ALarson Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Here's the entire quote with emphasis added. I think Brigham and Bro Penrose were on the same page. Those who will be denied blessings are those who who refused to accept it "at least in [their] faith.".... They are those who wish "there were no such thing in existence." So you believe part of the quote but not this part: Quote . The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them Interesting.... Once again, the part in bold is no longer taught. Or can you find a quote by a current church leader that states anything about needing to accept polygamy in order to become a God?
Bernard Gui Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 44 minutes ago, ALarson said: So you believe part of the quote but not this part: Interesting.... Once again, the part in bold is no longer taught. Or can you find a quote by a current church leader that states anything about needing to accept polygamy in order to become a God? I provided the whole quote because it expands and clarifies what Brigham meant. Without it, one can come to wrong conclusions. I believe the whole quote. My experience is that whatever I research and provide gets dismissed, so I'm not keen to put out the effort. But....oh well. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/polygamy-latter-day-saints-and-the-practice-of-plural-marriage Quote In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle. Jacob 2:2 Quote Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. Brigham Young: Quote You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc," − the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory You are free to draw your own conclusions. 3
ALarson Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I provided the whole quote because it expands and clarifies what Brigham meant. Without it, one can come to wrong conclusions. I believe the whole quote. My experience is that whatever I research and provide gets dismissed, so I'm not keen to put out the effort. But....oh well. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/polygamy-latter-day-saints-and-the-practice-of-plural-marriage Jacob 2:2 Brigham Young: You are free to draw your own conclusions. My point here is what was once taught regarding polygamy is no longer taught. I'm not dismissing your quotes since they are just proving my point (IMO) and I think we actually agree here. There is no current teaching that a member has to accept polygamy (as Brigham taught) in order to become a God (or Goddess). That has changed. I know many very good, active members and leaders who firmly believe it will not be a requirement to live polygamy in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Maybe you still hold to BY's teachings and believe it will be necessary for you to live polygamy, and I respect your right to do believe that (and you're not alone here if you believe this as I think JLHPROF and others may believe that too). But it is no longer taught by our current leaders.
Bernard Gui Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: But it is no longer taught by our current leaders. We'll have to agree to disagree on this, as per the logic of sequence of quotes I provided. The Church currently teaches polygamy was a divine instruction, Jacob said the Lord would command it for a specific purpose, Brigham said you gotta at least believe that or you won't receive the blessings of Abraham (exaltation), and those who wish it weren't so would be disqualified.... 'Nuff said. Edited September 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2
ALarson Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: We'll have to agree to disagree on this, as per the logic of sequence of quotes I provided. The Church currently teaches polygamy was a divine instruction, Jacob said the Lord would command it for a specific purpose, Brigham said you gotta at least believe that or you won't receive the blessings of Abraham (exaltation), and to deny it would be a disqualifier. 'Nuff said. Yes, but that is also no longer taught (regarding a belief in polygamy being necessary to become a God). As far as I've seen, you've provided no quotes that this is taught by our current leaders. I don't believe one needs to believe in polygamy to become a God. I can see that one person may live it in the Celestial Kingdom and another may choose not to because they do not believe in it. I believe that will be left up to each individual person. (And I agree, "Nuff said now ) Edited September 24, 2017 by ALarson 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, ALarson said: Yes, but that is also no longer taught (regarding a belief in polygamy being necessary to become a God). As far as I've seen, you've provided no quotes that this is taught by our current leaders. I don't believe one needs to believe in polygamy to become a God. I can see that one person may live it in the Celestial Kingdom and another may choose not to because they do not believe in it. I believe that will be left up to each individual person. Have you asked any what they believe? (And I agree, "Nuff said now ) Just one more thing ....whether or not a current authority has spoken publicly on whatever subject is not a valid measure of its truthfulness. One would have to poll all General Authorities with the specific question to find out what they think. It's really meaningless to say that since no one has said something, it must be false or changed. Edited September 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
