Is it lights out for the FLDS Church?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the point some fundamentalists like to make in regards to our original topic of revocation of law and blessing is that "great numbers of my people have been negligent in the observance of my law".

Which is fine. From their theology that makes sense. I just think their theology wrong. My point is just that appealing to this particular text is ambiguous at best.

Quote

And therefore when the Manifesto was given to President Woodruff with the instruction  to put it to a vote of common consent the Lord was following his own admonition that "it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters."

Well except Woodruff said it was a command from God to stop plural marriage of multiple living spouses. Of course as many feminists are fond of complaining about, plural marriage is alive and well in terms of the theology of eternity. 

Quote

I think the question that is being raised by the 1886 revelation (if authentic) followed shortly after by the manifesto is whether it was God's intent to end polygamy (give the statements in the 1889 revelation to President Woodruff) or the peoples agency.  Interestingly in 1887 there was also a political vote as part of a constitutional convention which included a ban on polygamy.  Church members overwhelmingly supported it.  Perhaps we have a Samuel the king situation.

Right. But that really can't be determined by the text due to its ambiguity and vagueness. You either accept Woodruff's revelation (or the later full cessation since of course plural marriages continued in secret for a while) or you don't. The issue with the fundamentalists IMO is much more about the authority entailed by having ones second anointing than the issue of polygamy per se.  That is when John W. Taylor and others were excommunicated did they lose their authority. Mormons say yes. Fundamentalists say no. And some fundamentalists (and more recent groups like the Snufferites) claim new visitations delivering authority and that Mormons lost theirs. But there's really no unambiguous texts both accept that could determine that.

Regarding the 1887 vote I think that's complicated since the popular view of the time was that state officials would be lenient enforcing the ban versus federal forces. i.e. there's a lot of complicated strategy going on and the vote can't necessarily be taken in a forthright fashion. That was why Democrats wouldn't accept statehood until the Church formally renounced polygamy. They knew there was a certain disingenuousness to it all. Even after the manifesto polygamy continued for a while in a more Nauvoo style as I'm sure you're aware. Many Mormons thought, following the strategy of 1887, that it was going to continue but in a more secretive fashion. That's why the formal end was so messy. 

So I'm not sure I'd call that a Samuel the King situation. Further if it were a Samuel the King situation we'd have expected polygamy to have continued in secret much longer than it did. It seems clear the main driver was federal attacks on the Church and not merely a desire to end polygamy by the masses. Although I'm sure many of the laity were more than happy it was over. How many is difficult if not impossible to know. Certainly the 1887 vote really isn't indicative of much in that regard. Heck, I'm certainly glad it's over and I'm convinced Woodruff was inspired in what he said. i.e. I think Woodruff was right about the US government destroying the church.

[Avatar4321]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree completely that it could have been God's will for the blessings to cease.
I think it is entirely an assumption that this had nothing to do with disobedience.  We could very much be in the same position as the children of Israel who had laws revoked and were given lesser laws.
That is what the Church teaches concerning consecration and tithing after all.
And I think a lot of people have never looked at the blessings the Lord promised in connection with plural marriage.  If the Lord revoked that law those blessings went with it scripturally speaking.
So the Lord bans plural marriage in the Church.  What blessing is he no longer able to give to the Church as a result?
 

I agree with this too.  But the distinction should be obvious.  The document of the Manifesto was a legal press release directed to be issued by the Lord, not a proclamation on doctrine by the Lord.
You may even see it as a distinction without a difference, but there is still a distinction there.  Those involved certainly saw the difference as evidenced by the majority of the same 15 apostles that issued the Manifesto continuing to practice, perform, and authorize plural marriages.

What blessings do you think we lost?

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

What blessings do you think we lost?

Whatever blessings were attached to living the law of plural marriage.
Scripture and the prophets are clear.  Laws and blessings go hand in hand.

If there was no blessing attached, why have the law.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Whatever blessings were attached to living the law of plural marriage.
Scripture and the prophets are clear.  Laws and blessings go hand in hand.

If there was no blessing attached, why have the law.

Often the blessings are just general blessings for obedience. i.e. you're conflating blessings for law with an essential particular blessing for a particular law.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Often the blessings are just general blessings for obedience. i.e. you're conflating blessings for law with an essential particular blessing for a particular law.

Blessings of the law

D&C 132:29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

What law?

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

We like to tell ourselves the that law in verses 29-33 is just eternal marriage.  But verse 34 is clear which law is being referred to and how that law fulfills the promise to Abraham.
I don't see how verse 34 can be read to mean anything other than polygamy.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Blessings of the law

D&C 132:29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

What law?

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

We like to tell ourselves the that law in verses 29-33 is just eternal marriage.  But verse 34 is clear which law is being referred to and how that law fulfills the promise to Abraham.
I don't see how verse 34 can be read to mean anything other than polygamy.

The question of course has long been what the law is in this case. Is it polygamy or is it eternal family? Certainly in this case to get the blessing (being sealed) requires the law (being sealed). 

The problem again is invoking polygamy into all this. I completely understand why some people do. It's not at all clear to me that 34 is making a general claim about polygamy being necessary. Put an other way, consider reading law here as synonymous with command rather than implying an universal law. It works completely with in the text as well as with Jacob 2 but doesn't mean it's an eternal law for everyone at all times.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, reproc said:

                                                                 Jaycee Dugard  vs. The Polygamists

          

What a load of half truths and outdated information.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, reproc said:

                                                                 Jaycee Dugard  vs. The Polygamists

 

 

 

That's a bit to read.

