…on that morning like this?
—————————————–
Toward the dawn of the first day of the week,
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb…
the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid,
for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.
He is not here, for He has risen, as He said.
Matthew 28:1-6
Janet, I do not see an answer to Sharon’s question, nor to Mike R’s. Your quotes in the last post indicte that everyone will be resurected, but that does not address the marriage aspect of the question.
Also, correct me if I am wrong on this basic statement– it is your belief that all have to accept polygamy as a belief if not as a practice, but must stand guard to practice it again if called to.
If it is a requirement to accept it and practice it if called to, how does that play into this discussion? It seems you are spending a lot of time defending something that may become a part of your faith in practice, not just belief.
Does this not bother you?
Janet that doesn’t answer what Sharon’s question appears to be. If someone isn’t sealed in the temple then they automatically have no wife in the resurrection, right? So only resurrected beings who were sealed in the temple will have a spouse once resurrected. So why does young say that if you only have 1 wife in the resurrection she’ll be taken away? It seems like that would be a moot point.
MJP and rvales,
I believe that truth is truth, and does not contradict itself.
God expects us to accept His Son and His prophets. All of the prophets and the revelations, not just those of our choosing.
It was important for saints early in the restoration to accept the reality that the revelations on polygamy had come from God. Actually practicing polygamy is another matter entirely.
You and I do not have to shed the blood of sheep or doves in order to be accepted of God. But I am quite confident that we must accept that the Law of Moses came from God.
I believe this is what Brigham Young was saying.
Jim, so you are saying you accept polygamy? Its a simple yes no question for the purpose of clarification.
And, I must say that I disagree that the belief of and practice of polygamy are entirely different matters. The practice is only possible when it is justified through belief, and only puts the belief into action.
From what I understand, the belief must be acted upon if it is every regarded as necessary to practice again. They are not entirely different matters and are in fact closely related.
To the LDS stating a belief and the acceptance thereof does not have to be followed by a corresponding action. They say they beleive in the work on the cross to make them righteous but they do not follow up that belief with the action of resting in the finished work of Christ.
Jim, I agree that truth does not contradict itself and since God is truth He does not contradict himself, nor can his prophets contradict what he has already said (and still be regarded as ‘true’ prophets) Your prophets of old made it VERY clear that polygamy was here to stay and that God would not be doing away with this eternal, celestial law; but ‘new’ revelation came conveniently in time for statehood that reversed God’s once everlasting commandment. This is not the everlasting, unchanging God and with so many of your prophets disregarding or overturning previous prophets revelations it stands to reason that (at least) more than a few have been false prophets. I know this will fall on blind eyes as it were but I couldn’t be more frustrated with your inability to call a spade a spade and boldly support or denounce what was clearly said by your long line of prophets. I continue to pray that you will come to a saving knowledge of your absolute depravity and God’s holiness and surrender yourself to the finish work of the cross because you will never be less sinful and sadly your attempts to be will only drive a bigger wedge between you and the TRUE LIVING GOD!!!
July 15, 1871: At Grantsville: President Young spoke 58 minutes. He said a man may embrace the law of celestial marriage in his heart and not take the second wife and be justified before the Lord.
1871: Young spoke one hour and18 minutes. In his remarks he said that a man who did not have but one wife in the resurrection, that woman will not be his, but taken from him and given to another.
Let me ask, do these two different sentences contradict each other or is BY talking about two different issues.
Now, where a man in this Church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” He will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever. But if the woman is determined not to enter into a plural marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. (JD 16:166).
…[men] who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [will be] taken from him and given to another. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Typescript 7:152)
Janet
Continued:
I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. 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 least 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. (JD 11:268-269)
If any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned. (Deseret News, 14 November 1855)
Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men. (JD 9:322)
In line with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, President John Taylor also taught that plural marriage was essential to returning to our Heavenly Father.
If we do not embrace that principle soon (plural marriage), the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our heavenly father has kept, we cannot go with him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law. (Matthew Cowley, Life of Wilford Woodruff, p.542 — as quoted in MHP 1:311-312)
Given President Taylor’s warning, we must ask ourselves, “Have we embraced plural marriage in the church today?” If we have not, which seems to clearly be the case, have the keys been turned against us?
