Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Calm]

It is everlasting in the sense that it is God

[Rollo Tomasi]

The everlasting principle is that plurality of wives is permissible under certain conditions, specifically that God Himself commands it, that monogamy is the rule otherwise. That is the message of Jacob 2:30; nothing in the D&C or any other volume of scripture nullifies it.

I agree with you, to the extent the practice of the doctrine is exercised in this mortal life -- however, my point relates to the hereafter, specifically, to those who obtain exaltation in the highest degree of the CK. The word "everlasting" is used to describe this doctrine because the hightest degree of the CK is "eternal life." It's why in D&C 132:63 the Lord specifically refers to plurality of wives as being "for their exaltation in the eternal worlds." Early members who lived the Principle understood it to be necessary to salvation, because that is what God the Father and Christ practiced (yes, I am putting this together in a paper for you, but it's going to take some time). They understood the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" to mean plural marriage, and since D&C 131:2 states this is what is necessary to achieve the hightest degree of the CK, plurality of wives was understood to be God's system of marriage. This was so fundamental in the early days of the Church that, frankly, I'm surprised you are so casual with a current doctrine in canon of the Church.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It is everlasting in the sense that it is God

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't confuse your own dubious inference for what is implied in the manual. But you have failed to justify calling for mandatory use of class time to discuss a now-discontinued practice about which no one in the class has a question.

...

I reject your interpretation of D&C 132:63. And your quotations of Church leaders have been called into question as well on the grounds of context.

...

So in effect, you are out of step with orthodox Church teaching on whether plurality of wives is required for exaltation. And you want the Church's curriculum practice to conform to your own (trying to be diplomatic here) non-standard beliefs regarding Church doctrine.

1. You still don't get it. I have not called for "mandatory use of class time" to discuss polygamy

Then you have no grounds for complaint. If you are not calling for mandatory use of class time, the alternative is optional use of class time. And the material on plural marriage is right there in the lesson for any teacher who exercises the option.

-- my problem has been the Church's intentional downplaying of polygamy in its current publications, including those used in this year's GD class.  Would it really be so horrible to include the historical context for the Church's doctrine on eternal marriage?  I don't think so.

No, it would not be horrible. That's why the material is there in the lesson in case a teacher decides to use it. Not every class needs it. Many Church members are already acquainted with the historical context; some teachers don't want to take class time to go into it. The only express instruction is that it not become the focus of the lesson.

But when they relegate that mention to an "additional teaching idea" (did I get it right?) in the teacher's manual and 50 years out of sequence in the booklet handed out to class members, it seems deliberately sneaky.

It is not sneaky. It is being judicious in the focus and intent of the course. Information on plural marriage in the Church is readily available elsewhere, including Church-published sources.

2.  I'm fine with your rejecting my interpretation of D&C 132:63, but can you at least say why? 

Of course. Would it do any good?

For they are given unto him to mulitply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment

This is consistent with the teaching in Jacob 2:30, which gives raising up seed to God as a specific reason why he at times commands plurality of wives.

and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation [that is the exaltation of the plural wives] in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;

Nothing in here saying that plurality of wives is universally mandatory for exaltation, though in the instances when it is commanded, it does promote that end.

for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

When seed is raised up unto the Father, His work is continued and he is glorified thereby.

A bald statement does not sound terribly compelling.  And none of my quotes have been out of context or misquoted

.

That is arguable, as has been shown here. Your own bald statement to the contrary is not terribly compelling.

3.  Is there a current "orthodox Church teaching on whether plurality of wives is required for exaltation"?  If so, I haven't heard it.  Please share what you know.  Bottom line, current Church leaders just don't talk about it.  And my point has never been that we today have to practice polygamy in this mortal sphere to be saved; just that polygamy will be the marital system for those down the road who enter the hightest degree of the CK

.

Such a thing is never taught in the Church; it is your own notion. And, as we have discussed previously, you bear the burden of proof for what amounts to conjecture. Don't try to shift it; it won't work.

4.  I don't want a curriculum overhaul -- I just want the Church to be less sneaky in its wordplay and efforts to downplay its polygamous history.  Being up front and honest is much easier to accomplish, imo.

