Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Flexible said:

.

> Someone needs to take a deep breath and reread my post.  I will overlook and forgive your nasty tone.  I must have certainly hit a nerve but it wasn't intentional.  

==You publicly disparaged the LDS Church and its leaders, accusing it of dishonesty and hypocrisy.  That it could not hold a TR.  This, in your view, "wasn't intentional?"

> Let's start over and see if we can address this "failure to communicate". 

==I suppose.  

> I do not see any public accusals of the LDS Church and its leaders of dismissing Christ in my posting.    CFA Please.  I sustain and support them in every way.   

==You spoke approvingly of DB, who publicly accused the LDS Church and its leaders of "dismissing Christ."  I took your approval of his remarks as . . . approval of his remarks.

> I thought it was clear from the context of this whole thread that we are NOT talking about the historical practice of polygamy in the Church.   That's all the Essays cover.  The concerns that I'm seeing in this thread relate more to do with the quite real "hangover" the Church is still suffering from as a result of not only the historical practice, but the Church's current belief in and support of the doctrine.

==We can't really talk about the former without the latter.  Polygamy is a doctrine of the Church.  It's right there in the Bible, in The Book of Mormon, and in the Doctrine and Covenants.

==I'm not sure what you mean by "support" of polygamy.  The complaints in this thread are incoherent.  Here you are, claiming that the Church "support{s}" the doctrine, while others are complaining that the Church doesn't give it enough attention.  So which is it?

==The Church doesn't focus on animal sacrifice, either.  That doesn't mean we are at liberty to disavow it because some amongst us are not comfortable with it or are even upset by its application in the abstract.  The same goes for polygamy.

> So I'm not focusing on some arcane OT practice.  But rather on the very real and CURRENT doctrinal and Church practice issues stemming from the still accepted doctrine of plurality of wives.

==I'm not particularly interested in arguing about such theoretical quandaries.  If the LDS Church is a sham, then all this hue and cry doesn't matter because polygamy will not be a thing in the Hereafter.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then these things will be sorted out.  I think those who are experiencing angst can use appropriate means and measures to convey their feelings to the Brethren.  Publicly demanding disavowal of revealed doctrines, however, is not part of the equation.  It does not fit within the LDS paradigm.

> Question for you.  Are you really saying that plural marriage should be filed away with animal sacrifice and concerns about the people of Jericho?

==For the most part, yes.  The anxieties you are referencing here are based not so much on polygamy per se, but polygamy as it shakes out in the eternities.  We simply do not have a lot of information about the particulars.  I think a lot of the angst is based on this ignorance.  

==But more to the point, what I am *really* saying is that self-selected members of the Church who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, and attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so, is engaging in inappropriate conduct.  

==I have all sorts of compassion and patience for sincere, faithful, and devout members of the Church have concerns and anxieties over polygamy in the eternities.

==I have markedly less patience for self-selected members who rise up in rebellion against the Church and its leaders, who arrogantly and pridefully set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to that of the Lord's anointed, who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, who attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so, and who encourage other members of the Church to join in such unseemly activities.

> If so, it seems you have already dismissed Section 132 as no longer being true and practiced doctrine.

==I invite you to re-read my posts.  We do not presently practice polygamy (not on the earth, anyway).  That is not opinion.  That is simple fact.  It was and remains a doctrine of the Church.  That is also simple fact.  I have never deviated from either of these propositions.

> Isn't that exactly what Bill is talking about?  So you seem to agree with him.

==You do not understand my position.  At all.  Here it is again: I take exception to self-selected members who rise up in rebellion against the Church and its leaders, who arrogantly and pridefully set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to that of the Lord's anointed, who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, who attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so, and who encourage other members of the Church to join in such unseemly activities.

> But I would argue that the Church, while suspending the temporal practice of plurality, still accepts the eternal practice of it as doctrine.

=="Accepts the eternal practice of it?"  As in "accepts it" as a revealed doctrine from God?  Okay.  If it is something that came from God, isn't the Church obligated to "accept" it?  How is this a problem?

> The sealing policies of the Church today validate that.  (Unless you would like to tell the plural wives of certain Church leaders that the eternal practice of polygamy is not doctrine.)  This is the "P" word I'm referring to in my post.  And while the Church validates the doctrine by its sealing policies and practices.  But  where does the Church definitively and clearly acknowledge that plurality is going to be practiced eternally in the CK?