Even President Wilford Woodruff, who issued the first manifesto in 1890, understood and clearly taught that D&C 132 refers to polygamy, not monogamy, and that we “must” abide this law in order to become heirs of God.
Janet
MJP asked:
Also, correct me if I am wrong on this basic statement– it is your belief that all have to accept polygamy as a belief if not as a practice, but must stand guard to practice it again if called to.
If it is a requirement to accept it and practice it if called to, how does that play into this discussion? It seems you are spending a lot of time defending something that may become a part of your faith in practice, not just belief.
Does this not bother you?
It is not one of the questions asked for a Temple Recommend, but yes I believe that is true. If not, my testimony of JS would be in jeopardy in the sense I would have to denounce that what he taught about Plural Marriage was false, making him a false Prophet.
I see the day when this could be a test of our testimonies, to accept Gods law of Plural Marriage or denounce it as made up and not valid.
Janet.
Janet, thank you for that response. However, I must say I am truly confused on the point you are trying to make now. Are you trying to clarify the “maze” or are you trying to justify polygamy? Or are you arguing that polygamy should not be considered a part of LDS doctrine?
Reading through your quotes, it seems pretty clear polygamy is part and parcel of LDS beliefs, even today, whether or not practiced.
But it does not clear up the maze that Grindael presented. I am still confused, because polygamy, and you confirmed, is a belief you must hold onto. And as you said, if you don’t believe it, the JS testimony is shot, and you can’t be a Mormon without that.
Yet, though all of your quotes you conclude that these guys weren’t so much concerned with polygamy as they were with following the laws and the prophets. But the quotes necessarilly state that you must beleive in polygamy and practice again if the command is given again. I see the part about obedience, but that is unseparable from polygamy in these quotes.
Why not just come clean and say you believe in polygamy?
Wow, not that easy, polygamy practiced as we now find in the USA and other parts of the world would totally be against the Book of Mormon verse that stated that a man should only have one wife.
So what you want me to commit to is vague. For example, lets be honest, if God revealed to our present Prophet, Monson, that the Patriarchal Order of Marriage was to be restored, regardless of any laws, this in it self would cause many members to leave most likely.
As for me, I would consider it only after confirmation from the Holy Ghost, and If confirmed would then support the Prophet and the Doctrine.
Janet.
Janet makes another gross error that a law is revealed that you can only ‘believe’ and not practice. So that would be true then, with the word of wisdom or any other law. Gee, it’s ok I believe it in my heart, but don’t need to practice it. The whole concept is a house of cards that cannot stand.. God does not reveal laws ‘just for some’. Mormons read what they want to read, as usual.
I believe in celestial marraige (much different than the patriarchal order of marraige) but only some have to practice it, if you believe in it, you are ok. So because you only believed in polygamy, you are going to be exalted with those that sacrificed, went to jail, etc. etc. and that is fair and just to the mormon god? You miss the whole point, as usual.
Janet, it is not vague. Its really pretty straight forward. Either you believe in polygamy, or you don’t.
I particularly fing this statement interesting: “….polygamy practiced as we now find in the USA and other parts of the world would totally be against the Book of Mormon verse that stated that a man should only have one wife.”
Why is that interesting? Because the Book of Mormon wa sin existence before LDS practiced polygamy before…
Do you see why I am confused? It is a very straight forward concept that requires a simple yes or no in terms of believing in polygamy. Yet, I get a response that suggests that it is not hte simple and polygamy violates the BoM.
Now, you did say that the polygamy of today would violate it, so what is different? I don’t really think there is a difference… Plural marriage is plural marriage.