ALarson Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: One would have to poll all General Authorities with the specific question to find out what they think. It's really meaningless to say that since no one has said something, it must be false or changed. I don't know about that (it's a pretty good indication that it is at least no longer taught and that's what we are discussing here), but it is true that some leaders may still strongly believe that one must enter into polygamous marriages to become a God or Goddess. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard a leader (or anyone in a teaching position) state that they believed this or taught it to the members. That's the point of this discussion and where the change has occurred. Edited September 24, 2017 by ALarson
Bernard Gui Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, ALarson said: I don't know about that (it's a pretty good indication that it is at least no longer taught and that's what we are discussing here), but it is true that some leaders may still strongly believe that one must enter into polygamous marriages to become a God or Goddess. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard a leader (or anyone in a teaching position) state that they believed this or taught it to the members. That's the point of this discussion and where the change has occurred. But that is a mistaken notion....as I have documented twice now, as stated by Elder Penrose, an Apostle and polygamist and even Brigham himself, accepting the practice was required, not necessarily participating in it. It is certainly reasonable to conclude the same is true today especially given that the Church still teaches it was divine revelation. Wishing it were not so doesn't make it disappear. Edited September 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
ALarson Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: But that is a mistaken notion....as I have documented twice now, as stated by Elder Penrise and even Brigham himself, accepting the practice was required, not necessarily participating in it. It is certainly reasonable to conclude the same is true today especially given that the Church still teaches it was divine revelation. Wishing it were not so doesn't make it disappear. We will just have to disagree here, Bernard. I absolutely do not believe that it is still taught that a member needs to accept polygamy or enter into a polygamous relationship in order to become a God or Goddess. (I also disagree with your analysis of what BY taught as well. We will just have to agree that we disagree on that as well as I see no need to further discuss this.) Edited September 24, 2017 by ALarson
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: But that is a mistaken notion....as I have documented twice now, as stated by Elder Penrose, an Apostle and polygamist and even Brigham himself, accepting the practice was required, not necessarily participating in it. It is certainly reasonable to conclude the same is true today especially given that the Church still teaches it was divine revelation. Wishing it were not so doesn't make it disappear. I don't see the big deal to acknowledge that the church has changed in some places considered important in the past, like polygamy. Men don't speak as prophets all the time, right, and couldn't it be that BY was just speaking as a man and now that further light and knowledge is had we have a better understanding of the doctrine/policy? Wouldn't that be a convenient way to discount the disfavored doctrines/policies while still maintaining faith?
Calm Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, ALarson said: My point here is what was once taught regarding polygamy is no longer taught. I'm not dismissing your quotes since they are just proving my point (IMO) and I think we actually agree here. There is no current teaching that a member has to accept polygamy (as Brigham taught) in order to become a God (or Goddess). That has changed. I know many very good, active members and leaders who firmly believe it will not be a requirement to live polygamy in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Maybe you still hold to BY's teachings and believe it will be necessary for you to live polygamy, and I respect your right to do believe that (and you're not alone here if you believe this as I think JLHPROF and others may believe that too). But it is no longer taught by our current leaders. It is possible in my view that accepting polygamy will amount in the next life to what is being requested and even demanded by some for same sex marriage, and that is a recognition that polygamy is a valid form of Eternal marriage for those who participate in it. Since we will all be One, it is my belief that others' sealings will have impact on us in more personal ways than just the impact people's choices have on us in mortality. The rejection of polygamy as an eternal variation of marriage by those who believe that SSM will be an eternal form of marriage (not all supporters of eternal SSM reject PM) is a rather interesting and contradictory position in my view. ----- mfb's post helped clarify my view why the discussion has changed so much over the years in terms of certainty for many.... I think there is some difficulty created in understanding why some are so certain that SSM will never be part of Eternal Marriage when the theological/philosophical/psychological view of men and women as fundamental opposites has been forgotten as an essential part of the discussion. The Yin and the Yang is the easiest way to explain it these days, imo, now that our symbolic language no longer commonly uses "male" and "female" when applied to humans in such a way. If we reject the Yin/Yang description of male/female relationship based on our everyday experience of how individuals themselves are not black or white, not all one and not the other and focus instead on how many women have attributes that have been labeled "male" and many men "female" while the majority of attributes are seen as neither male or female anyway or that we don't actually marry people that are our total opposites and that would actually probably create total chaos and conflict in a relationship if we did, then the