Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[VideoGameJunkie]

I only learned that polygamy might be back in the eternities and possible for us from posters on this board. 

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Sky said:

http://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/mormon-women-fear-eternal-polygamy-study-shows/

Apparently this is a much more widespread problem than I even realized.  A lot of Mormon women, in particular, have a problem with it.  

In a survey by Carol Lynn Pearson, it was found that only 15% said that polygamy was just fine, and it would all work out in heaven.  The other 85% gave their personal stories of extreme pain and difficulty around those issues.  And the institutional LDS Church hasn't done a lot to address it.    

It seems to me that people are always putting the cart before the horse. No one knows what life will be like in the heavens when discussing polygamy. In the little scripture we have concerning how "spirit children" come to be, we only know that they are formed and not physically begotten. As I grow older, I know that marriage is not just about physical intimacy, but is more about spiritual intimacy and love. Those who in the past took part in the practice of polygamy (if done so happily) would not have an issue with the practice in the eternities. My wife and I are not concerned with this issue, as we have only been married to one another and it will continue this way. I have no desire for marriage with anyone other than my wife, and my position on this matter will not change; ever! I think it is important that husbands and wives discuss the issue while living together in life, so that it does not become an issue in death. 

But marriage, be in polygamy or monogamy, is more about the Spiritual, than the physical. As any woman can give testimony too, as well as men...the destructive aspects of infidelity are both physical and spiritual. To me, polygamy is a violation of both, useless God, Husband and Wife (The Trinity of Marriage) are in agreement. It my case, I would not engage in any type polygamy, ever.  

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

The problem with that is that it would decanonize all Scripture.

We have not nor will be a free market church. No religion is except for maybe the Universal Unitarians.

So we waste our time doing work that has already been done?

Edited July 21, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[hope_for_things]

1 hour 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

Some revelations are from God, some are from man and some are from the devil.  

And my basis for rejection is that it doesn't square with the central messages of the gospel.  Especially as practiced by Joseph with the deceit and coercion.  I'm not going to get into a scripture chase debate as the evidence is so clear to me that polygamy is completely in conflict with the institution of marriage at a core level.  If you can't see that, then I'm not going to convince you otherwise.  

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Yes, that's the ticket! Reject Joseph Smith and his successors as living prophets of God and you're a good and faithful Latter-day Saint.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Some revelations are from God, some are from man and some are from the devil.  

And my basis for rejection is that it doesn't square with the central messages of the gospel.  Especially as practiced by Joseph with the deceit and coercion.  I'm not going to get into a scripture chase debate as the evidence is so clear to me that polygamy is completely in conflict with the institution of marriage at a core level.  If you can't see that, then I'm not going to convince you otherwise.  

The Bible and Martin Luther would disagree.

[hope_for_things]

45 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'm not so sure.  The church has recently endorsed the concept of a Heavenly Mother with the most recent essay, and there isn't any revelation on this subject.  There is so much more evidence for eternal marriage than the Heavenly Mother idea.  They don't need D&C 132.  Also, didn't Talmage make an effort to streamline the D&C, I think I read somewhere that his best of D&C proposal didn't include 132.  So its not like this idea hasn't been considered at the highest levels of church leadership before.  

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.

Yeah, I wonder if this idea that after the Millennium its too late to correct, couldn't be changed.  I don't think the teachings around this concept are founded on very solid scriptural interpretation/speculation.  I also like the early Mormon idea of progressing through kingdoms, I think Mormonism could expand this idea to relationships into the future, without feeling the need to correct everything during this finite time.  
 

 

[Bobbieaware]

2 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.  

It's likely going to be one among many trials that will test the mettle of the Saimts, to see who among them will remain faithful when the going gets tough, or if they will succumb to the jeering coming from the windows of the great and spacious building and fall from steadfastness.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The problem with that is that it would decanonize all Scripture.

We have not nor will be a free market church. No religion is except for maybe the Universal Unitarians.

So we waste our time doing work that has already been done?

Why would this lead to the decanoization of all scripture, I'm not sure I understand that.  

Your argument sounds like a slippery slope one, I don't think that there is historical precedent for worrying about one change like this leading to the church loosing all distinctiveness.

