Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Enish-go-on-doshling]

I don't think you realize the position you put Rollo in when you say you "vote for Rollo."  If he accepts your "vote," that puts him opposition to the Prophet.  That means his soul is in peril.  Myself, I wouldn't want to put anyone in such a situation. 

Sorry Rollo, didn't mean to put your soul in danger

[Enish-go-on-doshling]

Then we know that you disbelieve the prophets of the Lord. Which is your privilege, of course, but let's just be clear on the point.

Yes, but I only quit beliving in what the "prophets of the Lord" had to say when it became apparent that the full truth was not a high priority - thus the loss of trust.

[Nighthawke]

Especially as Rollo points out 1) polygamy was absolutely essential to exaltation at one time...

I disagree, polygamy was NOT absolutely essential to exaltation at one time.

Even Brigham Young's statements are less than absolute. Young stated that "if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamist at least in your faith." (Journal of Discourses 11:268-69 (August 19, 1866)).

Another Brigham Young quote: "Deny [plural marriage] in your feelings and I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses 3:264 (July 14, 1855)).

In short, entering plural marriage might not be essential for exaltation, but believing that it was a righteous principle ordained of God was.

(...) The crux of the issue was faith in the principle and a willingness to obey it, not that one had entered plural marriage.

- Kathryn Daynes, "Move Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910". [university of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago] 2001, p. 74.

[charity]

Nighthawke, long time no see. Glad to hear from you again. Good post, as usual.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I disagree, polygamy was NOT absolutely essential to exaltation at one time.

Even Brigham Young's statements are less than absolute.

In the same talk from your "polygamists in your heart" speech, BY said:

"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 blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

Even if one is a "polygamist at heart" in this life, it would appear that the next life (at least in terms of exaltation) requires polygamy in practice.

Also, if polygamy was not a part of the next life (or unimportant), why would the Church go through the Manifesto and all the efforts to this day to distance itself from polygamy, when a form of the practice remains in the Church allowing living men to be sealed to a 2nd living wife (if the first is dead)? Polygamy not only remains in LDS doctrine as a "true and everlasting covenant," but in practice as well.

EDITED TO ADD:

In the second quote you gave from BY, you failed to mention this other tidbit in that same talk:

"Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God."

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

The answer is right there in the quotes.

"because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

Not everyone was, is, or will be OFFERED the opportunity to practice polygamy in this life, or even in the next. ALL are OFFERED the Highest Degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

[Deborah]

It appears to me a big deal is being made out of nothing. The Lord has always excused his people from fulfilling certain commandments when the circumstances around them do not permit it.

In order to become part of the United States, the territory of Utah had to disband the practice and in order to preserve the church at that time, this was done. Polygamy has not been reinstated since that time because it is against the law of the land, and because, in my personal opinion, of the wickedness of the world.

However, this doesn't mean that those living today will not in the afterlife have multiple wives. I expect that a lot of the temple work done in the Millenium will be to seal righteous women (previously unmarried or who have unrighteous spouses) to righteous men.

Therefore the commandment will be fulfilled. Too many are thinking only in terms of the here and now forgetting that all these things continue into the next life.

[Scott Lloyd]

It remains in our canon as a provisional part of the doctrine of Celestial Marriage, which, taken as a whole, does bear on salvation. But you have yet to show that the practice of it is a universal requirement for exaltation.

...

I don't seen the Church as hiding from it. Not making it an integral part of Sunday curriculum does not equate to hiding from it.

...

Only because the Saints were under command to live it. Conditions have changed.

...

No. The Second Coming and the resurrection have universal application; plurality of wives does not.

1. There's that "provisional" word again to describe an "everlasting" doctrine. You're being very original, because I have never heard that before. I thought I understood what "everlasting" meant, but I guess not....

I have already responded to this. Instead of addressing my response you ignore it. This seems to be a habit with you, and it is hindrance to productive discourse.

I said that the new and everlasting covenant is far broader than just plurality of wives, which is only a provisional aspect of it. I said it is provisional because plurality of wives is only operative when the the Lord commands it; otherwise monogamy is the default condition. That is the message taught in Jacob 2:30.

Your disposition to go over ground that has already been covered and ignore responses that have been made is tedious.

2.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I said that the new and everlasting covenant is far broader than just plurality of wives, which is only a provisional aspect of it. I said it is provisional because plurality of wives is only operative when the the Lord commands it; otherwise monogamy is the default condition. That is the message taught in Jacob 2:30.

...

The new-and-everlasting covenant is the doctrine of marriage and the sealing of families together for enternity with the promise of eternal increase in unity with God and Christ, not the provisional plurality-of-wives aspect you are obsessing over.

You remain stuck in viewing polygamy in an earthly sphere -- my point relates to polygamy in the hereafter. The "provisional" part is the practice in this life (such as in Jacob 2:30), and I have given several quotes from dead Church leaders (living ones would probably say "we don't know" when pressed on the issue) that polygamy is necessary for exaltation. "Everlasting" means just that -- and not "provisional."

