- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks MH for that clarification. My thought was along the lines of couples who remain sealed. I have an uncle who is divorced from his first wife but remains sealed to her. He remarried for time but could not be sealed to his second wife without either a consent from the first wife or a cancellation of the sealing (which they don’t want to do, many adult age children would be upset – plus I think the first wife is hoping things will be better on the other side, thus not wanting a plural relationship over there). There is no question that Section 132 is “about” plural marriage. What has worried me, for many years, is the revisionist nature of many who question the Church and its doctrines and narrative. I think that “we” (Mormoncentric people), have to justify why we go along, by trying to rationalize and placing our current modern worldview on what has historically been evolving. But, this doctrine has not evolved away- it is simply dormant, except in our temples- right? Read the entire context of Section 132. There are too many verses that inform you that this section is about the “new and everlasting covenant, and that covenant is plural marriage, e.g., vs 61
Quote:And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood- if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another… 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. etc.,
(By the way- and this may rile some of you: but regarding Proposition 8. I think that the Church would have shown a stronger position for itself, and for the proponents of protecting the definition of marriage for heterosexuals, by joining with the Gay activists. Yes, by filing a few friendly brief, along with the Gay advocates who went to court, and continue to go to the courts, suggesting that if Gays were allowed to change the definition, then Mormons should have the law overturned that specifically stopped polygamy by the Mormons in 1889.)
If I was the President of the Church, that’s what I would have done.
Well, I don’t think the Church as a corporation is interested in overturng any laws. There were clear civil laws against polygamy when God commanded that we practice it. The Church has worked hard for a long time to try to explain that a monogamous 1st endowment is somehow “celestial marriage”. How can they turn that around and say “we were mistaken”?
For one thing, it would reduce the number of converts…polygamy would probably be shunned in the 3rd world countries where the most Church growth is happening. However, the biggest thing is IMHO…the Church membership doesn’t want polygamy…it’s not easy to live correctly….it’s much easier just to “fit in”. BY explained that more men would be damned by the principle than saved by it.
It’s very clear from the early prophets that it will always be a law of the priesthood and never be taken from the earth again. When it will become a law of the Church again is anyone’s guess.
I wish more folks understood it as such. It might help those who struggle with Church membership when they find out.
Bruce in Montana wrote:I wish more folks understood it as such. It might help those who struggle with Church membership when they find out.
I do not think this would have the positive effect you seem to think it would…
You’re probably correct. However, keeping things “hidden” isn’t working out very well IMHO. Just an honest recognition from the Church that they are, well, the Church….not some governing body over the priesthood…not the Kingdom of God (that was set up by the council of 50…not the Church) etc.
Of course it would take a lot of backpeddling but the members would benefit even if the corporation didn’t.
My unsolicited 2 cents only….
Bruce in Montana wrote:You’re probably correct. However, keeping things “hidden” isn’t working out very well IMHO.
Just an honest recognition from the Church that they are, well, the Church….not some governing body over the priesthood…not the Kingdom of God (that was set up by the council of 50…not the Church) etc.
Of course it would take a lot of backpeddling but the members would benefit even if the corporation didn’t.
I agree with you, Bruce. I also wholeheartedly think that the church needs to be more honest. But they have seriously backed themselves into a corner – they would basically scare the beejeebers off new converts and members who are uneducated in these historical facts.
Trying to get polygamy reinstated? Ain’t gonna happen without major revelation. If you believe the Manifesto was God’s will at the time – and that monogamy is His will now, why would you work to reinstate polygamy? Ray. Let me humbly point something out. Quote:If you believe the Manifesto was God’s will at the time – and that monogamy is His will now, why would you work to reinstate polygamy?
Re-read the Manifesto. It wasn’t “God’s” will to stop polygamy was it. Did you see the words Congress? The United States Government?
And doctrine has not changed. Maybe it should, but it hasn’t. Polygamy is in a dormant state. It is only arranged and consecrated for the next life. Yet it is a sealing process going on in our Temples all the time.
(I know you know all of this, but I’m stating this for clarity.)
Perhaps Bruce in Montana wants to “work” toward bringing it back. I just wanted to use the doctrine in a more efficient way with regards to the defense of marriage controversy. What a big club the LDS could wield in scaring the nation, and pointing out the risk in changing institutionalized one man and one woman marriage.
If I were President of the Church I would categorically state, that if the Homosexual movement can successfully importune the courts for change, why not revisit how the US government forced the LDS to change one of their tenants? I would particularly point out that it is still part of our doctrine, to this day, and provide a friendly brief in support of Homosexual marriage.
That would stop this controversy quicker than you can say “Johnson’s Army.”