As for wasting time, have you heard of the stories of temple work being repeated over and over for the same person already in the church.  This is a common problem, just ask a genealogy expert and they will tell you this happens all the time, unintentionally, and sometimes intentionally.  

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I wonder if this idea that after the Millennium its too late to correct, couldn't be changed.  I don't think the teachings around this concept are founded on very solid scriptural interpretation/speculation.

Founded on the words of Christ in the scripture.  In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Bible and Martin Luther would disagree.

Martin Luther was a polygamy proponent?  I found a brief story about Phillip of Hesse on the Wikipedia for Luther, but its a far cry from insinuating that Luther was a proponent of polygamy.  

Bible, no, didn't promote polygamy as a commandment in any way to my knowledge.  Just talked about certain men that practiced it, but I'm not aware of any explicit statements in the Bible saying it was condoned by God. 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

.

Did I say anything about living in polygamy? My point is that the Saints need to know, by revelation from God, that Joseph, Brigham and the others were only obeying God's commandments and that they did not sin.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

It's likely going to be one among many trials that will test the mettle of the Saimts, to see who among them will remain faithful when the going gets tough, or if they will succumb to the jeering coming from the windows of the great and spacious building and fall from steadfastness.

Digging your hole deeper I see...  How low can you go

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Founded on the words of Christ in the scripture.  In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

Could be interpreted many ways, I don't have my scriptural commentaries with me at the moment, I've read some other ideas about the context of this before and what it may have meant.  Is this the strongest statement to support the idea that Millennium is the only place where these things can be fixed?  It just seems to me like this isn't a strong position based on scripture, and could have some flexibility theologically.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Did I say anything about living in polygamy? My point is that the Saints need to know, by revelations from God, that Joseph, Brigham and the others were only obeying God's commandments and that they did not sin.

Polygamy is God's fault

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

If it "may or may not be reasonable," then, by definition, it is not unreasonable to have an opinion about it, right?

[Bobbieaware]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Digging your hole deeper I see...  How low can you go

So in the bizarre parallel universe we're now living in, those who uphold the prophets and the Latter-day revelations are the ones who are digging themselves into a hole, while those who reject the prophets and the revelations are the ones who are walking on solid ground?

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Some revelations are from God, some are from man and some are from the devil.  

And your position is that D&C 132 is "from man" or "from the devil," and not "from God."  Is that correct?  I just want to be clear here.

Quote

And my basis for rejection is that it doesn't square with the central messages of the gospel.  Especially as practiced by Joseph with the deceit and coercion.  I'm not going to get into a scripture chase debate as the evidence is so clear to me that polygamy is completely in conflict with the institution of marriage at a core level.  If you can't see that, then I'm not going to convince you otherwise.  

Is it possible, in your view, for reasonable minds to disagree about this?  That some people may study and pray about this issue and, in good faith, conclude that polygamy is, at times, authorized/commanded by God?

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why would this lead to the decanoization of all scripture, I'm not sure I understand that.  

Your argument sounds like a slippery slope one, I don't think that there is historical precedent for worrying about one change like this leading to the church loosing all distinctiveness.

As for wasting time, have you heard of the stories of temple work being repeated over and over for the same person already in the church.  This is a common problem, just ask a genealogy expert and they will tell you this happens all the time, unintentionally, and sometimes intentionally.  

Because polygamy is part and parcel of the Bible,  The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Mormon, and of course D&C 132.

We are simply not a free market of idea's church. We proudly proclaim that our way is the only way to God. We conform to the our Scripture, not the other way around.

Yes I have. While not perfect, as our Temples are shifting to computer verified, and cross checked names, that problem is of diminishing concern. 

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Martin Luther was a polygamy proponent?  I found a brief story about Phillip of Hesse on the Wikipedia for Luther, but its a far cry from insinuating that Luther was a proponent of polygamy.  

Bible, no, didn't promote polygamy as a commandment in any way to my knowledge.  Just talked about certain men that practiced it, but I'm not aware of any explicit statements in the Bible saying it was condoned by God. 

From a non-LDS site.