essential need to have the Divine Pair be Male and Female becomes blurry. It becomes not about two opposites creating a whole by joining together, but a companionship working together to create an ideal relationship between them...which can actually be applied to any relationship of any kind. We don't need to supply the lack in the other for the Eternal Balance to exist, but instead we help them fill the lack in themselves so they become the Whole as an individual. Male/Female then only needs to be a characteristic of that type of relationship if we view it as a procreative one and ignore the trend of science that makes it appear that humans will be able to produce children with DNA only provided by one sex eventually...so why would God be restricted in such a way? Creation of Earth itself is presented as a purely male activity in the temple as is for the most part overseeing and participating in the mortal probation of spiritual offspring and little else of Godhood is portrayed in scripture or ritual. The need for the Other in the Divine Pair to be female is dimmed almost everywhere outside of "male and female created he them" in my opinion now that as a culture we have become accepting the individual as the core unit of society and of homosexuality as part of marriage in our society (not commenting on whether this is right or wrong in the here and now, mortality is different to me than what Godhood will be, there seems much in us allowed by God that will not lead to our Eternal Being save in learning perhaps what is most important to us). I think in many ways the focus on the individual is needed to ensure that all are provided with opportunities they need to grow as well as all voices are heard in our society, we cannot become One with others without becoming fully ourselves first in my opinion, but I don't see that level of completeness as the final state of Being. If one rejects Yin-Yang/'complete in what they are, but Incomplete in Godhood' Opposites joining together to create the Perfect One God as purely symbolic, without connection to actual relationships or view God as either the individual or the whole community and not as the Divine Pair, I think it can become almost impossible to argue Eternal Marriage must be Man/Woman except on the basis of revelation...and then it becomes a matter of how sure one is that current revelation matches Eternal truths. Iow, it becomes how one phrases the discussion from the very beginning. If we begin with fundamentally different assumptions about the Nature of Eternal Being, I don't see much understanding or acceptance of the other's view as valid being possible. Edited September 24, 2017 by Calm 1
ALarson Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: It is possible in my view that accepting polygamy will amount in the next life to what is being requested and even demanded by some for same sex marriage, and that is a recognition that polygamy is a valid form of Eternal marriage for those who participate in it. Since we will all be One, it is my belief that others' sealings will have impact on us in more personal ways than just the impact people's choices have on us in mortality. I completely agree with this, Calm. I would support anyone who wanted to live polygamy in the next life if all participants desired that. I have no issue with that. However, I do have issue with the teaching that someone will have to live polygamy in order to be in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom or to become a God or Goddess.
Bernard Gui Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 On 9/22/2017 at 11:56 AM, jkwilliams said: I wasn't making a snarky comment at all. Sorry you took it that way. The definition of marriage has changed for the church, at least for this life. No, it hasn't. Jacob 2 is the definition with provision for plural marriage under strict conditions. Those came and went, but the definition remains the same as when Adam and Eve were joined by the Lord. 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I don't see the big deal to acknowledge that the church has changed in some places considered important in the past, like polygamy. Men don't speak as prophets all the time, right, and couldn't it be that BY was just speaking as a man and now that further light and knowledge is had we have a better understanding of the doctrine/policy? Wouldn't that be a convenient way to discount the disfavored doctrines/policies while still maintaining faith? 1. Jacob 2:2 states the Lord's parameters. 2. Joseph and Brigham and many others since have verified it being a revealed doctrine. 3. The revelation still stand in the D&C. 4. The Church teaches today that it was a divine revelation and still allows it under certain very restricted circumstances. We shouldn't be so eager to throw Brigham and others under the politically correct bus. Surely there are many who wish there had been no polygamy because it is inconvenient for us now, but wishing won't make that happen. In fact, Brother Brigham warned us against that. Quote It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at le[a]st in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc," − the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: No, it hasn't. Jacob 2 is the definition with provision for plural marriage under strict conditions. Those came and went, but the definition remains the same as when Adam and Eve were joined by the Lord. Yes indeed. The unchanging principle, applicable in all ages, is that God will temporarily implement plurality of wives if and when He sees fit. That is the timeless lesson of Jacob 2.
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes indeed. Which Joseph didn't do (unless you twist or skew the meaning of raising seed). So how do you justify him marrying other men's wives for the purpose specified in Jacob? How about him marrying 14 year old girls?