Your accusation of sneakiness is not compelling; especially when you try to support it by quibbling about placement in a Sunday School lesson of material on plurality of wives.

[Stormin' Mormon]

I think the better definition is that "everlasting" means "eternal." 

Mormon scripture contains a unique definition of the words "eternal" and "endless." These words are defined in such a way as to not preclude the existance of an end to "eternal punishment." (D&C 19:6-12). I see no reason why "everlasting" can't be interpreted in the same scriptural light.

[Calm]

It is everlasting in the sense that it is God

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 1. I have mischaracterized nothing -- the words I have quoted could not be more clear. And D&C 132:63 says nothing of "obedience."

You stating you have not mischaracterized anything doesn't really mean you haven't. (Did not! Did too! Yeah, well... Did not!) You continually say that the BY quote has to do specifically and pointedly with polygamy. I said that polygamy is provided merely as an example of the larger issue of obedience to God. I provided the original talk, in context. (See here.) You rejected that context, thus you continue to mischaracterize the statement.

Rollo Tomasi said: 2. The were teaching an eternal and "everlasting" principle, not a temporary or "provisionsal" doctrine to last just 50 years.

I commented specifically on your fixation on "everlasting," which crops up again in this comment. (See my comment here.) You never clarified how God can--and has--changed things which were specficially stated as "everlasting covenants." This has been done in all ages of history, not just in this last dispensation. You may want "everlasting" to be "without end and never changing," but God doesn't apparently view it that way, and you've so far refused to come to grips with it.

Rollo Tomasi said: 3. What statements of BY and others that polygamy is not essential to salvation?

Nighthawke has provided a few in this thread, most of which you have conveniently ignored (as evidenced by asking, again, "what statements.") For one of Nighthawke's posts, see here.

To feign ignorance on these matters, in what appears to be an ongoing discussion, is frustrating to others, Rollo. This frustration has been mentioned before--and not just on this thread--and you continue to do it.

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

Then you have no grounds for complaint. If you are not calling for mandatory use of class time, the alternative is optional use of class time. And the material on plural marriage is right there in the lesson for any teacher who exercises the option.

...

No, it would not be horrible. That's why the material is there in the lesson in case a teacher decides to use it.

...

It is not sneaky. It is being judicious in the focus and intent of the course. Information on plural marriage in the Church is readily available elsewhere, including Church-published sources.

...

This is consistent with the teaching in Jacob 2:30, which gives raising up seed to God as a specific reason why he at times commands plurality of wives.

and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation [that is the exaltation of the plural wives] in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;

Nothing in here saying that plurality of wives is universally mandatory for exaltation, though in the instances when it is commanded, it does promote that end.

...

for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

When seed is raised up unto the Father, His work is continued and he is glorified thereby.

...

3.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You continually say that the BY quote has to do specifically and pointedly with polygamy. I said that polygamy is provided merely as an example of the larger issue of obedience to God. I provided the original talk, in context. (See here.) You rejected that context, thus you continue to mischaracterize the statement.

...

You never clarified how God can--and has--changed things which were specficially stated as "everlasting covenants." This has been done in all ages of history, not just in this last dispensation. You may want "everlasting" to be "without end and never changing," but God doesn't apparently view it that way, and you've so far refused to come to grips with it.

...

Nighthawke has provided a few in this thread, most of which you have conveniently ignored (as evidenced by asking, again, "what statements.") For one of Nighthawke's posts, see here.

...

To feign ignorance on these matters, in what appears to be an ongoing discussion, is frustrating to others, Rollo. This frustration has been mentioned before--and not just on this thread--and you continue to do it.

1. You obviously are confusing doctrine with practice. Is it your contention that the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage," described in D&C 131:2 as required for entrance in the highest degree of the CK, means something less than "forever," "eternal," "everlasting"? Is the marriage covenent necessary for those who achieve exaltation in the highest degree of the CK, going to end someday? Does the concept of "eternal family" mean something less than "eternal"? Are we building an "eternal" family simply because we are told to (i.e., obedience) or because we want to be with them "forever"?

2. It is you who has mischaracterized what BY said. In the same talk you cite, he preaches that polygamy "is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God." And his reference to "deny it in your feelings" has nothing to do with accepting polygamy as doctrine but declining to practice it. In the very next sentence, he says, "But the Saints who live their religion will be exalted, for they never deny any revelation which the Lord has given or may give ...."

