- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I really think it is best to stick to the doctrine on this one….Section 132 spells this out and it is clear, we will be damned if we do not abide in the law of the new and everlasting covenant (plural marriage), D & C 132:6 This section is a tough read…….I believe it was something Joseph Smith created so he could have as many wives as he wanted and the thoughts of eternal plural marriage brings more heartache and pain to myself and so many other women I know, who believe they cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven without it and I will never believe that is true.
Quote:I believe it was something Joseph Smith created so he could have as many wives as he wanted
Perhaps, but I just don’t think that conclusion fits the totality of how it was practiced in his time.
Quote:Section 132 spells this out and it is clear, we will be damned if we do not abide in the law of the new and everlasting covenant (plural marriage).
If “abide” means to accept that it exists and is practiced by some, that fits the actual implementation. If it means to participate in it actively, that doesn’t fit. There were lots of members who never participated in it but accepted that it existed and remained faithful. I have ancestors who were polygamous and ancestors who weren’t, and none of the believed the others were going to be damned. (Oh, and “damned” in this case means “stopped from progressing” – just to be precise, as the resident parser.)
I’m ok with plural marriage in concept, even though I don’t like the way it often is implemented as “polygamy”- especially when the entire scope of the marriage and sealing experimentation is considered. I just don’t see how it can be limited to an attempt to have sex with lots of women (or even really be about that primarily) when the entire picture is viewed. There just were SO many different models tried – and polygamy as we think of it now wasn’t “established” as the norm until the years of isolation in the Utah Territory under Brigham Young.
I think we should look at all the meanings of the word abide….I know it is really common to make certain scriptural terms terms fit the meaning we want them to have but what if just what if that is all we are doing? So we can tolerate certain principles of Mormonism. This is the meaning that I found; We use the word abide in our everyday lives, yet don’t fully comprehend what we are saying. When someone says that he will abide by his word, he probably means that he will do what he has said that he would do. This is not the true meaning of the word abide. When we abide in something, we are loyal to it even unto death. When we abide, we remain in a certain place even when the rest of the world has left us behind. To abide means to continue doing whatever is being done even when it is hard and the urge to quit is almost too much. The word abide means to cling to something and have faith in it, even when it seems to have failed. Sometimes “abide” is used with some of the meanings that are in today’s English dictionary, but the above mentioned usages are also a large part of the way this word fits into our language. If the world truly understood the meaning of this awesome word, then I don’t think that people would use is so carelessly.
In conclusion, while it is often misunderstood, the word “abide” has a very rich and deep history and meaning. And understanding this word is essential to understanding many concepts found in the Bible. Also, it is a good word to understand if for no other reason than that it enhances a person’s vocabulary.
Why is it then that we continue to manipulate doctrine for our own benefit, and maybe just maybe there would not be so many personal interpretations of Mormon scripture if the Church would just come out and say it, say what is real and true doctrine and let us decide for ourselves if they ring true, instead of us all wondering around trying to make stuff up to fit into our lives and our hearts.
journey3, I respect what you just said and have said similar things about parsing too many times to argue about the need to be open to multiple meanings. That doesn’t change one single bit, however, my main point: Most members of the LDS Church didn’t practice polygamy, and those who didn’t weren’t condemned to Hell by those who did. Thus, “abide” in this instance, wasn’t used to mean “practice actively” – and the LDS Church certainly didn’t “abide” polygamy in mortality. None of our scriptures except D&C 132 even hint at polygamy being something that must be abided in that sense, so I simply choose a reasonable meaning for the word that fits the totality of our scriptural canon and historical practice.
Quote:Why is it then that we continue to manipulate doctrine for our own benefit?
Because we are human – and, importantly, we all do it, including you and I. One’s person’s manipulation is another person’s epiphany.
Quote:maybe just maybe there would not be so many personal interpretations of Mormon scripture if the Church would just come out and say it, say what is real and true doctrine and let us decide for ourselves if they ring true, instead of us all wondering around trying to make stuff up to fit into our lives and our hearts.
I hope the Church never does that in the manner you are suggesting above. I meant that sincerely. The thought makes me shudder, frankly. I don’t want to be told what to think; I really like the freedom to try to act for myself and not be acted upon, especially in my own thoughts. I want to have to try to figure out these issues, since the most growth I’ve experienced has been in those struggles.
Polygamy is one of those icky topics don’t you think, one that we all know was there…and one that we pray will never pertain to us…..I have had it explained like this; that every one that makes it to the Highest Degree of Glory will all be sealed to each other, well that does not make my eternal commitment to my Husband seem to special. I have heard it explained like this; well you can choose whether or not to participate, that is the one that makes my head spin the most & I have heard it explained like this, if you are going to enter in the presence of the Lord you must accept the law of the new and everlasting covenant or you will not be saved(meaning be in His presence). I think there is great danger in agreeing that this principle existed here on earth and will be in the eternities and then also think that’s great because it does not pertain to me.
