Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[Teancum]

8 hours 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?

The church de-canonized the lectures on faith which were accepted as the doctrine part of the 1835 D&C.  And they didn't even present the removal to the entire church for a sustaining vote for the removal.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Teancum

[Sky]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The book bashes Joseph Smith as a prophet. Shouldn't Carol Lynn pearson lose her temple recommend for speaking ill of the Lord's anointed.

In other words, her concerns are not valid to you.  Got it.  

[BlueDreams]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We can certainly disagree about that. In fact, this is the premise of the new book by Carol Lynn Pearson, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. While there may be rare situations where it seems to work well for people, on the whole I think the attempt to have multiple partners destroys trust, creates jealousy, and rarely results in the satisfaction of all partners.

How many plural marital families do you know? Especially those that are alive. And what studies or surveys do we have to even suggest such. Perception isn't enough to make a case because it's based on what we see. And what we see in society at large is a heavier focus on the negative and more extreme communities that have some form of plural marriages in their structures. There are families that are inherently toxic no matter the make up. One where abuse or neglect occur for example. But even in dysfunctional families like my own there can be positive outcomes and experiences. So I'm hesitant to condemn communities and peoples who have different family structures, even if I'm opposed to it myself. It stigmatizes families. You would probably hesitate to say that same sex couplings "destroy" just about anything and only the rare couple is healthy or make it work. Or that conservative evangelical, atheist, interracial pairings, inter-religious ones, blended families and a gammit of others are some how destructive or harmful or whatever else, just because the fundamental structure may have different rules of interaction. These may also have differing challenge and at times less success long-term. But none of these categories  would leave to simply rare experiences of love or satisfaction. 

That stated on an eternal nature of only men can remain sealed to multiple women while women are given the expectation to suddenly just be all good with that, I doubt that's what heaven will look like. Either all sealings will be recognized and we'll have some complex sealing chains here and there. Or there's a really big reshuffle and there's 1-1 for all exalted sealed married peoples. Or something else that we don't fully grasp. But whatever it is it will follow the statement of God "wiping awAy all tears." It will be just and merciful. And it will not be a respecter of persons. All will be equal before the Lord. 

IMHO people gunning for polygamy as a penultimate celestial experience (which sounds as extreme as the opinion that the vast majority of the relationships are desolate) are likely to be disappointed.

 

with luv, 

bd

[VideoGameJunkie]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

IMHO people gunning for polygamy as a penultimate celestial experience (which sounds as extreme as the opinion that the vast majority of the relationships are desolate) are likely to be disappointed.

 

with luv, 

bd

What makes you say they will be disappointed? Why do you feel JLH and others will be disappointed?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

.....

Hope, I have never read the copy of the original letter so cannot judge what is going on.  Perhaps someone on the board has Vogel's Early Mormon Documents, which I believe has the text.  I didn't see any other published source online.

I am unaware of the issue of the revelation book as well.  I am assuming you read the info at JSPP?  Perhaps Robert Smith or Nevo have insight.

[juliann]

Perhaps we should start a thread titled "Is it possible to dream of celestial polygamy without fantasizing about women other than your wife?"

Ten years and counting, the CFR that no polygamy advocate has ever responded to: Produce a quote from a modern prophet saying all men will have the option of courting women in "heaven."  Imagine, even one sentence would win the argument. Just a few words! So why won't they do it? 

Edited July 22, 2016 by juliann

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

How many plural marital families do you know?

Can I recommend this fascinating read - https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Polygamous-Families-Life-Principle-ebook/dp/B005QQBU9S/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469155627&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=jesse+embry+polygamous

Really enjoyed this.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Sky said:

In other words, her concerns are not valid to you.  Got it.  

No, in other words violating temple covenants is worth losing a recommend over, even if you have concerns.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

. Or something else that we don't fully grasp....

This is my personal favourite.  Nothing we currently have in mortality comes close to providing a desire to shout for joy at the prospect of what is to come for everyone as opposed to a significant minority being willing to make do with a compromise position.  Would those of us who had nothing denied be able to feel a fullness of joy knowing there were those who were denied in some way?  I don't believe we will have to compromise our righteous desires in heaven.  But that means what will be fulfilling them is something we are unable to imagine at the moment. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Calm

[Sky]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, in other words violating temple covenants is worth losing a recommend over, even if you have concerns.

In other words, shut up and get with the program.  Or my particular interpretation of the program. 