SEE http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/god-said-he-gave-wives/

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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

Well, I don't think that's all there is to it.  I think we need to study and introspection is in order.  Why we believe X is just as important as what X actually is.  Consider this description by Elder Maxwell regarding some of the Savior's teachings:

Quote

The more declarative Jesus was, the more tentative some followers. Is this not the same today? As long as Jesus’ church and its prophets are doing certain things of which people fully approve, there is admiration. But when modern prophets begin to be declarative, then it is a very different matter!

“The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.” (John 6:41.)

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (John 6:66.)

Some additional thoughts from Sister Ardeth G. Kapp here: 

Quote

Sometimes we are shortsighted and are not aware of what awaits us just around the corner following our obedience. We do not “receive a witness until after the trial of [our] faith” (Ether 12:6). We don’t negotiate with our Father in Heaven on these matters. The laws are in place. We know that “there is a law. . . upon which all blessings are predicated,” and we know that when we receive any blessing “it is by obedience to that law” (D&C 130:20).

And so our Father, wanting us to qualify for all of the blessings, has given us laws and commandments. These commandments are given not to restrict us but to redeem us—not to just reform us but to exalt us. Therefore, as Nephi said, “Cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life” (2 Nephi 10:23).

Some of us will resent, resist, even recoil from the apparent restrictions imposed upon us. And so it was in the Savior’s time. There were those who didn’t like what he taught. “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” they said. “When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?” (John 6:60–61). And we read that “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).

Polygamy is a toughie.  I readily concede that.  But rejection of it based on emotion, based on it being uncomfortable, would be problematic.  Some of the Savior's followers were not able/willing to abide by some of this teachings, and so left 'and walked no more with him."  Others, however, withstood the difficulties because, notwithstanding the strangeness and difficulty of some of the things the Savior, they knew something:

Quote

66 ¶From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

But I guess that just brings us back to the question of whether D&C 132 is revelatory or not.  For those who think it is not, I would like to ear a reasoned, evidentiary argument in favor of that proposition.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Some revelations are from God, some are from man and some are from the devil.  

If you mean to claim this is LDS doctrine or even just a teaching of Joseph Smith, you need to stop using it.  It is most likely an inaccurate memory of David Whitmer who was reporting on an event he was not present for:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705337036/Newly-found-revelation-of-Joseph-Smith.html?pg=all

"Whitmer said Joseph \"enquired of the Lord about it\" and received a revelation that said, \"Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.\"\"David Whitmer puts those words into Joseph Smith's mouth,\" Harper said. \"That's exactly what I expect out of David Whitmer.\"Whitmer's memory of Joseph's response to \"revelation\" is similar to a later revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants 46:7 that says some commandments \"are of men, and others of devils"

Given other things were misremembered by Whitmer, this should be placed in the dubious claim category, imo.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And your position is that D&C 132 is "from man" or "from the devil," and not "from God."  Is that correct?  I just want to be clear here.

I don't think the revelation was from God, correct. 

Is it possible, in your view, for reasonable minds to disagree about this?  That some people may study and pray about this issue and, in good faith, conclude that polygamy is, at times, authorized/commanded by God?

Yes, Yes, 100% yes.  I have multiple family members on both of my parents lines who practiced polygamy in good faith.  I think they were completely sincere in their belief that God commanded this to be practiced.  I honor them, while at the same time having a different conclusion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you mean to claim this is LDS doctrine or even just a teaching of Joseph Smith, you need to stop using it.  It is most likely an inaccurate memory of David Whitmer who was reporting on an event he was not present for:

double standard 

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Bible, no, didn't promote polygamy as a commandment in any way to my knowledge. 

and what is wrong with polygamy? Nothing! Polygamy is probably very fun. 

The Bible promotes slavery, the Book of Mormon doesn't, the Book of Mormon is much better. 

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So in the bizarre parallel universe we're now living in, those who uphold the prophets and the Latter-day revelations are the ones who are digging themselves into a hole, while those who reject the prophets and the revelations are the ones who are walking on solid ground?

You could say this was prophesied about in scripture.  The last will be first, the first will be last.  Good is evil, evil is good.  Its all part of the end times.  :-)