3. I have never limited what God can and cannot do. But I know of NO teaching from any Church leader that the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" is anything other than forever and eternal. Do you? If so, please share. It's one thing to try and compare this covenant to some situation where "eternal" meant something different than "endless," but quite another to claim this applies to the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage." Bottom line, there is no instance in scripture or teaching that describes the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" as anything other than "eternal," and I challenge you to find something that does.

4. Nighthawke's quotes do not at all change my premise that plural marriage is the standard form of marriage for those exalted in the highest degree of the CK.

5. I do not feign ignorance; what is frustrating on this thread is that certain folks refuse to admit the obvious, and spin words to fight off what they consider an embarassing doctrine better left out of Church discussion. Just two problems they can't get around: LDS history and that darn "everlasting" doctrine.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I think the better definition is that "everlasting" means "eternal."

Why?

[Scott Lloyd]

Then you have no grounds for complaint. If you are not calling for mandatory use of class time, the alternative is optional use of class time. And the material on plural marriage is right there in the lesson for any teacher who exercises the option.

...

No, it would not be horrible. That's why the material is there in the lesson in case a teacher decides to use it.

...

It is not sneaky. It is being judicious in the focus and intent of the course. Information on plural marriage in the Church is readily available elsewhere, including Church-published sources.

...

This is consistent with the teaching in Jacob 2:30, which gives raising up seed to God as a specific reason why he at times commands plurality of wives.

and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation [that is the exaltation of the plural wives] in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;

Nothing in here saying that plurality of wives is universally mandatory for exaltation, though in the instances when it is commanded, it does promote that end.

...

for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

When seed is raised up unto the Father, His work is continued and he is glorified thereby.

...

3.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It is unreasonable to expect that such a course could exhaustively cover all of Church history within the confines of one weekly, 40-minute class period.

...

The teacher can probe to see if class members have questions. It would be hard to justify the use of class time in a discussion of it if class members did not manifest any interest in the subject.

...

Our Heritage presents its discussion of plural marriage, including its origins in this dispensation, within the context of a discussion on persecution endured by Church members and leaders during the Utah period. While an alternative approach might have been to return to the topic again and again throughout the narrative, confining discussion of it in the interest of conciseness to one block of text during the period when it had its greatest impact seems reasonable to me.

...

No, it only reflects my understanding that different fora have different purposes. Sunday School, as others have stated here, is not the place for an in-depth discussion of plural marriage in the Church.

I guess your position is that some exalted folks will by polygamous, while others blissfully monogamous?

Why not?

...

In the eternities that can be accomplished with or without plurality of wives.

...

As you are. Nobody in the Church teaches authoritatively that plurality of wives is required for exaltation.

...

Your examples (and I wouldn't call them numerous) are neither impressive nor compelling.

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 1. You obviously are confusing doctrine with practice.

Quite humorous, coming from someone who has inferred that polygamy and eternal marriage (or celestial marriage, etc.) are synonymous.

Rollo Tomasi said: Is it your contention that the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage," described in D&C 131:2 as required for entrance in the highest degree of the CK, means something less than "forever," "eternal," "everlasting"?

No.

Rollo Tomasi said: Is the marriage covenent necessary for those who achieve exaltation in the highest degree of the CK, going to end someday?

No.

Rollo Tomasi said: Does the concept of "eternal family" mean something less than "eternal"?

No.

Rollo Tomasi said: Are we building an "eternal" family simply because we are told to (i.e., obedience) or because we want to be with them "forever"?

I, personally, would choose the latter of these two options, while recognizing that others may choose the first or choose other options not stated.

Rollo Tomasi said: 2. It is you who has mischaracterized what BY said. In the same talk you cite, he preaches that polygamy "is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God." And his reference to "deny it in your feelings" has nothing to do with accepting polygamy as doctrine but declining to practice it. In the very next sentence, he says, "But the Saints who live their religion will be exalted, for they never deny any revelation which the Lord has given or may give ...."

Yes, he does say that. He ties exaltation to those who "live their religion" by "never deny[ing] any revelation which the Lord has given or may give." This is not limited to polygamy, although you try to limit it, but is much broader.