==I don't follow.  Are you suggesting that when a man is sealed to more than one woman, the second-in-time sealing is a sham?  That the LDS Church instructs its sealers to cross their fingers when they perform the ordinance?  What are you saying here?

==Again, if the LDS Church is a sham, then all this hue and cry doesn't matter because polygamy will not be a thing in the Hereafter.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then these things will be sorted out.

> I would guess, based on my observation, that you would find strong and differing opinions among the Q15.  And not a whole lot of clarity.

==Which means . . . what, exactly?  That we lack sufficient light and knowledge on the subject?  Okay.  So what's the problem, then?  There are all sorts of things about which we lack light and knowledge.  How is that a flaw in the behavior of the Church? 

==For the record, I'm not sure your observation would be correct.  I think the Brethren are doing what they think is right, and I think they are generally in communion with God.  I think our perspective on the eternities is blinkered and finite and distorted by human weaknesses and failings.

==If our understanding of polygamy is flawed in this way, I would be thrilled at additional light and knowledge.  But that is neither here nor there.  My objection pertains to . . . well, see above.

> Yet the doctrine is still in our canon as part of the restoration of all things.  It is STILL being practiced through the sealing policies and practices. And I'll bet you know personally faithful members who have been impacted by those policies.   

==I understand that.  What is this impact?  Is this impact attributable to - as some would have us believe - the inherent dishonesty and indifference of the prophets and apostles who lead the Church?  

==Is it possible that folks who are adversely "impacted" may need to take a course of action other than . . . joining with self-selected members of the Church who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, and attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so?

> So please don't try to lump it in with animal sacrifice or the people of Jericho.  Unless these are things that still keep you up at night.

==Why?  Isn't it conceivable that some members - animal lovers, for example - might be adversely "impacted" by the abstract thought of animals being killed in a religious ceremony?  For centuries?  And that God commanded this?  Why are you so disdainful of this concern?

> I will overlook and forgive the personal diatribes lobbed my way.  I guess anyone can act a little "Trumpish" these days.

==True.  Including people who feel at liberty to come to an LDS message board and slur their religion and its leaders.  To our faces.

> But I will say that I have read and reread the essays. Yes, great job coming clean institutionally  on the historical practice, but really not adding to what was already out there.

==So what are you expecting, really?  Surely you are not looking for the Brethren to fabricate something to placate those who are "impacted?"  Or to present their personal opinions and speculations?

==Until and unless the Lord chooses to provide more light and knowledge on this subject, exactly what is it are you wanting the Brethren to do?

> I read Van Wagoner's book way back in the 80's.  Also others. Nothing new.   But the messy, very personal and current unresolved  problems with plural marriage are a mine field that I hope the prophets will receive further light and knowledge on

==Same here.  But I don't think we'll get "further light and knowledge" by publicly disparaging the Lord's Church, or his servants, or joining with or otherwise cheering on self-selected critics and - worse dissidents members of the Church who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, and attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so.

==I'm not sure I deserve your harrumphing about me being a meanie (particularly ironic given your breezy public slur against the Church's ethics).  But in the interests of furthering the discussion, I will defer to you on that point and apologize.  So let's put personalities aside and get back to the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

In the absence of your willingness to share any point at which you disagree with the LDS Church, I am unfortunately left to conclude your claim to independent thought is baseless.

As you like.  I am the world's leading authority on what I think.  You are merely a provocateur who knows nothing about me.  I am serenely indifferent to your admittedly ignorant suppositions about me.

Now let's get back to the topic.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[toon]

I just opened this thread. Did I miss anything?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, toon said:

I just opened this thread. Did I miss anything?

Go make yourself a bag of popcorn.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Brigham Young said "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" Brigham Young also said "if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith" What do you guys make of those quotes?

Edited August 3, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why do you think that independent thought is a sacred thing not to be shared?

So are you saying that there are some positions of the LDS Church with which you do not agree?

Only you don't want to share them publicly?

Is it me you are worried about or the SCMC?

 

Why do you think "independent thought" must necessarily be manifested by opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ, it's doctrines or leaders? Is "independent thought" your euphemism for faultfinding? 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you think "independent thought" must necessarily be manifested by opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ, it's doctrines or leaders? Is "independent thought" your euphemism for faultfinding? 

