really am quite embarrassed that it's all I have to give right now. A pittance compared to you're awesome clarifications and explanations and posts. 

This board has helped me learn to write semi good, before this board I knew practically nothing. 

Sorry for the derail mods. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Sky said:

The "true believers" being the ones that support the practice, and the "quasi-believers" being the ones that reject it?  So the test of a true saint is contingent on our acceptance of polygamy?  If so, mighty strange for a church that currently excommunicates people for practicing polygamy!  Unless your position is that it is coming back during the millennium - which seems dubious at best.  

Could one not reasonably hold the opinion that the conditional practice of plurality of wives (conditioned upon whether the Lord commands it or forbids it) is a divine doctrine, that it was commanded by God during the time it was practiced in the restored Church but that it is strictly forbidden today and that it is unlikely it will ever be instituted again?

That, after all, would be consistent with the teaching in Jacob.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Could one not reasonably hold the opinion that the conditional practice of plurality of wives (conditioned upon whether the Lord commands it or forbids it) is a divine doctrine, that it was commanded by God during the time it was practiced in the restored Church but that it is strictly forbidden today and that it is unlikely it will ever be instituted again?

That, after all would be consistent with the teaching in Jacob.

This is the part that may or may not be reasonable.
The rest is completely reasonable.
For the part in bold it really depends on your understanding of the practice/law and its nature.

[Tacenda]

Would we have even had polygamy had not Joseph asked if it should be lived? And it wasn't necessary, since it wasn't in God's church as a commandment, except to take care of widows, and we don't even know if the brother of the deceased brother was even married.

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well that is never going to happen.  I can't say there will never be a new "revelation" replacing it, but until that day the Church wouldn't remove the only scriptural explanation for on eternal marriage.
 

I can see that happening.  And I can see God considering all sealings outside of his law to be invalid.
So yes, there will be a lot of sealings and loosings to occur in the Millennium to fix the mess we've made prior to the resurrection when it is too late.  Like, 1000 years worth to get the entire family of Adam in order.
 

Of course D&C 131 also talks about celestial marriage so there is already canonized reference without section 132 where the detail is confusing, contradictory, and troubling. Besides, in a church with prophets, seers, and revelators, a new revelation could easily be canonized. Maybe one that looks more like the original D&C doctrine of marriage.