It is also interesting that Brigham, in those same words, references our willingness to live by "any revelation which the Lord ... may give." Thus, if the Lord says, by revelation, that it is no longer necessary to enter into polygamous unions, we should abide by that. You, however, want to say that it is still required (albeit not in this life) and that we should still teach it. Further, you say that by not teaching it, we are whitewashing history and downplaying what our own doctrine is. Dare I say it? (Dare! Dare!) In doing this you put yourself--and your own determinations about what should be taught--above those of the prophets.

Rollo Tomasi said: 3. I have never limited what God can and cannot do. But I know of NO teaching from any Church leader that the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" is anything other than forever and eternal. Do you? If so, please share.

Nice try at deflection. This started because you have insisted that the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" is synonymous with polygamy. It is not; that has been pointed out to you several times, and you still try to say it is. I understand that some earlier prophets may have taught that they were the same, but I also understand that later prophets have said they are not the same. In pressing your case, you infer that polygamy is part of the whole "everlasting" thing. I simply pointed out that God has used the terminology "everlasting covenant" in many places in scripture, and such turned out to not really be such. When you can figure out what God meant in those instances, perhaps you can begin to understand how God could make changes in your incorrect assumption of equivalence between eternal marriage and polygamy.

Rollo Tomasi said: It's one thing to try and compare this covenant to some situation where "eternal" meant something different than "endless," but quite another to claim this applies to the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage." Bottom line, there is no instance in scripture or teaching that describes the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" as anything other than "eternal," and I challenge you to find something that does.

Since your challenge is based on a false assumption (and an abortive deflection), I will aver at this point.

Rollo Tomasi said: 4. Nighthawke's quotes do not at all change my premise that plural marriage is the standard form of marriage for those exalted in the highest degree of the CK.

But they should change your assertion that polygamy is necessary for salvation, which is the premise for which you were using the quotes.

Rollo Tomasi said: 5. I do not feign ignorance;

I'm glad to hear your ignorance is not pretended.

Rollo Tomasi said: ...what is frustrating on this thread is that certain folks refuse to admit the obvious, and spin words to fight off what they consider an embarassing doctrine better left out of Church discussion.

This, again, is based on your incorrect assumptions. Nobody here--not me, not Scott, and certainly not Nighthawke--consider polygamy embarassing or say it is better left out of Church discussions. That is your characterization; you weren't in my Gospel Doctrine class where I taught the Section 132 lesson and did, indeed, talk about polygamy, Levirate marriage, eternal marriage, and several other issues that you seem certain that "certain folks" don't want to discuss. I'm sorry if your experience was different, but you should avoid brushing all teachers, all folks, and all classes with the same broad stroke.

Rollo Tomasi said: Just two problems they can't get around: LDS history and that darn "everlasting" doctrine.

We don't want to get around it. It would be nice, however, to get around your convoluted reading of history and doctrine. The rest of us are doing just fine, thank you.

-Allen

[Stormin' Mormon]

3.  I have never limited what God can and cannot do.  But I know of NO teaching from any Church leader that the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" is anything other than forever and eternal.  Do you?  If so, please share.  It's one thing to try and compare this covenant to some situation where "eternal" meant something different than "endless," but quite another to claim this applies to the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage."  Bottom line, there is no instance in scripture or teaching that describes the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" as anything other than "eternal," and I challenge you to find something that does.

And the goal posts move yet again!

A number of people have explained how the words "eternal,' endless," and "everlasting" have been used in the scriptures in ways to mean something other than "without end." These contexts examples include eternal punishment actually having an end (D&C 19:6-12), new and everlasting covenants which end or are re-written (D&C 22:1), and the nature of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:17). There is clear scriptural precedent that these words do not always carry the conventional definition.

However, despite the weight of evidence, Rollo is now demanding that we provide a specific instance when these words were re-defined as applying to the marriage covenant. Why even study the scriptures if scriptural precedent carries no weight?

[1973betRP&Glendale]

This whole thread boils down to the fact that critics of the LDS Church are trying as best they can to shake up the church from the outside, as if they'll gladly come back if Gordon B. Hinckley and other leaders do exactly what they say. (Yeah, right)

There's no polite way to say this, but anyone who looks at the LDS Church (or any church for that matter) and can only find the bad, while intentionally ignoring the good, is nothing short of a religious bigot.

