JLHPROF Posted August 6, 2017 Posted August 6, 2017 10 hours ago, Stargazer said: Salvation isn't being denied. It's being postponed. Slight difference there. Think of the people who lived in India in say, 1000 BC. They never so much as heard of Jesus Christ, let alone got a chance to be baptized. If you don't get your opportunity here, you get it there. It's all good. I can't believe I have to explain it to you. You don't have to. I understand this perfectly. That doesn't change the fact that the Manifesto may have been given by God to end plural marriage in the Church and save the Church, but it in no way contains a commandment against plural marriage nor any kind of repudiation of the doctrine. There has not been a commandment or revelation stating that polygamy is a sin since he revealed it to Joseph. There has been direction from the Lord not to practice polygamy at this time. Slight difference there. The doctrine remains intact. Just looking for a little accuracy here. Why did God choose to end polygamy with the Manifesto? Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. If the reason was that it was against the law, then where it isn't against the law there really is no reason to bar polygamists from baptism in countries where it is legal.
The Nehor Posted August 6, 2017 Posted August 6, 2017 20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Oh Nehor...have I ever told you how much you make me smile. You said monogamy is currently a commandment. Commandments come from God. I'd like to see where God said monogamy is currently a commandment that supersedes the commandment he gave in D&C 132. But you don't have to if you don't want to. The proclamation on the family then. And it comes from his servants and God said that whether it comes from him or his servants it is the same. 1
Bernard Gui Posted August 6, 2017 Author Posted August 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: The proclamation on the family then. And it comes from his servants and God said that whether it comes from him or his servants it is the same. I would choose to err on the side of the servants rather than strike out (pun intended) on my own. God's servants before and after the Manifesto have cited Jacob 2 as God's revealed standard for marriage....between one man and one woman unless commanded otherwise. Jacob says these are the words of God. I see no good reason to reject this. Edited August 6, 2017 by Bernard Gui 3
Stargazer Posted August 7, 2017 Posted August 7, 2017 8 hours ago, JLHPROF said: You don't have to. I understand this perfectly. Thought you did. 8 hours ago, JLHPROF said: That doesn't change the fact that the Manifesto may have been given by God to end plural marriage in the Church and save the Church, but it in no way contains a commandment against plural marriage nor any kind of repudiation of the doctrine. There has not been a commandment or revelation stating that polygamy is a sin since he revealed it to Joseph. There has been direction from the Lord not to practice polygamy at this time. Slight difference there. The doctrine remains intact. 2 Of course, despite wishful thinking from some LDS. 8 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Just looking for a little accuracy here. Why did God choose to end polygamy with the Manifesto? Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. If the reason was that it was against the law, then where it isn't against the law there really is no reason to bar polygamists from baptism in countries where it is legal. Oh, I don't know about that. I think there needs to be consistency on important topics, worldwide. Such as plural marriage, baptism at age 8, conferring of the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on. Other things, such as whether temple marriage must be done IN the temple, as opposed to a civil marriage prior to temple sealing, can be customized according to laws in different jurisdictions (although I happen to believe that that should be consistent as well). 2
Recommended Posts