Calm Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, JulieM said: Which Joseph didn't do (unless you twist or skew the meaning of raising seed). So how do you justify him marrying other men's wives for the purpose specified in Jacob? How about him marrying 14 year old girls? Intent might have been there, you can't blame him for lack of opportunity (having to be in hiding, getting kill a year or two after it looks like he actually committed to the practice in that sense). The 14 year old, Helen Mar Kimball, was likely more of a betrothal such as occurred later on in Utah. She certainly did act like someone in a marriage, but rather expected to deal with it later in life imo. add-on: missed the second question. I think he was trying to live the vision of a Celestial family through sealing without understanding what it was. Whether the plural marriage with single women that followed the sealings with married women were a better understanding because God clarified it for him or another innovative attempt on his part , I don't know. Edited September 25, 2017 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: Which Joseph didn't do (unless you twist or skew the meaning of raising seed). So how do you justify him marrying other men's wives for the purpose specified in Jacob? How about him marrying 14 year old girls? Well now, Joseph was not allowed to live long enough to raise up much seed to the Lord, was he? As prophet of the Restoration, his role was to receive the revelation and teach the principle to others by precept and example. As for the details, they have been dealt with at the FairMormon website, at Brian Hales's website and elsewhere -- which I'm sure you're capable of looking up on your own. Unless you're just trying to play "Gotcha!" . I don't have time for that.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Calm said: Intent might have been there, you can't blame him for lack of opportunity (having to be in hiding, getting kill a year or two after it looks like he actually committed to the practice in that sense). The 14 year old, Helen Mar Kimball, was likely more of a betrothal such as occurred later on in Utah. She certainly did act like someone in a marriage, but rather expected to deal with it later in life imo. I feel certain that if Joseph had been allowed to live to old age, he would have been as prolific as Brigham Young in wives and progeny. The times called for it. The Church had to be quickly populated so it could survive oppression and thrive in carrying the restored gospel to the world.
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Well now, Joseph was not allowed to live long enough to raise up much seed to the Lord, was he? Nice dodge. I think it's been shown that more children are born outside of polygamous relationships (each man being with only one woman).
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I feel certain that if Joseph had been allowed to live to old age, he would have been as prolific as Brigham Young in wives and progeny. The times called for it. The Church had to be quickly populated so it could survive oppression and thrive in carrying the restored gospel to the world. Once again, more children are born in non-polygamous societies and relationships. Many of Joseph's wives already had husband who were good members of the church. That is definitely not a good argument for Joseph's polygamous and polyandrous marriages that took place with much deceit behind Emma's back. I cannot imagine that God would approve of doing that. You may be fine with it, but many are not as more are learning about it. Edited September 24, 2017 by JulieM
Glenn101 Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, JulieM said: Nice dodge. I think it's been shown that more children are born outside of polygamous relationships (each man being with only one woman). Is that more children per family or more children per wife? Edited to add: I haven't been following this thread, so I wonder how we got there from the report on the regional priesthood leadership conference? Glenn Edited September 24, 2017 by Glenn101
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 20 minutes ago, JulieM said: Once again, more children are born in non-polygamous societies and relationships. Many of Joseph's wives already had husband who were good members of the church. And once again, it's not about total population but about those who are born into household where both the father and the mother are faithful Latter-day Saints and where the gospel is apt to be conveyed to progeny. When there are not enough faithful men to go around, the solution is plurality of wives until enough children (righteous seed) can be raised up that plural marriage is no longer needed. I'm not going to address your maligning of the Prophet. I already said I don't have time for that.
JulieM Posted September 24, 2017 Posted September 24, 2017 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And once again, it's not about total population but about those who are born into household where both the father and the mother are faithful Latter-day Saints and where the gospel is apt to be conveyed to progeny. When there are not enough faithful men to go around, the solution is plurality of wives until enough children (righteous seed) can be raised up that plural marriage is no longer needed. So does this mean you must believe Joseph Smith had marital relations with his plural wives over the years he did live polygamy (since his sole purpose was to raise up seed)?
Glenn101 Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 30 minutes ago, JulieM said: So does this mean you must believe Joseph Smith had marital relations with his plural wives over the years he did live polygamy (since his sole purpose was to raise up seed)? I do not think that we can pigeonhole polygamy as being soley for the raising up of seed. The Levirate marriage command was essentially toward such an end, that is raising up seed to a brother or kinsman that had dies childless. But then we have the example of Davis being endowed by the Lord with the wives of the deceased Saul. That would seem to be more of a dynastic type of situation. Glenn (Not answering for Scott, just what I think I understand.)
Recommended Posts