The WHOLE story:
It was a commandment given to the whole Church, Chuckler. That is why is was ratified by the whole church. What, do give revelations to the whole church that you can ONLY BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART AND NOT PRACTICE? Gee, I believe in polygamy IN MY HEART, but I’m not going to practice it. That is why Smith explained he HAD to live it. And then after this he told JOHNSON TO TAKE ANOTHER WIFE. That is why he told Johnson HE ALSO WOULD FULFILL THE LAW… WHAT IS A LAW? A REQUIREMENT. No twists, no turns, but a LAW OF GOD revealed TO THE WHOLE CHURCH. They only did it in secret to a select few at the time BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and he wanted to reveal it to people he could trust not to tell on him. If it were only for Smith, why did he make Johnson take another wife? Because he knew Johnson ACCEPTED IT.
Wrong again, chuckler, as usual.
July 15, 1871: At Grantsville: President Young spoke 58 minutes. He said a man may embrace the law of celestial marriage in his heart and not take the second wife and be justified before the Lord.
1871: Young spoke one hour and18 minutes. In his remarks he said that a man who did not have but one wife in the resurrection, that woman will not be his, but taken from him and given to another.
The Chuckler has purposely CHANGED THE DATE FROM THE REAL ONE TO 1871. The real date is 1873, TWO YEARS LATER. So I guess Brigham Young is wrong here, to clarify THE doctrine TWO YEARS LATER. THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE SHOWN THAT THE 1873 QUOTE IS WHAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAUGHT BY SMITH & YOUNG. Talk about twisting the truth and using DISHONEST Tactics! This is what someone who is backed into a corner and failing miserably resorts to, to TRY and make their point.
August 31, 1873: At Paris, Idaho: President B. Young spoke one hour and18 minutes. In his remarks he said that a man who did not have but one wife in the resurrection, that woman will not be his, but taken from him and given to another. But he may be saved in the Kingdom of God, but be single to all eternity. Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam.
Janet said:
So of course he was referring to those who did not seek to Have their marriages sealed for time and eternity. Those husband and wives had no contract other than marriage for this life alone.
I said:
Those are two separate issues Janet and one has nothing to do with the other. Young was talking about NOT taking another plural wife, it had nothing to do with ‘earthly marriages’.
I stand by my quote, Young’s remarks were not about those who did not seek to have their marriages sealed for time and eternity. Both quotes were about polygamy. YOU are the one who originally ‘got it wrong’, and then try to tell me I did with your comment above, which had NOTHING to do with the topic of plural marriage.
The least you can do is keep up with the thread and stop skimming and misreading what people say, and then telling them they do not know what they are talking about.
Also BY taught adam was god and he taught adam was not. He still taught it though. Same here. But according to McConkie he was a great prophet. Makes my point about the ‘MAZE OF MORMONISM’.
Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know it is false…. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith … an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed….
If then, this principle was of such great importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in the Church with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did not enter into and establish the practice of it on earth, it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one….
I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that EVERY MAN IN THIS CHURCH , who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that ( Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, pp. 28-31).
This is EXACTLY what I said, and the point I have been making over and over. It does not get any more plain than this. Now, Young may have been talking about those with physical or mental limitations who could not practice it but still believed in it. But this statement by Jos. F. Smith makes it PERFECTLY clear that the whole church HAD TO COMPLY and it was ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. Period. chuckle on that.
Maybe the above WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR THE CHUCKLER, so here is some more:
When Woodruff caved to the U.S. and stopped a practice ESSENTIAL to man’s salvation. Sure. Right. Makes sense to me. Almost makes me want to …chuckle.
“Upwards of forty years ago the Lord revealed to His Church the principle of celestial [plural] marriage…. the command of God was before them in language which no faithful soul dare disobey.
“For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory….”
Damnation was the awful penalty affixed to a refusal to obey this law. It became an acknowledged doctrine of the Church; it was indissolubly interwoven in the minds of its members with their hopes of eternal salvation and exaltation in the presence of God…. Who could suppose that … Congress would enact a law which would present the alternative to religious believers of being consigned to a penitentiary if they should attempt to obey a law of God which would deliver them from damnation! (Millennial Star, vol. 47, p. 711).
Chuckle, so what is the New and Everlasting Covenant that Grindael misrepresents to ease his conscience of leaving the Church.
He at least got this part right, “For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory….”
What are the conditions of the Covenant?
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into, and sealed, by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment, through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power, (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time, on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred,) are of no efficacy, virtue, or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead: for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are dead.