“Perhaps Bruce in Montana wants to “work” toward bringing it back.” No, no, no. Sorry if I gave that impression. As far as I’m concerned it is alive and doing well.
It can’t be “brought back” because it’s never gone anywhere. It started out a law of the priesthood, became a law of the Church, and returned to being a law of the priesthood.
It will always be a law of the priesthood whether, or not, the Church gets on board.
primarycolor, I was speaking of the leaders of the Church – who, I believe to a man, view the Manifesto as God’s will. Ray I agree with you- but it is a fate accompli. And therefore it stands to reason (Mormon reasoning) that it’s God’s will. There is no other way leaders could view it today, otherwise God’s will has been thwarted by man, right?
However, the manifesto was really a humble declaration by Wilford Woodruff to “who it may concern” that he was “advising” members to desist from entering into polygamous marriages, that he had ordered the endowment house to be torn down, that he was unaware of recent marriages, etc., it reads like a beaten down leader asking the government to believe him- that he’s going along with their demands. And many of the quorum of the twelve were imprisoned or in hiding, property confiscated, and an army had been dispatched to threaten the Church. The Church was on the brink of disaster.
Objectively looking at the situation, it looked more like “man’s” will, at the time.
I understand, pc. Honestly, I think it’s just a bit . . . brash . . . to think I would know what I would do as the President of the LDS Church in regard to something that has so many implications – both spiritually and politically. When you feel a degree of responsibility for the eternal welfare of millions of people – and billions, if you are a hardcore believer in some of the more orthodox views (which, btw, I think most of the current apostles aren’t) . . . I think there is very little that you and I would do in our current situations that we would do in that situation.
One of my areas of focus is organizational change management and group dynamics, and it’s easy to say, “I’d do such-and-such if I were the leader.” It’s MUCH more complicated for the actual leaders.
That’s really all I’m saying at the root level.
Another way of looking at it may be that it’s God’s will that the Church members exercise their free agency as to living it and enduring the persecutions or declaring that they weren’t willing to do that. When Charles Penrose wrote the mainfesto, which President Woodruff approved, it was thought by many to be a tool to “beat the devil at his own game”. Only much later did anyone ever consider it any sort of “revelation”. Surely the current day leaders don’t…they are educated men with historical records at their disposal just like the rest of us. (surely?)
God’s stated will is that the principle will be an everlasting law of the priesthood and shall not be taken from the earth again. There”s nothing man can do to stop that.
Just sayin….
Edit:…
After researching that a bit, there is quite a bit of controversy regading the authorship of the manifesto. Penrose writing it alone is one version but I really don’t see any that claim that President Woodruff alone received it as some sort of revelation. I’ve been needing a project to research….this sounds like a good one.
Ray Quote:Honestly, I think it’s just a bit . . . brash . . . to think I would know what I would do as the President of the LDS Church in regard to something that has so many implications
You’d do fine. You’d receive revelation. And your young.
(Here goes again): If I were President I would choose new Quorum members that were no older than Joseph Smith. i.e. 39 years old; at least for the next 6 choices.
So, after reading RSR and OoP I have returned to this verse with some new insight. (D&C 132:19)
Quote:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and
it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. This verse, as originally intended, is refering to polygamy, but beyond that, it is specifically requiring the second annointing for these promises to be of force. It specifically states that it
must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise by him who is annointed, this is the second annointing, a secret ordinance still performed in temples (I was specifically taught in my BYU religion class that 2nd annointings are still performed, and this by a member of the correlation committee who was my New Testmant course teacher). Without the 2nd annointing ordinances, none of these promises are valid. While I used to think the 2nd annointing sounded awesome, I now find it highly disturbing. The 2nd annointing is performed when you have “passed” the test of mortality and will no longer have to stand before the judgement bar of God. You can commit any sin and still become a God, except murder. This just does not seem like something God would institute. What happened to enduring to the end? Additionally, from what I have been able to find, it looks like you actually come to the attention of the 1st presidency as being eligible for your 2nd annointing when you are nominated for it by someone else who has received their 2nd annointing. Where is God’s judgement in this? Man looks on the outward appearance, rather than on the heart. The “Holy Spirit of Promise” is not some metaphysical stamp of approval by the Holy Ghost as I have been taught in the church, this is specifically the 2nd annointing ordinance. Similarly, obtaining exhaltation through a monogamous temple marriage is not what JS and early prophets taught. There are some explicit quotes out there that only polygamous marriages will bring you exhaltation (do I hear Bruce clapping approval?). The current church teachings are in conflict with the “original intent” of the chapter and are a “repackaging” of the original doctrine. Anyways, my reading of the rest of D&C 132 is that this is primarily a way Joseph attempting to guilt/command Emma into accepting his polygamous wives.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.