- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
2) I know people who truly have loved multiple wives, and I think we all can accept that simple fact when it comes to widows and widowers. I have a really hard time telling someone in that situation that they will have to “pick a wife” in the next life IF marriage is anything like what we experience here on earth.
That, to me, is one definition of Hell.Therefore, as I said, I can’t condemn plural marriage in totality. It’s just too complicated, imo, to do that. It is too complicated, I will agree with that. While agreeing with your point about being forced to “pick” a wife, I can’t imagine forcing the women who only lived with one husband on this earth to learn to deal with a polygamous relationship. Also, we can’t have a double standard. There have been women that have serially lived with different husbands. So in those types of situations I agree with just saying “it will all work out” even if we can’t fully understand here and now. I often wonder about what the memory of a pre-earth life would add to relationships. We were all siblings then, will we really be more attached to our earthly family groups than the pre-earth relationship status?
As far as any personal revelation on the subject (to answer the original post) I feel that I don’t need to believe in polygamy in a way that would support my willingness to live the principle – because I will never be in a position to live it. And I’m glad for that.
Quote:We, in these forums, constantly call for the church to take a step back from the infallibility-of-leaders stance. We will never get our way if we continually trot out the failures of certain leaders and then hang them on the church. If the church IS responsible for the actions of some, then we can never expect the church to admit imperfection in its leaders.
Fascinating perspective that has a lot of validity.
From my perspective these guys are either prophets or not. If they are truly prophets they need to be held to a much higher standard. There is a huge “have your cake and eat it too” problem. Pick one – either they are prophets and they have accountability or they are just regular men. If the church were to admit that the people in leadership positions aren’t actually prophets at all they are just regular men trying to feel the spirit that happen to be in charge I’d have no problem. But until then apostles and prophets should be accountable for what they officially state. The middle ground has too many mental gymnastics for my liking.
For example I have a hard time just pushing aside these official letter from the first presidency :
August 17, 1949
Quote:The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”
The position of the Church regarding the Negro
may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.Quote:
December 15, 1969To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.
Dear Brethren:
In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.
First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.
We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.
In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.
It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.
However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.
This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.
A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.
Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”
President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”
Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.
We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.
Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.
We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.
We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.
Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.
Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner
[/quote]
Right there you have people who are officially speaking as prophets who are specifically claiming to talk as prophets who are saying that blacks are discriminated against because God commanded it and because they were less worthy to hold the priesthood because of their unrighteousness in the pre-existence.
These are official statements. If official statements aren’t good enough to be considered speaking as a prophet then I’d submit that nothing is.
Ray, I respect your belief that sexuality doesn’t exist beyond the veil. But I believe that physical intimacy is part of a triangle that connects social and metaphysical intimacy. All these are important, so I’m not sure if God would take them away from us at any point. Shouldn’t handicap people and children who die young be given the ability to express love in the most passionate way, and bare children of their own after resurrection? I must state, that in my opinion, polygamy is comparable to adultery, because in both cases, you destroy the fire in your heart that longs for exclusiveness; the passionate desire for solitude with one other.
Tell me, In a polygamous relationship with a man and a dozen or so wives, if the man goes and sleeps with one of the women in his community that isn’t his wife, will his wives feel they have been cheated on? I’m no expert of the human psyche, but I would assume that the wives wouldn’t, as individuals, feel that they had been cheated on, because they would’ve already trained their minds to handle the fact that he is sleeping with other women. They would’ve already had to smother that fire in their hearts that longs for exclusiveness and affectionate solitude.
Emma and Joseph’s marriage survived so many trials and tests from the outside world, only to be destroyed by polygamy.
In my humble opinion, I simply believe that polygamy did to women the same thing the ban did to blacks: disrespected them and spat upon their God-given freedom.
