- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yes, good example with birth control. It is my hope that our thinking evolves with gay marriage the same way it has with birth control. [From Questions Abound] And so it begins.
I’m actually feeling a bit anxious about this one.
Anyone who has followed my comments knows I would go for a second husband.
But really, what WILL the church leadership have to say once polygamy is legalized?
As an aside, my husband still doesn’t know about my FC, but I recently told him that I felt strongly that JS did not practice polygamy. I have searched for any quote or indication either from him or Emma that he married other women. The only accounts are from others years after he was killed. Even years later when Emma was asked about it, she denied his involvement. Couple that with the lack of children from any other untion and my own feelings below and I just really don’t think he was a practicing polygamist on earth. Plus…the way D&C 132 is written..well, it’s clunky and awkward and if examined, few of the early practicing polygamist men even followed the rules set forth.
I once had one of “those” moments where I felt that I “knew” the character of JS. I feel that he was really a man of good character, so it is hard to think that he was also a liar about polygamy.
Anyway, I hesitantly introduced my idea to my husband recently (he’s a concert of almost 20 years) and … He actually said that he never really believed that JS was a polygamist! He echoed my feelings about character and his own conviction. Wow. I was floored. All this time he thought that and never shared it with me. Makes me hopeful that I can one day soon talk about some other FC issues with him.
Okay, sorry for the side note.
But while I don’t really care one way or another about gay marriage, I do see a much, much bigger mess is polygamy is legalized.
Not only will straight people be allowed to be polygamists, but so will gay people … And couples could marry couples, and throw in transgender people and… and the poor children of this rising generation. Imagine the confusion.
Just a note since I can’t do much on the phone in the car…. There’s been a mix-up and the post immediately above is QuestionAbound’s, not Ray’s.
FYI, Ray’s post was a quote from QuestionsAbound on another thread… QuestionsAbound wrote:I have searched for any quote or indication either from him or Emma that he married other women. The only accounts are from others years after he was killed.
QA, We do have contemporary sources that JS practiced and taught polygamy. The best source, IMO, is the Nauvoo Expositor, published weeks before JS’s death. In it, there was evidence that Hyrum had a perported revelation of JS’s that was similar in content to our current D&C 132. The Expositor contained these three affidavits:
Quote:William Law: “I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines.” Quote:Jane Law: “I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives that one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God.” Quote:Austin Cowles: “In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revelation in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; 1st the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that “David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah.” This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counselor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo [ie, first counselor to Nauvoo Stake President, William Marks], inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws.” Thanks for the clarification. I edited the comment to reflect that. Can’t believe I missed that. 😳 QuestionAbound wrote:
Anyway, I hesitantly introduced my idea to my husband recently (he’s a convert of almost 20 years) and … He actually said that he never really believed that JS was a polygamist! He echoed my feelings about character and his own conviction. Wow. I was floored.All this time he thought that and never shared it with me. Makes me hopeful that I can one day soon talk about some other FC issues with him.
The particular issue of JS’s polygamy aside, I’m happy you and your husband might be able to talk more about faith issues. Not being able to is hands down the hardest part of my situation. So,:thumbup: !The story QA was referencing when she said, “And so it begins,” is the one about the Montana man and his two wives:
QA, I’m anxious, too. If polygamy is legalized, and the church sticks to the weak, women-under-the-bus, “Tsk, tsk, tsk. God didn’t command it,” I’ll probably be needing to find another place. Yes, there will be a lot of hip polygamists out there, professional working women, and all that. I just don’t want
anythingto do with it. Ann wrote:
QA, I’m anxious, too. If polygamy is legalized, and the church sticks to the weak, women-under-the-bus, “Tsk, tsk, tsk. God didn’t command it,” I’ll probably be needing to find another place. Yes, there will be a lot of hip polygamists out there, professional working women, and all that. I just don’t wantanythingto do with it. Ann, it will be fascinating to see if this ever DOES happen. Frankly, I could actually see polygamy becoming legal again (sorry, but I could see it happen),…but I also see the church having a mess with it because it would require a new “revelation” to restart the practice. Would it not?
As a younger man, I use to wonder what the big “sifting” events would be in LDS circles…and if polygamy comes around again, it could be the big one. Don’t know…and hope it isn’t in my lifetime if ever.
I think there is 0.00% chance of the Church ever going back to polygamy in this life. Note the finality from an Ensign article in 2009 by M. Russell Ballard regarding polygamy: “It was a practice. It ended. We moved on.” Here is the article: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive irony), by simply pointing out that ‘not-now’ is God’s directive. I also think there is no way that polygamy is legalized within the US unless spousal benefits and protections are legally removed, which I think would be a shame. Otherwise, a person could marry 59 spouses and legally claim each as a beneficiary. A new tax category would need to be formed for those who are married filing joint-joint-joint-jointly. The issue of spousal benefits was an early driver for Same-sex Marriage, though it was eventually supplanted by fair-treatment once civil unions were created specifically to provide such benefits. But I believe it would be impossible to define multiple spouses in the same way as a single spouse (whether it be one of same or different gender).