Thanks for clearing that up.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Perhaps we should start a thread titled "Is it possible to dream of celestial polygamy without fantasizing about women other than your wife?"

Ten years and counting, the CFR that no polygamy advocate has ever responded to: Produce a quote from a modern prophet saying all men will have the option of courting women in "heaven."  Imagine, even one sentence would win the argument. Just a few words! So why won't they do it? 

I can fantasize because I'm single.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Perhaps we should start a thread titled "Is it possible to dream of celestial polygamy without fantasizing about women other than your wife?"

Ten years and counting, the CFR that no polygamy advocate has ever responded to: Produce a quote from a modern prophet saying all men will have the option of courting women in "heaven."  Imagine, even one sentence would win the argument. Just a few words! So why won't they do it? 

Because the definition of "modern" isn't clear.
If by modern you mean "post-polygamy" then the reason no quote exists is NOT a doctrinal one.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

If the Church isn't true,then why stay?

Because it's fun!

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because the definition of "modern" isn't clear.
If by modern you mean "post-polygamy" then the reason no quote exists is NOT a doctrinal one.

Really? You don't know what modern means? I'm seeing more evasive answers which tells me that it is becoming more difficult to, in Elder Oaks words, speak for the prophet where he has chosen not to.( Now, I know you have seen that quote and many more because they go up in every thread and miraculously cease to exist in the next thread where the same tired advocacy is repeated as if nothing else existed.)

What kind of women are you hoping for in the eternities? Do you like the more intellectual types? Is how they look important to you? Would you pick someone different or more like your wife?

[juliann]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I can fantasize because I'm single.

Indeed you can. The married men should be sitting in their bishop's office explaining why they are talking about having other women on message boards. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Indeed you can. The married men should be sitting in their bishop's office explaining why they are talking about having other women on message boards. 

This we agree on.

[sunstoned]

11 hours 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?

The Lectures on Faith were decanonized and taken out of the D & C.  Apparently that didn't decanonize all scripture.

[Sky]

What if life after death doesn't really exist anyway?  Then all of this is a really silly waste of energy, indeed!  

But, I digress.

It must be nice for all the men that will get to have all their wives in eternity, but too bad for all those women sealed to more than one man because they will have to choose which one they want to be with!

 

 

  

  

[juliann]

And there is this inconvenient fact:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants

Quote

In 1930, a small volume edited by apostle James E. Talmage titled Latter-day Revelations was published, which was a highly edited selective version of the Doctrine and Covenants. Talmage wrote that the book's purpose was "to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk" by including only "the sections comprising scriptures of general and enduring value".^[7] Ninety-five of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted—most notably section 132 on plural and celestial marriage—along with parts of 21 others.^[7] Twenty complete sections were retained along with parts of 21 others.^[8] Fundamentalist Mormons were offended, particularly at the exclusion of section 132, and accused the church of "changing the scriptures."^[8] As a result, church president Heber J. Grant ordered the withdrawal of the book from sale with the remaining copies shredded in order to "avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists".^[8]

Obviously, there were highly placed leaders who saw no conflict in setting aside polygamy as not  being "strictly doctrinal" or having enduring value, going so far as to remove 132.  My brother-in-law is a book collector and has a copy of this book. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise.   

[Bobbieaware]

17 hours ago, JulieM said:

You can reject polygamy and not reject Joseph Smith as a Prophet.   Prophets are not infallible.

Here is the problem, and the reason why you and some others on this thread are having a difficult time accepting that the prophet Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was the will of God: It's because you are observing and analyzing this divine commandment to practice plural marriage with a carnal mind. The apostle Paul lamented he was only able to disseminate the easy-to-digest milk of Gospel knowledge to the Corinthian saints and not the harder to digest but more deeply rewarding meat of Gospel knowledge. He said the reason why he was constrained by the Spirit to not reveal the deeper things of God to the Corinthians is because they were still babes in the Gospel because they were still possessed of carnal minds and trying to understand the things of God with the carnal mind's distorted perspective...

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3)

You see, because you are looking at polygamy with a carnal mind you're unable to see that the Holy Ghost can refine spiritual sensibilities and motivations to the point that a prophet, like the prophet Joseph Smith, could practice plural marriage in righteousness and holiness. When on the great day of judgement the prophet Joseph Smith is vindicate before all the world by God himself for the practice of plural marriage, the Lord will explain that if some members of the Church had only put aside their cynical carnal minds, and began to see the commandment with purer and holier minds, they would have understood the prophet was not in error and did nothing wrong. As long as the carnal mind is nurtured and doggedly held on to, the deeper things of God will forever remain mysterious and misunderstood.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The book bashes Joseph Smith as a prophet. Shouldn't Carol Lynn pearson lose her temple recommend for speaking ill of the Lord's anointed.