The "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" was understood by early Church leaders to be of a plural nature, not monogamy (the earliest sealings were between husband and plural wife, not the first wife). I know, you probably find many teachings from dead Church leaders embarassing, but they are part of Church history, for better or worse, and since those leaders actually lived the Principle they seem pretty qualified to explain the details (which so many members would rather forget today).

[Stormin' Mormon]

Let's pretend that four years from now, the Church decides to delve further into polygamy during Gospel Doctrine class. This would, of course, be part of the larger Doctrine and Covenants study for the year. I have two questions.

First, to reiterate a point that has been made ad nauseum, how much time should we spend on it? We have 48 lessons (52 weeks - 2 weeks for general conference and -2 weeks for Stake conference). How many of those 48 lessons should be devoted to the nitty-gritty of polygamy? Keep in mind that each lesson is only 40 minutes long. What would you exclude from the D&C study in order to make more room for this subject? Would one 40 minute lesson be sufficient to cover all the angles that Rollo wants us to cover? Would we need to do two, three, four, or more lessons on the topic?

Second, who would teach the lessons on polygamy? Gospel Doctrine teachers are, for the most part, volunteer teachers. The majoirty of them do not have the scholarly background to cover the topic as exhaustively as Rollo wants us to.

In summary, the Church just does not have the resources (either in time or in personnel) to cover the topic exhaustively duing Gospel Doctrine class. I see nothing wrong with admitting this. When resources are scarce, tough decisions have to be made. With limited time and personnel, some topic must, by neccessity be excluded, minimized, or brushed over. Polygamy seems to be a good candidate for this downsizing because members are no longer asked to practice it.

I have this sinking feeling that everything I have said has been said before and has been continually ignored. Sigh.

[Rollo Tomasi]

In summary, the Church just does not have the resources (either in time or in personnel) to cover the topic exhaustively duing Gospel Doctrine class.

My beef is not so much with the Church's not "exhaustively covering polygamy in Gospel Doctrine class," but more with the Church's affirmative efforts to downplay polygamy, or to whitewash it from LDS history. I've given several examples of this, and I'd like to see it stop -- not so much teach more of the details, but just stop making those details disappear.

[Tarski]

Two things.  First, I don't think you realize the position you put Rollo in when you say you "vote for Rollo."  If he accepts your "vote," that puts him opposition to the Prophet.  That means his soul is in peril.  Myself, I wouldn't want to put anyone in such a situation.

Wow! Just..wow!

Unbelievable!

Can you say "fear tactic"?

I say all who do not dare to think for themselves are already purgatory.

[Scott Lloyd]

I said that the new and everlasting covenant is far broader than just plurality of wives, which is only a provisional aspect of it. I said it is provisional because plurality of wives is only operative when the the Lord commands it; otherwise monogamy is the default condition. That is the message taught in Jacob 2:30.

...

The new-and-everlasting covenant is the doctrine of marriage and the sealing of families together for enternity with the promise of eternal increase in unity with God and Christ, not the provisional plurality-of-wives aspect you are obsessing over.

You remain stuck in viewing polygamy in an earthly sphere -- my point relates to polygamy in the hereafter. The "provisional" part is the practice in this life (such as in Jacob 2:30), and I have given several quotes from dead Church leaders (living ones would probably say "we don't know" when pressed on the issue) that polygamy is necessary for exaltation. "Everlasting" means just that -- and not "provisional."

The "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" was understood by early Church leaders to be of a plural nature, not monogamy (the earliest sealings were between husband and plural wife, not the first wife). I know, you probably find many teachings from dead Church leaders embarassing, but they are part of Church history, for better or worse, and since those leaders actually lived the Principle they seem pretty qualified to explain the details (which so many members would rather forget today).

I'm not stuck in any sphere. I understand and accept that a man sealed to more than one wife in mortality will have those wives in eternity, provided everyone involved remains faithful.

What I don't accept is your notion that plurality of wives is a universal prerequisite for exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Despite considerable bluffing on your part, you have not shown this to be definitive doctrine -- now or in the past.

[charity]

Tarski, my goal, as should be the goal of every person, is to align him/herself with God's thinking. God knows everything and is always right. Why would anyone, in the name of independence, want to be wrong?

About souls in peril. When we come out in opposition to God, our souls are in peril. When anyone frames their feelings, opinions, in terms of voting for or against, then we know what the choice leads to. Matt. 12: 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Two things here: A person can always ask, is opposing the prophet/Church opposing Christ? I would caution on the conservative side were someone saying, well, I am not actually opposing Christ, just His prophet and His Church.

And secondly. Is that what Rollo is actually doing? I don't see that he said that, but people who are responding to his posts who talk in terms of choosing between him and the Church are making that assumption for him. And were I Rollo, I would quickly disabuse them of that idea. Otherwise, it might seem as though he were actually encouraging rebellion against the prophet or the Church, and thus Christ.

[cinepro]

In order to understand whether or not Polygamy is "required" to enter into the highest degree of the CK, I think it is helpful to think about what is "required" to enter into the other two degrees of the CK.