On Own Now wrote:I think there is 0.00% chance of the Church ever going back to polygamy in this life. Note the finality from an Ensign article in 2009 by M. Russell Ballard regarding polygamy: “It was a practice. It ended. We moved on.” Here is the article:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive irony), by simply pointing out that ‘not-now’ is God’s directive.
Saying “not now” is not moving on. Why don’t they get that? The church doesn’t have to go back to polygamy to lose me. Just a few more blithe “not nows” and I’ll be gone. It’s offensive.Editing to add: I understand that they’re in a bind and have their limits, but, sadly, so do we all.
Ann wrote:Saying “not now” is not moving on.
I think it isn’t likely that the Church will be challenged on the issue of its stance on polygamy because of any movement to legalize it. Like I said, I don’t think that the legal discussion will even get very far, so it’s unlikely the Church will ever even have to make a statement. I think it’s more likely the Church will be challenged on it the next time a new president of the Church is a polygamist. Of the FP/Q12, there are currently two members who are practicing next-life polygamists: Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks; both having been sealed to a second wife (who had never previously married) after becoming an Apostle. Since they are next-in-line and second-in-line, there’s a good chance that one of them becomes the next President. The last time that happened was with Howard W. Hunter, but that was 21 years ago, and polygamy wasn’t as exposed as it is now. In 2015+ it’s hard to imagine not asking for clarification on the doctrine if either Nelson or Oaks moves to the top. If I were a reporter at the press conference, that’s the question I would ask.Couple of tidbits:
– Before HWH, the previous Church President with multiple sealings was Harold B. Lee.
– Richard G. Scott’s wife died 20 years ago and he has remained unmarried, which I think is pretty significant, considering he was in his mid-60’s at the time.
I never thought in my life time that SSM would happen. But it did. It is amazing to me….utterly amazing–and the CHURCH was opposed to it. We all know that plural marriage in itself, and the LDS position for or against it, are two different things. But, it was mentioned in the dissenting voice,…was it not from the Supreme Court? It was ON THEIR RADAR…they were the ones who brought it up.
I never thought enforced health-care would happen, never thought that POT would be legalized anywhere, never thought prostitution would be legalized anywhere, and it is in more than one place now…..these are the last days. Plural marriage, including polyandry, could very possibly become legalized.
The thing that is alarming to me is that section 132 is STILL IN THE BOOK, and endorsed as God’s word. We don’t practice it now,…but it is still there. If it becomes legal again, regardless of whether the LDS faith practices it again, it is astonishing to me. What a time we live. The very social constructs that underpin our society are shifting.
WOW!
Rob4Hope wrote:What a time we live. The very social constructs that underpin our society are shifting.
From my perspective the social constructs have always been shifting. Many of these shifts have been for the better. I do not think anyone would want to go back to a time when a wife was in some ways considered the property of the husband. The increase in civil rights have bettered society in general. We could argue that some of these shifts have gone too far. I think that there is healthy room for discussion and healthy differences of opinion on this subject. I also believe that the shifts have recently been accelerating due in large part to the new level of connectedness with the internet.
On Own Now wrote:I think there is 0.00% chance of the Church ever going back to polygamy in this life. Note the finality from an Ensign article in 2009 by M. Russell Ballard regarding polygamy: “It was a practice. It ended. We moved on.” Here is the article:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive irony), by simply pointing out that ‘not-now’ is God’s directive. I don’t believe the church will return to the practice of polygamy either but I take all statements from church leaders that imply finality with a grain of salt. There have been far too many statements from past church leaders that sounded final but weren’t.
I think the church has tried very hard to distance itself from being associated with polygamy. I get the impression that members let out this exasperated sigh every time the subject comes up and are quick to point out how long it’s been since official declaration 1. The doctrine is still in the books though, and that creates this seed of doubt/speculation over a return to the practice.
Isaiah 4: Quote:And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
I don’t know if this “scripture” has been fulfilled yet,….but I am willing to bet this scripture has been taken into account with the decision to leave 132 in the current D&C.
Just speculation,…but when all is said and done, the question comes down to: “Did the Lord establish polygamy or not?” If HE did,…then HE can bring it back whenever HE wants, and it doesn’t matter what the political, cultural, or religious climate is.
Frankly, I don’t think that passage has been considered at all in the decision concerning D&C 132 – but I might be wrong. It is, however, a fascinating example of how people can and do view prophecy and scripture differently. It also doesn’t have to be “the will (or desire) of God” to be prophetic. It might be nothing more than a statement of what will happen, regardless of how God feels about it. (like the discussion about “he will rule over thee” perhaps being a simple statement of biological evolution, as I see it, verses divine will) Yes, whether or not God was involved in polygamy and D&C 132 is THE central question.
We have had numerous discussions about that over the years.It all boils down to personal opinion. Let’s NOT make that the focus of this thread. Let’s stick to the post topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.