It would have been nice if you'd corrected all the misspellings and maybe did some summarizing before posting it. 

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The question of course has long been what the law is in this case. Is it polygamy or is it eternal family? Certainly in this case to get the blessing (being sealed) requires the law (being sealed). 

The problem again is invoking polygamy into all this. I completely understand why some people do. It's not at all clear to me that 34 is making a general claim about polygamy being necessary. Put an other way, consider reading law here as synonymous with command rather than implying an universal law. It works completely with in the text as well as with Jacob 2 but doesn't mean it's an eternal law for everyone at all times.

Not saying it is required for everyone at all times.
The application of the law listed is clear - GOD COMMANDED.

If God doesn't command, then it's not required.  Just as in Jacob 2.
That doesn't change scriptural principle - D&C 130 tells us every blessing has a law connected.  Don't live the law, you don't get the blessing.  
D&C 58 says that God can revoke a law, but then the blessings go with it.

So again, what are the blessings directly connected to the law in D&C 132:34?
Because God revoked that law through President Woodruff.  And according to scripture the blessings went with it.

Edited September 28, 2017 by JLHPROF

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not saying it is required for everyone at all times.
The application of the law listed is clear - GOD COMMANDED.

If God doesn't command, then it's not required.  Just as in Jacob 2.
That doesn't change scriptural principle - D&C 130 tells us every blessing has a law connected.  Don't live the law, you don't get the blessing.  
D&C 58 says that God can revoke a law, but then the blessings go with it.

So again, what are the blessings directly connected to the law in D&C 132:34?
Because God revoked that law through President Woodruff.  And according to scripture the blessings went with it.

The problem with that reading is that the blessing is the same for polygamy or not polygamy: eternal increase. 
 

If the blessing is just children with the new wife, OK that's fine, but that's as true for widowers who remarry too. i.e. there's no unique blessing beyond what marriage gives one (assuming one has children) That's long been the problem for those pushing the polygamist readings - it's not clear there's any real difference.

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem with that reading is that the blessing is the same for polygamy or not polygamy: eternal increase. 
 

If the blessing is just children with the new wife, OK that's fine, but that's as true for widowers who remarry too. i.e. there's no unique blessing beyond what marriage gives one (assuming one has children) That's long been the problem for those pushing the polygamist readings - it's not clear there's any real difference.

I don't believe I am pushing a polygamist reading.
Verse 34 specifically refers to the law of polygamy and that there are blessings attached.  I don't see any other way to read that verse.
 

[Calm]

Reproc, are you "Dave"?

http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/uncategorized/episode-108-married-to-warren-jeffs/

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe I am pushing a polygamist reading.
Verse 34 specifically refers to the law of polygamy and that there are blessings attached.  I don't see any other way to read that verse.
 

For a difference to be a difference it must make a difference. The blessing you describe is the same for both. That's my only point.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, reproc said:

                                                                 Jaycee Dugard  vs. The Polygamists

                There are a group of people whose life is almost identical to Jaycee Dugards' life in captivity. Unlike Jaycee who could not be found these people can be. They are members of Utah's polygamist cults. These cults have a few thousand Jaycee Lee Dugards in the custody of hundreds of Phillip Garridos with no Rebecca Baileys  around to clean up the mess. The only difference between these girls and Jaycee is they were born into captivity not kidnapped into it. They did not chose that life any more than Jaycee did. Their brainwashed parents, at one time victims themselves are coconspirators In their abuse and exploitation. Keep in mind that like Jaycee they have been kept isolated all their lives and don't have faintest idea what's going on in the real world. Like Jaycee they have been fed a steady diet of highly deceptive and manipulative misinformation. Much of it unrealistic unsupported ultra extreme religious rhetoric and threats. Just to name a few they are taught that Warren Jeffs is the president of the united states and is going to get out of jail tomorrow. Inbreeding  is a myth invented by the government  to dissuade them from practicing  their religion. Man never stepped foot on the moon. Former members (apostates) have been drugged by the government. They have intentionally introduced phobias, fear and shun outsiders, the internet and every other form of electronic or printed communication. With no alternative point of view they can be told just about anything and they will believe it. They are unlikely to ask for help. Since no one in the cult will talk to police or outsiders there is no deterrent to criminal activity. In particular sex offences and violence against  children.

Reproc, I sympathize with you a great deal, and agree that the FLDS teachings are the worst thing to happen since burnt toast. I sense your anger, and that you are trying to help those imprisoned by the FLDS system. However, I want to point out that monogamous intercourse can be turned into something awful - like just about anything else in this life which is good. I am not going to get into a debate about polygamy, but just want to make that point.

I hope that you can see that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not closed. It does not try to blind its members nor keep them from leaving, but invites all to live a wholesome life in Christ rather than merely some Church leader. I wish you well.

[Avatar4321]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Reproc, I sympathize with you a great deal, and agree that the FLDS teachings are the worst thing to happen since burnt toast. I sense your anger, and that you are trying to help those imprisoned by the FLDS system. However, I want to point out that monogamous intercourse can be turned into something awful - like just about anything else in this life which is good. I am not going to get into a debate about polygamy, but just want to make that point.

I hope that you can see that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not closed. It does not try to blind its members nor keep them from leaving, but invites all to live a wholesome life in Christ rather than merely some Church leader. I wish you well.

I think this is a point that is often missed. We are supposed to follow Christ. We sustain our leadership in bringing men to Christ. It is Christ that changes our hearts and nature. It's Christ that paid for our sins.