Interesting that you equate independent thought with fault finding. Is it possible to have a principled disagreement with church policies or leaders without being a fault finder?

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you think "independent thought" must necessarily be manifested by opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ, it's doctrines or leaders? Is "independent thought" your euphemism for faultfinding? 

Scott..it is not that you just agree with everything in the church or its leadership..that is, of course, your right as a belief and/or opinion.  But you never question anything..just question and that is something that is okay and how you form those opinions. It really is okay to think and ponder about other perspectives..I think God would want you to do that and perhaps it will benefit your understanding of others and even strengthen your testimony.  Sometimes I think you fear the church.

[Okrahomer]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Scott..it is not that you just agree with everything in the church or its leadership..that is, of course, your right as a belief and/or opinion.  But you never question anything..just question and that is something that is okay and how you form those opinions. It really is okay to think and ponder about other perspectives..I think God would want you to do that and perhaps it will benefit your understanding of others and even strengthen your testimony.  Sometimes I think you fear the church.

How do you know what he has or has not questioned?  His opinion is his opinion, no matter how he arrived there.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting that you equate independent thought with fault finding. Is it possible to have a principled disagreement with church policies or leaders without being a fault finder?

It's not I doing that equating. It's those who automatically conclude a priori that you're not thinking independently unless you are publicly criticizing/opposing the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Flexible]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

> Someone needs to take a deep breath and reread my post.  I will overlook and forgive your nasty tone.  I must have certainly hit a nerve but it wasn't intentional.  

==You publicly disparaged the LDS Church and its leaders, accusing it of dishonesty and hypocrisy.  That it could not hold a TR.  This, in your view, "wasn't intentional?"

> Let's start over and see if we can address this "failure to communicate". 

==I suppose.  

> I do not see any public accusals of the LDS Church and its leaders of dismissing Christ in my posting.    CFA Please.  I sustain and support them in every way.   

==You spoke approvingly of DB, who publicly accused the LDS Church and its leaders of "dismissing Christ."  I took your approval of his remarks as . . . approval of his remarks.

> I thought it was clear from the context of this whole thread that we are NOT talking about the historical practice of polygamy in the Church.   That's all the Essays cover.  The concerns that I'm seeing in this thread relate more to do with the quite real "hangover" the Church is still suffering from as a result of not only the historical practice, but the Church's current belief in and support of the doctrine.

==We can't really talk about the former without the latter.  Polygamy is a doctrine of the Church.  It's right there in the Bible, in The Book of Mormon, and in the Doctrine and Covenants.

==I'm not sure what you mean by "support" of polygamy.  The complaints in this thread are incoherent.  Here you are, claiming that the Church "support{s}" the doctrine, while others are complaining that the Church doesn't give it enough attention.  So which is it?

==The Church doesn't focus on animal sacrifice, either.  That doesn't mean we are at liberty to disavow it because some amongst us are not comfortable with it or are even upset by its application in the abstract.  The same goes for polygamy.

> So I'm not focusing on some arcane OT practice.  But rather on the very real and CURRENT doctrinal and Church practice issues stemming from the still accepted doctrine of plurality of wives.

==I'm not particularly interested in arguing about such theoretical quandaries.  If the LDS Church is a sham, then all this hue and cry doesn't matter because polygamy will not be a thing in the Hereafter.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then these things will be sorted out.  I think those who are experiencing angst can use appropriate means and measures to convey their feelings to the Brethren.  Publicly demanding disavowal of revealed doctrines, however, is not part of the equation.  It does not fit within the LDS paradigm.

> Question for you.  Are you really saying that plural marriage should be filed away with animal sacrifice and concerns about the people of Jericho?

==For the most part, yes.  The anxieties you are referencing here are based not so much on polygamy per se, but polygamy as it shakes out in the eternities.  We simply do not have a lot of information about the particulars.  I think a lot of the angst is based on this ignorance.  

==But more to the point, what I am *really* saying is that self-selected members of the Church who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, and attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so, is engaging in inappropriate conduct.  

==I have all sorts of compassion and patience for sincere, faithful, and devout members of the Church have concerns and anxieties over polygamy in the eternities.