After September 11, 2001 there were thousands of news reports, news articles and speeches by political leaders, attempting to show the Muslim religion in the best light possible. The theme being, "Are there radical Muslims? Yes. But the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, loving people."

So while some people attempt to distinguish mainstream Muslims from radical Muslims, others will continue to paint a broad brush over all members of the LDS Church. In there view, all Mormon Church leaders are dictators, all Mormon writers and scholars are intellectual pigs, all Mormon men are selfish, all Mormon women are spineless, and all Mormon children brainwashed idiots.

Tell me LDS Church critics, am I wrong? If you say I am, then explain the behavior and attitudes of those who contribute to anti-mormon websites, books and news articles.

[Nighthawke]

Rollo Tomasi said: 1. I have mischaracterized nothing -- the words I have quoted could not be more clear. And D&C 132:63 says nothing of "obedience."

You stating you have not mischaracterized anything doesn't really mean you haven't. (Did not! Did too! Yeah, well... Did not!) You continually say that the BY quote has to do specifically and pointedly with polygamy. I said that polygamy is provided merely as an example of the larger issue of obedience to God. I provided the original talk, in context. (See here.) You rejected that context, thus you continue to mischaracterize the statement.

I agree with Allen, there have been three examples and yet you continue to mischaracterize.

[will2believe]

So while some people attempt to distinguish mainstream Muslims from radical Muslims, others will continue to paint a broad brush over all members of the LDS Church. In there view, all Mormon Church leaders are dictators, all Mormon writers and scholars are intellectual pigs, all Mormon men are selfish, all Mormon women are spineless, and all Mormon children brainwashed idiots.

I agree that such people would definitely be religious bigots. Fortunately I've never met anyone like that.

Regarding the bias displayed by anti-Mormons, is it possible that they're taking to heart Elder Packer's advice to refrain from giving equal time to the adversary?

[Nighthawke]

In that same talk did Brigham Young refer to any scriptures to support his teachings? Book, chapter and verse that "only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."

I don't recall any mention of a particular scripture in his seromn, but I'm sure BY was relying on D&C 131 and 132 -- "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" was understood by early Church leaders to mean plural marriage. D&C 131:2 states that a man must enter the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" in order to enter the highest degree of the CK (the only place where Mormons believe one is truly "exalted," with his family and ability to "increase"). In addition, D&C 132:63, discussing plural marriage, quotes the Lord as saying, "for they [plural wives] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth according to my commandment, and to fufil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." I think the canon makes it very easy to conclude, as Brigham did, that plural marriage is the form of marriage in the highest degree of the CK.

Oh, you're sure BY was relying on D&C 131 and 132? So what? What weight do you carry? I'll tell you: zip- nada- zilch.

"The new and everlasting covenant of marriage" was understood by early Church leaders to mean plural marriage"... says who? Oh, you again? And I should believe you because??? What about the times the leaders of the Church preached exactly the opposite?

While the term new and everlasting covenant appears to mean plural marriage in this context, it was generally used in its original meaning, as the gospel restored through Joseph Smith. When used in conjunction with marriage, it often included all marriage sealings, not merely polygamous ones. . . . John Taylor used the term in this same way when he referred to a man who "entered into the new and everlasting covenant . . . and by that covenant has been united to his wife for time and all eternity and his wife to him." The singular form of wife indicates all sealings, not just plural ones, and thus new and everlasting covenant encompassed all monogamous as well as polygamous sealings.

- Kathryn Daynes, "More Wives Than One", p. 73-74.

If D&C 131:2 really meant what you believe early Church leaders meant, then why would only 20 percent (averaging out here- depending on the time period) practise plural marriage? What about the other 77 percent (3 percent never married) who did not practise plural marriage? Many of whom were specifically counselled not to enter plural marriage by the leaders of the Church- hmm?

Joseph F. Smith, counselor in the First Presidency, later stated that the revelation as it stood "was not designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form." That it was not written for the church membership in general left open the question of whether plural marriage was required of all members.

- Kathryn Daynes, "More Wives Than One", p. 72.