I guess the bottom line for me is I don’t believe that it was ever revelation for Joseph Smith to enter into this. He chose it and it has been a mess for the Church and the apologist ever since. For the longest time I believed that story you hear around church…you know the one about how the women were alone and needed a husband so they could buy land etc.
Then you do the research and find out the truth of it all…the women that were taken that already had husbands, or the teenage girls and how they had to be coerced into abiding in the law.
It’s all so very sad really, and we try to justify it away or pretend it will never pertain to us here or in the eternities. I guess we all choose what works for us…..seems to be common practice in the church. Truth is fact the facts are in D & C 132 on the Church’s stand on this and we choose to manipulate it time and time again, myself included but that is changing for me.
Journey3 – seems like you’ve made your mind up about what everyone else is doing. Quote:I guess the bottom line for me is I don’t believe that it was ever revelation for Joseph Smith to enter into this. He chose it and it has been a mess for the Church and the apologist ever since.
Personally, I tend to agree. But that’s not an all or nothing proposition. Does that mean everything JS did was a fraud? I’m not convinced he was. I do think he was able to convince himself of many things, though.
I’d caution you about assuming that others in the church don’t have a variety of views on this. There are some who can’t deal with it and just don’t think about it (those who buy the notion that there were more women than men), but there are also people who’ve taken time to consider various possibilities, and still find sufficient spiritual value in the church. If that’s not you, that’s certainly OK, but the site is here to help people in their search to find that value.
Thank You, I really haven’t made my mind up about anyone else or what they think because for the most part we never discuss sensitive issues like this or have an agree to disagree or whatever works for you attitude….sometimes I wish there was a Forum for this at Church where people could just talk about things like this….this forum is nice and it certainly does help knowing that others question as well, but it seems impersonal at times when you are hurting and struggling and your computer is the only place to turn 
I guess the difference between what the site is offering and what I am looking for is….not value. I can find value in many things that does not make them true and I am looking for truth. Also as far a Joseph Smith being a fraud is that he was supposed to be a Prophet of God, also we know if any man claims to be a prophet of God and his claims do not come to pass that does make him a false Prophet, especially when his words are followed by “Thus saith the Lord”. It appears this site may not be the right place for me as I am not looking to be justified in staying a member of the LDS church . I am looking for truth and praying for the courage to act upon whatever it is the Lord would have me do, whether it be staying or leaving. Blessings to all of you on this same journey of seeking truth. Quote:Do you ever sit at Church on Sunday and feel like you are the only one…questioning & struggling while those around you sit with their perfectly shining testimonies.
Many people on this site feel like this often.
I’m not sure the site’s for you or that it’s not for you. I should clarify that not everyone here stays in the church – but we are not NOM either (which is a site that is mostly for those looking to leave). People here do understand the struggles you face and are not at all opposed to having the types of discussions you are talking about having. I certainly hope you find the answers you are seeking, and the peace you want as well.
Have you read up on Fowler’s stages? This site is here to help people move from Stage 4 to Stage 5. Most people who experience disaffection stay in Stage 4.
Quote:I can find value in many things that does not make them true and I am looking for truth. Also as far a Joseph Smith being a fraud is that he was supposed to be a Prophet of God, also we know if any man claims to be a prophet of God and his claims do not come to pass that does make him a false Prophet, especially when his words are followed by “Thus saith the Lord”. It appears this site may not be the right place for me as I am not looking to be justified in staying a member of the LDS church . I am looking for truth and praying for the courage to act upon whatever it is the Lord would have me do, whether it be staying or leaving. Blessings to all of you on this same journey of seeking truth.
Hey Journey3, if you feel driven by the Spirit to seek this vision of truth your looking for, you should continue to run with it. Many many people all throughout history have felt that urge, that need to know what is certain and “for real” The Truth. It motivated Joseph Smith. He found his truth. It motivated other people on other their own epic quests for the true vision of the divine. I’ve been on that quest for years, and so have many others here. The rabbit hole goes deep, very far down. Keep looking. Keeping going farther. You will find what you are after.
Whether this community is the right place for you to explore this or not (now or in the future), that’s up to you. I hope you feel welcome here. You are not asking questions or communicating thoughts that are threatening or shocking to us. We love kicking around these ideas, but you will find many of the people here challenging and pushing each other.
We aren’t here to convince everyone to stay in the Church. It really isn’t the right path for everyone who finds their self in a questioning and deconstruction phase in life. We mostly focus on what happens when that part is done, when we’ve torn it all down to the foundation and the bedrock in our soul.
But if people do want to stay in the LDS Church, and decide that is something they want to make work, and not just to white-knuckle it every week because they feel trapped, but instead want to find new ways of using their old material, this is the place. That generally requires us to take ownership of “the doctrine” of the Church. We can do whatever we want with it really. That’s what the Church does, right? We’re talking about a serious detachment from needing (or even wanting) external validation, or looking to the group to know what is “true.” We can figure it out.