==I have markedly less patience for self-selected members who rise up in rebellion against the Church and its leaders, who arrogantly and pridefully set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to that of the Lord's anointed, who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, who attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so, and who encourage other members of the Church to join in such unseemly activities.

> If so, it seems you have already dismissed Section 132 as no longer being true and practiced doctrine.

==I invite you to re-read my posts.  We do not presently practice polygamy (not on the earth, anyway).  That is not opinion.  That is simple fact.  It was and remains a doctrine of the Church.  That is also simple fact.  I have never deviated from either of these propositions.

> Isn't that exactly what Bill is talking about?  So you seem to agree with him.

==You do not understand my position.  At all.  Here it is again: I take exception to self-selected members who rise up in rebellion against the Church and its leaders, who arrogantly and pridefully set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to that of the Lord's anointed, who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, who attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so, and who encourage other members of the Church to join in such unseemly activities.

> But I would argue that the Church, while suspending the temporal practice of plurality, still accepts the eternal practice of it as doctrine.

=="Accepts the eternal practice of it?"  As in "accepts it" as a revealed doctrine from God?  Okay.  If it is something that came from God, isn't the Church obligated to "accept" it?  How is this a problem?

> The sealing policies of the Church today validate that.  (Unless you would like to tell the plural wives of certain Church leaders that the eternal practice of polygamy is not doctrine.)  This is the "P" word I'm referring to in my post.  And while the Church validates the doctrine by its sealing policies and practices.  But  where does the Church definitively and clearly acknowledge that plurality is going to be practiced eternally in the CK?

==I don't follow.  Are you suggesting that when a man is sealed to more than one woman, the second-in-time sealing is a sham?  That the LDS Church instructs its sealers to cross their fingers when they perform the ordinance?  What are you saying here?

==Again, if the LDS Church is a sham, then all this hue and cry doesn't matter because polygamy will not be a thing in the Hereafter.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then these things will be sorted out.

> I would guess, based on my observation, that you would find strong and differing opinions among the Q15.  And not a whole lot of clarity.

==Which means . . . what, exactly?  That we lack sufficient light and knowledge on the subject?  Okay.  So what's the problem, then?  There are all sorts of things about which we lack light and knowledge.  How is that a flaw in the behavior of the Church? 

==For the record, I'm not sure your observation would be correct.  I think the Brethren are doing what they think is right, and I think they are generally in communion with God.  I think our perspective on the eternities is blinkered and finite and distorted by human weaknesses and failings.

==If our understanding of polygamy is flawed in this way, I would be thrilled at additional light and knowledge.  But that is neither here nor there.  My objection pertains to . . . well, see above.

> Yet the doctrine is still in our canon as part of the restoration of all things.  It is STILL being practiced through the sealing policies and practices. And I'll bet you know personally faithful members who have been impacted by those policies.   

==I understand that.  What is this impact?  Is this impact attributable to - as some would have us believe - the inherent dishonesty and indifference of the prophets and apostles who lead the Church?  

==Is it possible that folks who are adversely "impacted" may need to take a course of action other than . . . joining with self-selected members of the Church who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, and attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so?

> So please don't try to lump it in with animal sacrifice or the people of Jericho.  Unless these are things that still keep you up at night.

==Why?  Isn't it conceivable that some members - animal lovers, for example - might be adversely "impacted" by the abstract thought of animals being killed in a religious ceremony?  For centuries?  And that God commanded this?  Why are you so disdainful of this concern?

> I will overlook and forgive the personal diatribes lobbed my way.  I guess anyone can act a little "Trumpish" these days.

==True.  Including people who feel at liberty to come to an LDS message board and slur their religion and its leaders.  To our faces.

> But I will say that I have read and reread the essays. Yes, great job coming clean institutionally  on the historical practice, but really not adding to what was already out there.

==So what are you expecting, really?  Surely you are not looking for the Brethren to fabricate something to placate those who are "impacted?"  Or to present their personal opinions and speculations?

==Until and unless the Lord chooses to provide more light and knowledge on this subject, exactly what is it are you wanting the Brethren to do?

> I read Van Wagoner's book way back in the 80's.  Also others. Nothing new.   But the messy, very personal and current unresolved  problems with plural marriage are a mine field that I hope the prophets will receive further light and knowledge on

==Same here.  But I don't think we'll get "further light and knowledge" by publicly disparaging the Lord's Church, or his servants, or joining with or otherwise cheering on self-selected critics and - worse dissidents members of the Church who publicly demand that the Church disavow revealed doctrines, and attempt to use the power of pliant media and public pressure to coerce the Church into doing so.