Continued
3. Behold! mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name! Or, will I receive at your hands, that which I have not appointed! And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was! I am the Lord thy God, and I give unto you this commandment, that no man shall come unto the Father, but by me, or by my word which is my law, saith the Lord; and everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God: for whatsoever things remaineth, are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me, shall be shaken and destroyed.
4. Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me, nor by my word; and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world, and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world; therefore, when they are out of the world, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory; for these angels did not abide my law, therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not Gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
Perhaps the chuckler missed this:
We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.
Gee, perhaps the chuckler needs a PEEP-STONE? If you go outside and look around perhaps you’ll find one, and then be able to INTERPRET CORRECTLY your own church doctrine. SEE HOW THE FIRST PRESIDENCY CALLS IT POLYGAMY OR CELESTIAL MARRIAGE. and that POLYGAMY or CELESTIAL Marriage is NECESSARY for exaltation.
There is so much more and can be read at the following site.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Seer/Volume_1/Number_1/Celestial_Marriage
If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
Jesus Christ, speaking through Joseph Smith 12 July 1843 revelation on plural marriage; The Doctrine and Covenants, 132:1–4, 19, 20, 24, 34, 35, 38, 39, 52, 60–62.
Grindael, whatever your sense of the new and everlasting covenant might be, obedience to God always comes first. If God states a law regarding the Patriarchal order of marriage, and some feel the need to excuse themselves from this, then their reward will be as God has stated, and their progress will be stifled for lack of faith and commitment. Your own excuse to disbelieve what you once practiced and taught, is your own agency to accept or reject the Counsel and Doctrine of God.
Janet.
Let me translate the above
Grindael, whatever your sense of the new and everlasting covenant might be, obedience to Joseph Smith always comes first. If Joe states a law regarding the Patriarchal order of marriage, and some feel the need to excuse themselves from this, then their reward will be as Joe has stated, and their progress will be stifled for lack of faith and commitment. Your own excuse to disbelieve what you once practiced and taught, is your own agency to accept or reject the Counsel and Doctrine of Joe.
Chuckler.
Are you ready to be a slave Janet?
… Daisy Barclay, herself brought up in a plural family, remarks: “Polygamy is predicated on the assumption that a man is superior to a woman … Mormon tradition … teaches woman to honor and obey her husband and look upon him as her lord and master.” As a daughter of the second wife of Isaac Lambert once complained, “Mother figures you are supposed to spend your life taking care of a man, and he is God” (Stanley Kimball, Isn’t One Wife Enough? p. 280).
Or perhaps You Want Polygamy back so more lecherous Prophets can rule over you. Here is Young DROOLING over young women and how he can ‘get’ them better than the young men:
“Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them, that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches and power and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and reign triumphantly” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 178). “I could prove to this congregation that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men” (vol. 5, p. 210).
It would be quite impossible, with any regard to propriety, to relate all the horrible results of this disgraceful system…. Marriages have been contracted between the nearest of relatives; and old men tottering on the brink of the grave have been united to little girls scarcely in their teens; while unnatural alliances of every description, which in any other community would be regarded with disgust and abhorrence, are here entered into in the name of God…. (Fanny Stenhouse, Tell it All)
I bet some mormons can’t wait to have this happen all over again. How about you Janet? Are you eager to become wife # 19 to an old lecherous self-proclaimed prophet?
Pssssst! Hey Janet,…..Janet….(hey, you might not realize it…but the Seer was called FALSE DOCTRINE by your Church……) But then, it’s all false doctrine. Isn’t it? Gee, do I see the chuckler caving on this issue…
Chuckle, chuckle, oh how the foolish twist and misrepresent a simple sentence.
Polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.”
Or: (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.
Polygamy OR Celestial Marriage. So Grindael, I have a Celestial Marriage, yet I do not practice Polygamy, seems they stated it correctly. Now what?
Janet.
Stop skimming and read the quote:
“We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.
POLYGAMY IS CELESTIAL MARRIAGE. Too blind to see?
“some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know it is false”
it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one….
