- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/10590_eng.pdf?lang=eng At a moment like this, I think, forget it. I’m outta here. The thought of my daughter sitting quietly as the teacher chalk-boards out the glorious restoration of plural marriage in these the latter days
makesmeill. That it happened, fine; that it was difficult, fine; that many people bore up well under the strain and lived fulfilling lives, wonderful. But I’m not long for the church if it insists that God commanded it. And, by extension, that he can have his people turn on a dime and live it again. Girls, don’t get too high on yourselves. You, too, could be part of the marvelous restoration of
allthings. Sounds good, doesn’t it? (Uhh, Joseph really loved Emma. We don’t know all the details….. God does this when he needs to raise up seed. Whatever it is you’re about to ask, don’t. Polygamy is as righteous as the day is long.) I was just reading at bycommonconsent yesterday the first installment (this was awhile ago) in a 13-part series on Section 132. William Clayton records that, Whew! Thank heaven Joseph gave him the heads up that God wasn’t pleased with more than two women from one family going to the same man. He was this close to marrying Lydia Moon, whose two sisters he had already married. The prophet told him that
he’dhadarevelationon the legal-limit question, and, oh, by the way, could he (William) inquire about Lydia about marrying him (Joseph). Convenient. (She didn’t marry Joseph. Details in the post.) Now that I know this is in the new, improved curriculum, I’m having a serious talk with my kids. I really hoped they would handle it differently.
Please, please, someone get up in General Conference and tell women that God loves them, and then read Section 132 aloud. I want to see the man who can do that.
Sorry, I have nowhere else to go with this.
Starts page 495 just FYI. Ok so now I feel sick!! Not only does this reestablish the idea that polygamy is great and wonderful when commanded by God. It also via Kimbals recounting of her vision pours gasoline all over the whole polygamy will be practiced in the CK period end of story so you better accept it women!! This just adds to the subconscious belief that many LDS men secrectly have that they will be rewarded with “hot wives” in the CK. This screams the message over and over that hey guys polygamy could be reinstated at any moment so girls you better be ready to accept this if not in this life then it will be in the next. As Ann said, you can’t teach religious polygamy and then say oh God loves his daughters as much as his sons! BS! My dislike for polygamy is the top single issue I have with the Church. Rather than rehash it here, I’ll just mention a couple of things I found frustrating in the lesson itself. – Wow, there is a lot of discussion about how reluctant JS was in plural marriage. I think the fact that he himself instituted it suggests otherwise.
– There is a sidebar that says that the teacher shouldn’t speculate about whether PM is required for the CK. The sidebar says we don’t know. I find it hard to be patient when the Church uses the “We don’t know” approach to difficult questions, when we supposedly have 15 men who are prophets, seers, and revelators. We couldn’t just doublecheck with God about such an inflammatory doctrine? I get that we can’t know about everything, in fact, I rely on that. But our Church and its people have suffered so much over this particular point that it seems prudent to get some clarification.
In contrast to the lesson in the manual, I think the Church not only should, but actually COULD remove sec 132, make a statement that *we have no idea what was going on there, and we are from now on going to assume that God doesn’t sanction polygamy, and we aren’t going to teach it or defend it… That if for some reason we are wrong about that, well, God knows our address.* I’m just weary of the Church still teaching and defending something that most members of the Church don’t even believe in (IMO).
Polygamy is making a comeback outside the church. What with gay marriage opening up the debate about the basic nature of marriage, people are now saying that threeples (marriage of three) should be allowed too. Personally I don’t have a problem as long as they’re over age, not related and consensual.
sambee, I suppose, in a way, I don’t have a problem with it as you described either… I’m not a fan or a proponent, but fine, whatever. What I do have a problem with is institutionalized polygamy, particularly as tied to God commanding it. Our Church is in this ugly business up to its elbows and it needs to get out. Talking about it like it is something in the past is satisfying for many, but also wholly unsatisfying for many. Practicing it or not, the Church BELIEVES in it and even accepts it as part of the next life.