==I'm not sure I deserve your harrumphing about me being a meanie (particularly ironic given your breezy public slur against the Church's ethics).  But in the interests of furthering the discussion, I will defer to you on that point and apologize.  So let's put personalities aside and get back to the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac

1.I bet if you and I were members of the same ward we would get along splendidly and our public perception of each other would be as faithful members of the Church.  We just have one significant difference: I believe you can sustain the Church and its leaders faithfully but have honest dissonance with some things.  That's why DC 21 asks for patience and faith in supporting them.  But this Board allows for healthy discussion where faithful members can be honest about their doubts as well.  If you believe that faithful and having doubts cannot coexist, well, I just don't feel that way.

2.  Based on my integrity barometer, personal to me, I am very disappointed in the Church's historical narrative, including relating to Section 132.  I expressed my opinion  that , as concerning its history and origins, the Church cannot say that it has been honest in its dealings with its fellow men.  I attribute some of that to what I see as a bad case of institutional paranoia and defensiveness justifiably developed through the course of its contentious life.  I stand by that, even if you call it a sleazy attack.  I don't see it as an attack.  And I think Elders Snow, Jensen, Ballard, among others, might just agree with me.  I think the Church is slowly making restitution for this, but I feel more must be done and done sooner.

3.  You incorrectly said I was giving blanket support to everything Bill Reel is advocating.  Not so.  I pray Bill will continue to take a faithful approach to grappling with the problems.  But even though I don't blanketly endorse his thoughts, I do believe some are very good and can actually be healthy.  I fear any members who do not learn to deal with the complexities and nuances of Mormonism but instead insist on black and white and no gray, will struggle.  I don't believe the Q15 sees everything in black and white terms.

I'm going to do 90 minutes of hot yoga now.  I was actually asked by someone in my ward if faithful members were allowed to do yoga.  What do you think?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Brigham Young said "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" Brigham Young also said "if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith" What do you guys make of those quotes?

i make it he was speaking to the limit of what had been revealed to him.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Flexible said:

I expressed my opinion  that , as concerning its history and origins, the Church cannot say that it has been honest in its dealings with its fellow men.  I attribute some of that to what I see as a bad case of institutional paranoia and defensiveness justifiably developed through the course of its contentious life.  I stand by that, even if you call it a sleazy attack.  I don't see it as an attack.  And I think Elders Snow, Jensen, Ballard, among others, might just agree with me.  

I highly doubt any of them would say the Church has not been honest in its dealings with its fellow men.  There is a difference between lack of openness and lack of honesty.

[jkwilliams]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not I doing that equating. It's those who automatically conclude a priori that you're not thinking independently unless you are publicly criticizing/opposing the Church of Jesus Christ. 

You didn't answer my question.

[Tacenda]

I wonder how many members don't know that the church leaders needed the Cochranite example to introduce polygamy, unless I'm reading this wrong. This is new to me today, and I don't like how the leader Jacob Cochran was a pretty awful guy.  

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Cochranites

First, there is no contemporary evidence to support that early missionaries viewed the Cochranites marital pluralities favorably. In addition, it is unclear why Joseph Smith or other Church leaders needed the Cochranite example to introduce them to plural marriage. They were unquestionably already aware of Old Testament patriarchs who married polygamously without apparent condemnation. Also, it appears that if polygamy was mentioned in Kirtland meetings either because of a Cochranite connection or for any other reason, Church members undoubtedly would have condemned the practice. Lastly, Parley Pratt related that he did not learn of the restoration of the practice of plural marriage until after his return from England in 1841. (Link)

Edited August 3, 2016 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Brigham Young said "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" Brigham Young also said "if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith" What do you guys make of those quotes?

When I see something like this, something in the scriptures or in the teachings of past prophets, I ask myself, "what is the prophet teaching today?"  The prophet and apostles are not teaching polygamy today.  I'm only accountable to for what is being taught to my generation, not to what prophets taught to their generations in the past.  

