- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t think much about polygamy. I can’t worry about the life to come. I try to consider what’s happening today in this life & try to deal with what comes next.
Does that make me a shallow person?
Quote:Does that make me a shallow person?
No, just pragmatic. Me too on a given day.
Ray, yes. My SP stated that if my ex repented the Lord would remember her sins no more and our sealing would still be valid. That’s why he recommended I get a cancellation. The whole polygamy thing is wrong morally and spiritually. I agree.
I get where Hawkgirl is coming from. I’m glad most don’t see wives as subservient to husbands in their daily lives. But that’s not what the temple teaches. Men can become priests “to God” and women become priestesses “to their husbands.” Pay attention to the wording. If men are priests to God, does it mean “equal partner” with God? No. It implies worshipping God and thus partaking in his glory. So why would being a priestess to a husband mean be “equal partner” with him a few min later? Would the wording not also mean serving him and thus partaking in his glory? Yes, it’s sexist, and I hate it as a women. But for people who really believe that, it wouldn’t be fair to your wife to cancel the sealing. It would take away her only chance at whatever limited salvation women get (through men). I hate it. I think it’s crap and I don’t believe it for a minute. But it’s what our church teaches. 😮 (Quote:But it’s what our church teaches.
It’s what that part of the temple wording teaches – and it is contradicted regularly now in talks and messages the leadership gives. (See my Sunday School lesson summaries on Elder Oaks’ most recent talk about the Priesthood, for example. They are here in the thread titled “My Sunday School Lesson Recaps” – or something like that, since I’m too lazy right not to check.
Which means: I hope the wording in the temple (left over from a VERY different time) is changed. We’ve changed and dropped a lot from the endowment over the years, so it’s not like it would be unprecedented. That alone would be massive, imo, since it would remove the most obvious statement and allow the current messages about equal partnership to be the new default.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:But it’s what our church teaches.
It’s what that part of the temple wording teaches – and it is contradicted regularly now in talks and messages the leadership gives….
Exactly.
Which just goes to show the hypocrisy of excommunicating Kate Kelly, and the vital, urgent need of groups like OW to point out these contradictions and false teaching and to insist on reformations by the leaders of this church…. since they are not doing anything about it.
Thankful (and Kate Kelly) is right, and this is a classic example of the mysogny and blatant disregard for women equality in the church.
Hypocrisy at it’s glaring, obvious worse.
+10000 ^to Cwald statement above!! The temple wording needs to be changed but so does the family proc document that most members take as revelation. Until the family proclamation changes to CO-preside there will always be the understanding in lds culuture that lds men make the last and final desicions, even or especially (depending how you are) at home. The temple wording simply is the ultimate justification for how gender issues are set up throughout the church.
I disagree with the attacks on polygamy. I am not a polygamist and would not think of practicing it unless it were legalized and unless the Church then resumed the practice. But I do not believe that polygamy demeans marriage or women. The LDS women who practiced plural marriage with the proper spirit and attitude found it to be a wonderful blessing and very rewarding. [
Admin note: Some did; some didn’t. That is obvious from their own writings. In this forum, we don’t malign large groups of people who stayed in the Church under polygamy but viewed it as an Abrahamic test, for example, as not having “the proper spirit and attitude”. Generally speaking, we try to avoid judging other people’s worthiness or faithfulness, even as we discuss some situations and cases that require us to explain our sincere perspectives about those things. Sweeping generalities tend to be removed, but I am leaving this one in place so all new participants can be reminded of our practice here.] Given how reluctant Joseph Smith was to tell others that the Lord had revealed to him the doctrine of plural marriage, I think the idea that that he simply made up the practice in an overzealous effort to restore the primitive faith is implausible and illogical. The doctrine ran against everything he had ever been taught about marriage and morality. But he knew it came from God, and as he pondered and studied the matter he came to see the scriptural case for the doctrine.
[ Admin Note]: This is an older thread, and long experience says it only can go downhill from here, so I am locking it for now.
- The topic ‘Forced Polygamy in the modern LDS Church’ is closed to new replies.