Quote:I am looking for truth and praying for the courage to act upon whatever it is the Lord would have me do.
Fwiw, that describes all of us here pretty well, I think. I also know that it describes the VAST majority of people I know in the LDS Church – and MANY people in most other churches and religions, frankly.
One simple word of advice that Hawkgirl has mentioned:
Be very careful of assuming that those who know everything about the Church that you know and who choose to stay (and, in many cases, believe deeply and serve actively – even in leadership positions) aren’t doing exactly what you are doing. Your “do you feel statement” is instructive, since, as gently as I can say this, it simply is inaccurate. Too many people feel that way, but it just isn’t accurate. There are SO many members who don’t agree lock-stock-and-barrell with everything others believe in EVERY congregation – but there is an important element of not having physical church meetings be a forum like this. I also wish there was more open and comprehensive discussion of many things in many church meetings, but I absolutely do not want them to the kind of free-wheeling conversations we have here – much less like those at NOM and other places.
If you want to stay LDS, you are welcome here. If you want to learn how to remain actively involved in the LDS community in some way that is constructive, even if you leave the LDS Church, you are welcome here. However, if you have no desire to stay LDS or remain actively involved in the LDS community in a constructive way, this really isn’t the site for you. That is your choice, and my own hopes and wishes absolutely are secondary to your personal desires.
I’d love to have you stay and participate – or lurk and read (whichever might be better for you), but I certainly understand if you can’t do that.
Thanks….I know it is quite obvious that I am in the hurt, sad, angry stage. For so long I put my questions on a shelf then one day it all came tumbling down around me. I am really mad at myself the most for not looking closer any sooner than this, so I could know some things and make an educated choice about being in the Church & I have no one to blame for that but myself. To be honest it was just easier not having these kinds of questions and because of the culture my questions have hurt some of the people I love and that makes me saddest of all. No matter what my choice as far as the church goes I have many loved ones, friends and co-workers who are LDS and I do want to remain actively involved in a constructive way. I sort of feel like I am stuck in a washing machine being tossed about. Can you tell me what NOM is? It is referred to and I don’t know what it means….Thanks for your time
Journey, NOM is an acronym for New-Order Mormon … for which there is a website forum others participate and discuss their church experience. Journey3 wrote:I do want to remain actively involved in a constructive way.
I believe you have found this site has a good support structure to help figure out that exact strategy…to remain actively involved. While others sites I’ve seen just want to vent or complain about their pain…I believe there are tools and good peopler here that want to find a supportive way to show that a reconciliation strategy is possible, and one can be honest with herself and yet see church teachings in a completely new light…and it can be constructive for many.
Like the prism in my avatar…there is one source of light…and yet we can often see multiple shades and colors of that same source, depending on where we may view it from. I think there are many shades of Mormonism. I do not think only one is “right” and all others are “wrong”.
There was a question a while back about women being sealing to more than 1 man. The question asked when this policy came about. The new book called “ The Development of LDS Temple Worship” by Devery S Anderson has the answer. In 1969, President David O. McKay records several meetings discussing this topic. A January 14, 1969 diary entry records that apostle (and future president) Howard W. Hunter approached the First Presidency about a problem with geneaology. A woman married more than once may prefer to be sealed to her 2nd husband rather than the first. When records go back hundreds of years, we have no way of knowing what the woman preferred. If a woman has children from multiple husbands, sealing the children becomes easier to seal to the natural parents, rather than the 1st husband, as had traditionally been done. Elder Hunter noted several times that sealing to the first husband was rather arbitrary, and some women were sealed to a 2nd husband because the first husband wasn’t discovered until after the sealing had occurred. Hunter recommended sealing a deceased woman to all of her husbands, and noted that in the herafter, God and the woman will have a choice as to which sealing takes precedence. In this way, sealings of children to parents can be unimpeded. President McKay signaled his approval of this motion. However, a February 3 diary entry notes that Brother Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency wasn’t there for the January discussion, and expressed concern, feeling that the existing practice should be retained. There was some more discussion, and it was decided further research should occur.
A March 6, 1969 diary entry says that president N Eldon Tanner brought forth a letter showing it was a
Quote:custom in the early days of the Church for a woman to be sealed to a good man in the Church, a General Authority or someone else who was still living, other than her deceased husband who died without accepting the gospel. The sealing was performed as an assurance for an eternal union in the hereafter. It is now recommended that inasmuch as President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation which altered this practice, that in such cases prior to 1890 when this ruling was made, if the woman was sealed to a deceased member of the Church or to a living member of the church but did not live with him as a wife, permission be granted for her to be sealed also to her non-member husband to whom she had been married in life. The original sealing will not, however, be canceled. President Tanner said that it would seem that this would be particularly desirable when the woman had children by the non-member husband, that under this ruling the children could be sealed to their parents. President Tanner asked me if I could see anything wrong about such a ruling, and I said no….I gave my approval.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.