I agree bc. …its why I feel that the 14 Fs must be rejected and disavowed by the prophet and apostles, before the church can really heal and reform in any meaningful manner. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Polygamy is just an ugly black eye, and no amount of nuance or apologetic is going to make me feel better. I accept that….and no longer try. JS was wrong. He made a mistake. His mistake caused spiritual harm to many people. The church is not, nor has it ever been “perfect.” And it is insulting to me when people insist otherwise.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I never said physical intimacy will be gone in the next life – and I’ve never defended certain aspects of polygamy. There are parts of the way polygamy was practiced that I don’t like in the slightest. However, the conversation usually is one-sided and hyperbolic – from both “sides”, unfortunately. For example, those who hate the very idea almost always talk about the obvious lightning rod cases (the youngest wives and the ones where sex seemed to have occurred), but they almost never talk about the oldest wives and the ones where sex obviously didn’t occur and never was claimed – or that, apparently, no children were born out of any of the plural marriages. Otoh, those who defend it totally almost always overlook or dismiss legitimate concerns and concoct ridiculous, inaccurate justifications for it. In that way, the issue is very much like the Priesthood ban.
To two points I made:
What I said that I don’t believe sexual activity as we know it (including eternally pregnant women) here in mortality will continue in the hereafter and that I can’t condemn the concept of non-monogamous, polygamous arrangements “in totality” (meaning I can’t condemn every single aspect of it) – especially given how many people I know in this life who would consider it Hell to have to choose only one spouse from among multiple spouses they’ve loved deeply and passionately. Those are very different things, and it’s important to me to make those distinctions.
I’ve also said I see support of consensual sex when it involves two men or two women but condemnation of consensual sex when it involves one man or woman and multiple women or men as a blatant double standard – particularly given the justifications for such a stance that I’ve heard.
I’ve chosen my words very, very carefully in these comments, and it’s important to me not to have those words misrepresented in any way.
As usual, I’m smiling as I’m writing this comment. I’m not upset or angry or anything like that. I am, however, very serious about how I haven’t said what’s implied in some of the comments about what I said.
You make some excellent points. I really look up to you. Haha, I’m glad you don’t believe that physical intimacy doesn’t exist beyond the veil. I’m sorry I misunderstood it. This website has been a great success for me as it has forced me to reveal to myself, and to anyone who read, what I really believe in. Putting your beliefs into words really forces you to sharpen and focus what they actually are. Alaskaboy, let me just say that I generally view polygamy as a mistake, but Ray has such an interesting perspective on the topic that I’ve been forced to soften my position a bit. I’m not as strident as I used to be. It’s a tough subject. We need to be careful about judging so quickly. I must say that Sister Wives has been a fascinating show for me to watch, but I’d NEVER want to be part of a family like that. It’s just constant chaos, but it does seem to work for them. (Now, if only Netflix would allow me to watch seasons 3 and 4! I’ve complained to no avail.)
I would have to agree with Ray on the accepting consensual adults of homo, hetero, polygamous or polyandrous…it does seem like if you’re going to accept one, you would have to accept the other. BUT only in the case of consensual adults. The problem that I have with polygamy (well I guess one of many) is that these women were told that they were instructed of God-by a prophet-to do these things. Maybe some of them would’ve chose this for themselves, but I highly doubt it. People will do almost anything if they truly believe that God has instructed them to do so. alaskaboy19 wrote:I believe that physical intimacy is part of a triangle that connects social and metaphysical intimacy. All these are important, so I’m not sure if God would take them away from us at any point. Shouldn’t handicap people and children who die young be given the ability to express love in the most passionate way, and bare children of their own after resurrection?
I must state, that in my opinion, polygamy is comparable to adultery, because in both cases, you destroy the fire in your heart that longs for exclusiveness; the passionate desire for solitude with one other.
Alaska, Your sentiment reminds me of an article by Eugene England found here:
http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1987_e_001.pdf Quote:Shakespeare thus shows how well he understood the importance of fidelity, the
complete faithfulness, loyalty, and sharing that is possible only when a man and a
woman join their full lives—physical, mental, and spiritual—in what he called “the
marriage of true minds” (sonnet 116). He saw fidelity as central to married love,
which he portrayed as the supreme form of human happiness and wholeness at the
end of each of his comedies and the violation or interruption of which lies at the
heart of most of the tragedies and late romances.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.