If someone told you they only wanted to enter the lowest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, but weren't sure how to do it, what would you tell them? How about if they wanted to only be worthy of the middle degree? Just who are these people that will be worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom, but not be worthy of the highest degree?

[Tarski]

Tarski, my goal, as should be the goal of every person, is to align him/herself with God's thinking. God knows everything and is always right. Why would anyone, in the name of independence, want to be wrong?

About souls in peril. When we come out in opposition to God, our souls are in peril. When anyone frames their feelings, opinions, in terms of voting for or against, then we know what the choice leads to. Matt. 12: 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Two things here: A person can always ask, is opposing the prophet/Church opposing Christ? I would caution on the conservative side were someone saying, well, I am not actually opposing Christ, just His prophet and His Church.

And secondly. Is that what Rollo is actually doing? I don't see that he said that, but people who are responding to his posts who talk in terms of choosing between him and the Church are making that assumption for him. And were I Rollo, I would quickly disabuse them of that idea. Otherwise, it might seem as though he were actually encouraging rebellion against the prophet or the Church, and thus Christ.

The church is run by men (I can name them). To assert the opposite is to beg the very question.

You assume to much.

[will2believe]

Two things here: A person can always ask, is opposing the prophet/Church opposing Christ?

Only if we consider the prophet to be a puppet, and every aspect of the church to be divinely dictated.

[charity]

Tarski, you assume that the Church is not run by the Lord through his Prophets. So, here we are, "My assumption is better than your assumption." I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. Oh well.

[Scott Lloyd]

In summary, the Church just does not have the resources (either in time or in personnel) to cover the topic exhaustively duing Gospel Doctrine class.

My beef is not so much with the Church's not "exhaustively covering polygamy in Gospel Doctrine class," but more with the Church's affirmative efforts to downplay polygamy, or to whitewash it from LDS history. I've given several examples of this, and I'd like to see it stop -- not so much teach more of the details, but just stop making those details disappear.

Interesting that Rollo makes this statement after having downplayed the inclusion in the gospel doctrine teacher's manual of a summary of the place of polygamy in Church history and the position of the Church on the subject today.

Also interesting is that Rollo's discontent seems to be driven, in part, at least, by his own quirky notions about Church doctrine regarding plurality of wives in the hereafter and the fanciful supposition that it is a prerequisite for exaltation.

[Scott Lloyd]

In order to understand whether or not Polygamy is "required" to enter into the highest degree of the CK, I think it is helpful to think about what is "required" to enter into the other two degrees of the CK.

How would that be helpful? I don't get your thinking here.

[will2believe]

Tarski, you assume that the Church is not run by the Lord through his Prophets. So, here we are, "My assumption is better than your assumption." I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. Oh well.

charity, I don't believe that either of your positions are assumptions, but rather conclusions. And while I agree with your belief that the church is run by the Lord through his prophets, I find that belief too vague to be useful in a chain of logic.

[charity]

Hi, Will. I was defining an assumption as "something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption" I don't think that God can be "proven" in the sense of scientific proof.

I have truth for myself, in the sense of the witness of the Holy Ghost, but since those who have not exprienced that will reject that, I do not try to convince them. So, Tarski, and I have reached an impasse. We hold 2 competing views. And no way to "prove" who is right.

[Tarski]

Hi, Will. I was defining an assumption as "something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption" I don't think that God can be "proven" in the sense of scientific proof.

I have truth for myself, in the sense of the witness of the Holy Ghost, but since those who have not exprienced that will reject that, I do not try to convince them. So, Tarski, and I have reached an impasse. We hold 2 competing views. And no way to "prove" who is right.

Actually I think there is proof good enough for practical purposes---good enough for the law. Definitely good enough for me.

For purposes of a discussion of whether the mormon church is true or not I don't just assume that it is false. I try to show why it is false.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Interesting that Rollo makes this statement after having downplayed the inclusion in the gospel doctrine teacher's manual of a summary of the place of polygamy in Church history and the position of the Church on the subject today.

...

Also interesting is that Rollo's discontent seems to be driven, in part, at least, by his own quirky notions about Church doctrine regarding plurality of wives in the hereafter and the fanciful supposition that it is a prerequisite for exaltation.

You still don't get it -- part of the "downplaying" I've been talking about includes sticking the only mention of polygamy in the manual's "additional help" section (rather than the main text), and then, instructing it be read IF class members have questions. Add to this that the booklet given to all class members only mentions polygamy 50 years out of sequence, and only then using clever wordplay.

"Quirky notion"? "Fanciful supposition"? Good thing Brother Brigham isn't around to hear you say that, or he'd send the Danites after you.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't see that he said that, but people who are responding to his posts who talk in terms of choosing between him and the Church are making that assumption for him. And were I Rollo, I would quickly disabuse them of that idea. Otherwise, it might seem as though he were actually encouraging rebellion against the prophet or the Church, and thus Christ.

I am not the one who told folks to choose between me and the LDS Church -- you created that false dilemma. I'm not encouraging rebellion or apostasy or anything else -- just discussing the issues and my take on how the Church has been downplaying polygamy in its efforts to mainstream and avoid troublesome history.