I went out and read the material and it’s very bothersome. My daughters may have to miss that day of seminary or I may talk to the seminary teacher to find out how it will be presented beforehand. The material reads like propoganda. In my experience, seminary teachers tend to be very orthodox and black and white in their thinking. Seminary kids often love them and take what they say seriously.
Hmmm…. I am disappointed.
The thought keeps coming to me that those early saints could believe that type of practice (many, many, many wives) could come from God only because they had no experience or frame of reference for it. If they deeply understood Jacob 2 they would know that polygamy as an exception would never break as many tender hearts as it did the way it was practiced. If they understood what living polygamy is really like they would have known that it breaks every wife’s heart that is involved. This was the sacrifice of Sarah in giving Hagar, it is no small thing and certainly not to be expected as a matter of practice.
I got into this exact same issue when I was a senior in HS, and it’s why I quit going to seminary at that point and also started taking Sunday shifts at work. I told the seminary teacher that there was no way polygamy was ordained of God, that it was sexist and unequal and horrible, and that I simply didn’t believe it. She told me that I would need to believe it to be a Mormon in good standing, so I made the obvious conclusion that I wasn’t and couldn’t be. Now, as an adult, I know that almost no women accept it. It’s at best festering on a mental shelf. I would, without question, take the terrestrial kingdom and no polygamy over a celestial kingdom with polygamy, and it has nothing to do with specific jealousies and everything to do with the fact that it means that all women are slaves and second class citizens anyway. Amen to ^ this Hawkgrrrl!! Thank you for expressing the dismay polygamy causes so well! If people are being cajoled into it, it’s not consensual IMHO. On Own Now wrote:– There is a sidebar that says that the teacher shouldn’t speculate about whether PM is required for the CK. The sidebar says we don’t know. I find it hard to be patient when the Church uses the “We don’t know” approach to difficult questions, when we supposedly have 15 men who are prophets, seers, and revelators. We couldn’t just double-check with God about such an inflammatory doctrine? I get that we can’t know about everything, in fact, I rely on that. But our Church and its people have suffered so much over this particular point that it seems prudent to get some clarification.
Wow – This seems huge to me – A hypothetical woman asks if she will be forced to share her husband in the CK or be damned (progress stopped) and the appropriate answer is….”We don’t know!”
😮 😯 
:think: :thumbdown: Granted I am now engaging in same type of speculation that the manual counseled not to do but… does the church really want to keep the door open to treating PM as an essential ordinance for exaltation? IOW that even if you are unfortunate enough to live in a time period where PM is not sanctioned by the Lord – you will get the chance to receive it in the Millennium/CK?
I don’t like the I don’t know answer – reeks too much of the duller end of Anglicanism. If you don’t know, don’t bring it up! That’s what disappointed me about the Larry King interview – the Roman Catholics and Hindus have weirder doctrines than us but don’t hide them.
The more I think about this the more it bothers me. I despise polygamy and cannot imagine the pain it has caused. The phrase in the manual that caught my attention was “Plural marriage can be authorized only through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church.” To me this means if the prophet decides to bring it back, he can without regard to women’s stances. I think the manual is tryingto say the polygamist mormon offshoots are illegitimate, but what Iread is “priesthood keys” and coercion. I simply don’t see how the church can defend historical polygamy at any level. And I understand even less how they can leave it open as a possibility for the future.
Don’t throw rocks – but I have some “get it” with the eternal idea of polygamy. Hear me out.
I am not in support of the new lesson – what I see as a correct idea in eternity is that people like Abraham, Jacob, Moses – the old testament guys – who lived in a time and society that had multiple wives – will be eligible for celestial glory (if there is such a thing).
However, Adam only had Eve. Joseph only had Mary. Boaz only had Ruth. I only need one.
As for the lesson – I too am ill – addressing that polygamy happened is long overdue. Making it a future recurring doctrine is scary.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I would, without question, take the terrestrial kingdom and no polygamy over a celestial kingdom with polygamy…
I feel that way and I know a lot of men feel that way as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.