I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that EVERY MAN IN THIS CHURCH , who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that…
Chuckle on that..
If it only meant marriage for time and eternity, why did they say this:
Who could suppose that … Congress would enact a law which would present the alternative to religious believers of being consigned to a penitentiary if they should attempt to obey a law of God which would deliver them from damnation!
Because it meant POLYGAMY.
“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” -Saul Bellow (1915 – 2005)
I have a sense that behind Grendale’s desire to prove me wrong is a much deeper desire to prove to himself he is on the right side of any debate that may be shown to misrepresent LDS Doctrine.
Agenda, agenda, and the amount of computed data needed to prove anything and everything false, is a huge red flag that not all is right in Evangelical land. It is evident that Grendael is struggling since much of what I and others have refuted and proven to be completely fabricated are a hint of some serious doubts about his own doctrine and a need to find evidence to support so many of the contradictory theories, concepts and precepts that make up the Doctrine and Creeds of Christianity.
Janet.
Really Janet, you’re worse than a used car salesman when it comes to glossing over the rust spots, the cracked windshield, the split hoses, missing belts, and the seized engine. Does your God (of flesh and bones) value duplicity in (ostensibly) his service, or is that something you bring to the faith for free?
The Chuckler (who needs to take spelling lessons) sure has not ‘refuted’ anything, but only proven that she is ‘ok’ following lecherous prophets who broke the laws of the land, committing adultery and other sexual crimes, and that she is ok with all of the above.
I really am saddened that someone would so desperately try to defend such a horrible, unlawful and unbiblical practice such as this. But her ignoring of the facts, and how she cannot refute any of the quotes I gave just goes to show all what Mormonsim really is. Burn your Mormon Books Latter day saints. You will never be happier.
This bears repeating:
“Janet, I for one would never accuse you of “not using logic.” It is obvious you are a master of the logic of self-deception. Your posts on MRM give those who haven’t had much exposure to Mormon thought, a great frame of reference for understanding how a Mormon’s mind malfunctions. Thank You for that.” -bfwjr
mjp noted
Nicely stated.
One of the many lies of Mormonism is to disconnect faith from works.
grindael,
The problem here is not about how little information there is on early Mormonism, but how much information there is.
Good job.
Is the SLC mob serious about putting a lid on it? I can’t believe that they think they can get away with it.
janet,
Even if the whole celestial marriage thing was about singular marriage (which it wasn’t), the path to exaltation is all about the MAN getting a WIFE so that HE can get himself exalted.
That’s why I said it’s not open to you.
As noted above, polygamy is a system that allows MEN to abuse WOMEN (and children). The women always end up worse off. Joseph Smith invented a revelation from God to justify his abuse – did you read how he manipulated Johnson in order to get into his sister’s bed?
Further, the practice of polygamy has been justified because it has been claimed (falsely) that God has many wives. Or at least, the path that God has trod to exaltation is the path we tread.
When I asked Mormons about why we never hear from God’s wife (or wives), they say its because she is kept secret. So, it seems that the Dads get to spend time and communicate with the kids, but the Moms are noticeably absent.
Is this the destiny of all the wives of the “gods”? To be separated from their children?
Finally,
The practice of Celestial Marriage was NOT introduced by Smith and Co. as a cutesy way of affirming a couple’s love for each other.
It was invented in an attempt to give the polygamous relationships of Smith, Young and Co some semblance of religious acceptability.
Why else is it done IN SECRET, if it’s not to avoid the embarrassing bit when the preacher usually says something like
…like, yeah, she’s already married to me.