[Calm]

Tac, You are misreading it.  It is saying those who argue for church leaders getting the idea of plural marriage from them are lacking in providing a reason why we need to appeal tp the Cochranites.  Not only is the idea in the Bible, but recorded reactions to the sect among early LDS was negative.  From the link:

"There is no contemporaneous or late evidence that the Cochranites influenced LDS ideas about plural marriage. The little mention made of the Cochranites by Latter-day Saints was all negative."

Edited August 3, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

When I see something like this, something in the scriptures or in the teachings of past prophets, I ask myself, "what is the prophet teaching today?"  The prophet and apostles are not teaching polygamy today.  I'm only accountable to for what is being taught to my generation, not to what prophets taught to their generations in the past.  

Brigham Young taught the Law of Adpotion and was not sealed to his own parents.  Does anyone believe that when further light and knowledge was received and proxy sealings to actual parents were begun, he would have done anything but shout for joy that tis revelation had been finally given to the Saints even if it wasn't  by Joseph or himself?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

When I see something like this, something in the scriptures or in the teachings of past prophets, I ask myself, "what is the prophet teaching today?" 

I don't believe we have a statement from the Prophet regarding the current teachings or doctrines on this topic, do we? 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe we have a statement from the Prophet regarding the current teachings or doctrines on this topic, do we? 

I was thinking the same thing. Last I heard, section 132 is still canon, which means the church still teaches that the doctrine of plural marriage is revealed truth.

[Calm]

What understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant to include among other covenants all sealings of couples, not just those who engaged in plural marriage, does is open up exaltation to vastly more people.  There appears to me to be no fundamental difference between the qualities of those who participated in either, it is a matter of being fully obedient in all things God commands you to obey.  Those of us who live now are not penalized for not being fully participate in following the OT laws of animal sacrifice, those who lived in the past without temples available or before Christ came are not penalized by not being able to participate in proxy baptisms for their ancestors.  It is instead essential we are obedient to what God requires of us now; our leaders can help with the broad strokes but it is up to us to put in the fine details through our best attempts to commune with God through the Spirit.

I imagine that Joseph, Brigham and John are all happily greeting the many monogamous couples joining them to abide with God and are not thinking to themselves 'it isn't fair, I had to live by such a tougher law than they did, they shouldn't be allowed here at all'.

[Johnnie Cake]

13 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Part of what I cover is the 1886 revelation by John Taylor.  When one asks what this revelation is most likely about, it is the pressure Taylor feels to do something with the conundrum of polygamy.  It appears John is told that polygamy being restored is part of the new and everlasting covenant and that plural marriage can not cease.  This revelation is also in the first person voice of Christ and says thus Sayeth the Lord.  

Yet we have ignored and dismissed it. 

The church has given the reason that they don't believe it is legit and is hence able to be ignored.

fairmormon leans heavily towards it being legit as it most certainly seems to be in Taylor's handwriting.

isnt about time we acknowledge its legitimacy and offer a legitimate reason for dismissing christ?   Surely any who disagree with my presentation's thesis would not want to dismiss Jesus speaking directly to his prophet on such an important matter.

Included in the narrative of Taylor's revelation was his invitation to his body guard to continue polygamy.  If one buys into the whole narrative of this story then fundamentalist Mormons are doing gods work by fulfilling prophecy.  Talk about messy

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe we have a statement from the Prophet regarding the current teachings or doctrines on this topic, do we? 

No, we don't.  They aren't teaching us about polygamy.  I'm not accountable for following what Brigham Young taught his people, only what I'm being taught by the prophet and apostles today.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

No, we don't.  They aren't teaching us about polygamy.  I'm not accountable for following what Brigham Young taught his people, only what I'm being taught by the prophet and apostles today.

I would imagine you're accountable for following section 132, though.

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

No, we don't.  They aren't teaching us about polygamy.  I'm not accountable for following what Brigham Young taught his people, only what I'm being taught by the prophet and apostles today.

Again, that's the problem.  There are no teachings today from our Prophet to help those with questions.  So are we to believe what was last taught is still applicable today?  If not, why hasn't this been clarified.?  They are almost completely silent on the topic.  Has the doctrine that was taught been changed?  If so, do you have quotes supporting this change?

I can tell you that there are many members (most especially sisters) who are going to their local leaders with questions on this topic.

Edited August 3, 2016 by ALarson