Why is it your concern?

The author discusses how much she loves Joseph, but with a heart that he has broken. To me she seems to be accepting of him as a prophet in many ways but also saddened by his weaknesses and the harm those weaknesses cause others.

It may be a topic for a different thread, but "speaking ill of the Lord's anointed" is a very broad and ambiguous phrase. I would guess that if 100 people post their definition of that phrase, we would likely have 90 different answers.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Here is the problem, and the reason why you and some others on this thread are having a difficult time accepting that the prophet Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was the will of God: It's because you are observing and analyzing this divine commandment to practice plural marriage with a carnal mind. The apostle Paul lamented he was only able to disseminate the easy-to-digest milk of Gospel knowledge to the Corinthian saints and not the harder to digest but more deeply rewarding meat of Gospel knowledge. He said the reason why he was constrained by the Spirit to not reveal the deeper things of God to the Corinthians is because they were still babes in the Gospel because they were still possessed of carnal minds and trying to understand the things of God with the carnal mind's distorted perspective...

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3)

You see, because you are looking at polygamy with a carnal mind you're unable to see that the Holy Ghost can refine spiritual sensibilities and motivations to the point that a prophet, like the prophet Joseph Smith, could practice plural marriage in righteousness and holiness. When on the great day of judgement the prophet Joseph Smith is vindicate before all the world by God himself for the practice of plural marriage, the Lord will explain that if some members of the Church had only put aside their cynical carnal minds, and began to see the commandment with purer and holier minds, they would have understood the prophet was not in error and did nothing wrong. As long as the carnal mind is nurtured and doggedly held on to, the deeper things of God will forever remain mysterious and misunderstood.

I respect your posts, but this isn't really talking about the same thing is it? We're given free agency, but when it comes to choosing whether to live polygamy there is a drawn sword?

[Gray]

17 hours ago, ksfisher said:

This does not seem to fit the pattern that we are taught in the scriptures or the temple.

Adam obeys God's command to sacrifice, and after his obedience he is taught why.

Christ tells his followers that his sheep hear his voice.  Those who follow the good shepherd will have everlasting life.

Christ tell the Father, "not my will, but thine be done."

The temple clearly teaches us that we are to obey the Savior's commandments, whether they come directly from him or from his prophets.

The context of ancient scriptures is not to prepare people to be gods, but rather to be sheep. Sheep are compliant to the shepherd. They are not shepherds in training. 

But, if we take seriously the evolving idea of the nature of human beings, as gods in embryo, we need to consider reinterpreting scriptures that had a different end in mind. 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 

The true believers are the ones willing to submit to the will of God, no matter which way it goes. Thy will be done is the crucial part. You have to have faith that Heavenly Father would not hurt you,  that He loves you and wants what is best for you.

The tricky part is determining what is truly the will of God. Everyone seems to have their own ideas. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Here is the problem, and the reason why you and some others on this thread are having a difficult time accepting that the prophet Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was the will of God: It's because you are observing and analyzing this divine commandment to practice plural marriage with a carnal mind. The apostle Paul lamented he was only able to disseminate the easy-to-digest milk of Gospel knowledge to the Corinthian saints and not the harder to digest but more deeply rewarding meat of Gospel knowledge. He said the reason why he was constrained by the Spirit to not reveal the deeper things of God to the Corinthians is because they were still babes in the Gospel because they were still possessed of carnal minds and trying to understand the things of God with the carnal mind's distorted perspective...

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3)

You see, because you are looking at polygamy with a carnal mind you're unable to see that the Holy Ghost can refine spiritual sensibilities and motivations to the point that a prophet, like the prophet Joseph Smith, could practice plural marriage in righteousness and holiness. When on the great day of judgement the prophet Joseph Smith is vindicate before all the world by God himself for the practice of plural marriage, the Lord will explain that if some members of the Church had only put aside their cynical carnal minds, and began to see the commandment with purer and holier minds, they would have understood the prophet was not in error and did nothing wrong. As long as the carnal mind is nurtured and doggedly held on to, the deeper things of God will forever remain mysterious and misunderstood.

Are you suggesting Plural marriage is about the "meat"?

You may have a point

 

 

Edited July 22, 2016 by HappyJackWagon