Martin,
My sentiments exactly. As the Tanners so aptly put it:
The Mormon leaders find themselves in a rather strange situation. On the one hand, they have to uphold polygamy as a righteous principle, but on the other, they have to discourage the members of the church from actually entering into its practice. If they repudiated the doctrine of polygamy they would be admitting that Joseph Smith was a deceiver, and that the church was founded on fraud. If, however, they openly preached and defended the doctrine, many people would probably enter into the practice and bring disgrace upon the church. Their position is about the same as a person saying, “My church believes in water baptism, but we are not allowed to practice it.” Because of this peculiar dilemma, church leaders prefer that there is not much discussion of polygamy. Mormon writer Klaus J. Hansen depicted the sentiment in these words:
Admittedly, descendants of polygamous families still proudly acknowledge their heritage; but many Mormons clearly wish it had never happened. A leading historian at the leading state university in Utah for years avoided any mention of the subject; references to it in graduate theses were eradicated with the remark, “Too controversial!” Preston Nibley, it will be remembered, wrote an entire book on Brigham Young without mentioning the dread word once (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1966, p. 107). -Changing World of Mormonism, 286
Janet,
I’ve been reading the dialogue here on the
subject of polygamy . When I look at how LDS
leaders have handled this issue I cannot help
but see that God had nothing to do with it.
To me the issue is that of ” reliability”.
Can we trust latter-day prophets/apostles to
be reliable in their teachings? D&C 132:8 =
” Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith
the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.”
I’d like to share a few examples of Mormon
leadership on this issue , and also how
faithful Mormons understood this .
– plural marriage is the ” most holy and importan-
ant doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth
and without obedience to that principle no man
can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in
celestail glory.”
– monogamy was one of the consequences of
Catholic and Protestant apostacy
– civil marriages( even LDS civil marriages)
before the fall of 1835, were judged to be
invalid/ illegal, according to ” the law of
heaven.”
– Sex, except for procreation, was wrong.
– The scriptures, even the N.T. were sighted as
authority for teaching that Heavenly Father
and Jesus practiced plural marriage.
– Lying about practicing plural marriage after
promising the U.S. government they had ceased
such pratice.
– quietly changing the definition of “celestial
marriage ” from a synonym for polygamy, to
that of simply marriage for eternity.
– calling polygamy the “pattern of heaven”.
– a married Mormon leader, standing beside
another man’s wife, and being married to
her for eternity( effective after deaath).
– Mormon women, being told that, “….you can
never obtain a fullness of glory without being
married to a righteous man for time and
eternity.” Also, failure to do this will result
in having your children, who you’re raising now,
being taken from you and given to another in
eternity to raise.
– polygamy, as important as baptism
All I can say about polygamy is I was taught that only those that God through the prophet tells to get a second (or more) wife could marry again. In saying that, there are/were many that were not directed to marry another wife. It is these who were told that as long as they accept fully in their hearts the ideology of polygamy and would be accepted on the day of judgment as having lived it because they were not allowed the opportunity in this life. However, those who were told to marry another but decidedly didn’t will be judged for not following the law of plural marriage. Same with those who did not accept in their hearts the ideology, even thought they were not asked to marry another. This also extends to women.
Moderators,
I am a little confused (no not in that way!) – I thought the daily comment limit was 6 per day. Grindael and Janet have gone over their limits the last few days. Has the limit been extended or is it just for them? I am not complaining as both sides (ie LDS and non-LDS) were allowed, just wanting to know the conditions
Ralph, thanks for bringing up the comment limit question. There appears to be some sort of glitch in the technology that handles that for Mormon Coffee. We don’t know (at the moment) how to fix it. We also don’t know if the technology is working for everyone but Janet and grindael. If the rest of you have been self-limiting, thank you very much! I ask Janet and grindael to also self-limit their daily number of comments (6 per day) from this point forward to the best of their abilities while we look for a solution to the problem.
Also, this thread has become quite unwieldy. I will be closing comments on it later today (4/12) so please wind up your conversations. Thanks.
So after all is said and done, the debate comes to a climatic end and we then have to deal with the summations.
It’s not pretty folks, but it seems always to be their last parting shot…
1) Are you ready to be a slave Janet?
2) Gee, do I see the chuckler caving on this issue…
3) Are you eager to become wife # 19 to an old lecherous self-proclaimed prophet?
4) you’re worse than a used car salesman when it comes to glossing over the rust spots
5) Burn your Mormon Books Latter day saints. You will never be happier.
6) It is obvious you are a master of the logic of self-deception.
7) Joseph Smith was a deceiver, and that the church was founded on fraud.
8) Grindael and Janet have gone over their limits the last few days.
Amazing, I wonder if this was a town-hall debate they might be a little embarrassed at themselves for their off topic remarks, and as you see poorly gathered summations. Hopefully the next topic we will see more substance brought to the table and more civil and toned down discussions.
Summation for Janet: Great topic, some good points by a few, much misrepresentation by others, and a need to go back and review your talking point books to see if they are dated. My belief still stands, Celestial Marriage and Plural marriage are two different topics. I also believe that if it was again given as a commandment, many Saints would leave the Church, as for me, my testimony is way to strong, I test everything, pray for confirmation on important doctrine that personally affects me, and expect a answer to sincere, humble
prayers after all I can do first to study out the question or problem in my mind.
Janet
The only real summation possible is that one must stop blindly following men and follow Jesus, the author and finisher of our salvation. His peace, His gospel and life found in the Bible is incomparable. HE is the way, the truth and the life, and you don’t need Joseph Smith or any man or organization to come to HIM. Call on his name, accept Him as your Saviour, and HE will do the rest. Leave behind the Maze of Mormonism and find a good Christian Church to attend that teaches Jesus and the Bible. You will never be happier folks.
My polygamy summary is really a question– why is it that LDS just don’t fess up and fully embrace polygamy? I would take them more seriously if they were to simply do that, because as it is, they reject while they love it.
It really causes me to really think about what it is they espouse– is it truly following God or is it trying to be amenable to the people?
Janet even said that embracing the doctrine through practice would cause many to leave the church, and I really think that is a big reason they don’t embrace what polygamy really is to them– a true belief.
Its hard to look at the history and comments of past leaders and not see that, but these are not given serious consideration and the meaning they ascribe has shifted in a way the washes over the polygamy.
I, for one, would take them more seriously if they would embrace these things, because then at least there’d be no questions of the consistency of message and that it would limit the charge that LDS are concerned with public opinion.
But that is not what they do, and I just don’t get why. Be proud of your past, embrace that which you think is good, and if there was error, admit it was error.
So, my question is why they just won’t accept polygamy in it full form. This can be done without practicing it.
Janet said, “Chuckle, chuckle, oh how the foolish twist and misrepresent a simple sentence.
Polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.”
Or: (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.
Polygamy OR Celestial Marriage. So Grindael, I have a Celestial Marriage, yet I do not practice Polygamy, seems they stated it correctly. Now what
A short lesson on grammar, Janet.
If you read the full quote by Grindael, “We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.
The words formerly and was tell us that that the words “polygamy or Celestial Marriage” are a singular concept in the past tense. In the sentence, “Celestial Marriage” is an explanation of polygamy, otherwise the sentence would have stated that polygamy or Celestial Marriage were right, meaning that they were separate principles, and both were formerly taught as being right.
If you want to stand by your conviction on the meaning of the quote, that polygamy and Celestial Marriage are separate principles, then you need to accept that both were principles were formerly taught as being right, but no longer are.
…and you accuse us of twisting the meaning of sentences. You are blinded by your conviction that JS and those that came after him are true prophets of God, even though they contradict one another. You stated that if polygamy was reinstated you would pray to the Holy Ghost to know if it was true, then decide whether or not to accept it. You don’t have the luxury of free thought, Janet. If your prophet says that a principle is a commandment of God you must accept it or be damned for disobedience.
My closing comment.
God is more than faith or belief. He is reality. The Mormon church is not.
My closing comment,
I had references to the points that I listed.
A glance that those reveals that Mormon prophets
and Apostles are not reliable guides to interpret
the scripture.They themselves declare to be such
“guides”. Their directions are declared to be
“the will of Lord”, the “mind of the Lord” and
the “word of the Lord” [ D&C Gospel Doctrine
Teachers manual, p.244
They are dispensing human wisdom alone, and the
precious Mormon people deserve better guides.
The confusion displayed by these men, over this
doctrine( polygamy) is evident.
Mormon prophets once said you were “led astray”
if you denied God had revealed this doctrine,
In 1974 Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball said you
are “led astray” if you live this doctrine, which
ironically was once called a part of the “Gospel”.