Polygamy "Doctrine" in Institute – Fall 2015

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

I mean, after all,…if we know so little, what is “family” in the next life?…polygamy, polyandry, SSM, adopted children, open marriages with anyone and everyone? Do we really not know? And, is there sex over there at all?…if not, then why do women and men need to be together?….we know so little right? But, the PoF says family is central, and marriage is for “time and eternity”. So, for some reason, our “doctrine” says it is essential. But why?

Seeing “a little” is a relative thing.

High beams see a lot, more than low beams. No headlights at all is really seeing “a little”. It is all relative.

Driving with high beams is not a little to some people, and probably is enough to stay safe, which is what I need. I don’t need to see everything to know how to drive safely home.

High beams is way too little for a scientist to see Pluto.

It kinda depends what you’re trying to do.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Rob4Hope wrote:

I mean, after all,…if we know so little, what is “family” in the next life?…polygamy, polyandry, SSM, adopted children, open marriages with anyone and everyone? Do we really not know? And, is there sex over there at all?…if not, then why do women and men need to be together?….we know so little right? But, the PoF says family is central, and marriage is for “time and eternity”. So, for some reason, our “doctrine” says it is essential. But why?

Seeing “a little” is a relative thing.

High beams see a lot, more than low beams. No headlights at all is really seeing “a little”. It is all relative.

Driving with high beams is not a little to some people, and probably is enough to stay safe, which is what I need. I don’t need to see everything to know how to drive safely home.

High beams is way too little for a scientist to see Pluto.

It kinda depends what you’re trying to do.

I understand Heber. And respect that.

I think the GAs know more than they share. That part I don’t like,…at least as far as the general “family” topic is concerned. And I know you see it differently, which is OK as well.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I think what I’m suggesting is that we should look at what we thought we knew about families.

Losing a child to stillbirth was particularly frustrating in this regard. We seem very certain that making and keeping temple covenants will bind our families together in the afterlife. On the fate of stillborn children we just don’t know. While I appreciate that this leaves open multiple options that might work best for individual people, this approach was also very disorienting given the certain language on temple ordinances and eternal families that I had grown accustomed to.

I have heard reported a few times that everything in the temple is symbolic. Is it possible that the sealing ordinance, priesthood power, and eternal families are also symbolic?

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

OON, I’ve been thinking about this this morning and I completely agree. What I was trying to get at is whether it’s useful to think of polygamy as “sexism,” or for LDS people to try to define sexism. With the Race and Priesthood essay, we took all the old cloaks and garb off and flat-out called the ban “racist.” What do you think?

I would love for us to take all the old cloaks and garb off of polygamy. I think it’s more difficult to do that than it was with the ban, and probably the approach needs to be different, but, yes, ultimately, I hope (and expect) that the Church will. It’s just too difficult for the Church to believe that women or gay people are less-than, when the core of the Gospel is that “God is no respecter of persons” and that “All are alike unto God” and that “we believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved.” My faith is that those core doctrines will make it increasingly difficult for the Church to have exceptions, especially with the rise of the younger people, who are products of society whose norms have changed to focus much more on fairness for people who are different from ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

And I know you see it differently, which is OK as well.

Right back at ya I respect your position you’ve shared.

I am sure the GA’s think they know a lot more.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

What makes polygamy pricklier than race is 132. The race issue never had a canon version. Sure it was in talks and so on, but not in the bound book of scriptures. I personally think it is the de-canonizing that is causing the thorn to remain. You can disavow uncanonized anything. Green jello, Pioneer Day, even Relief Society – but not WoW or Polygamy.

Well, we disregard parts of D&C 89, so can we do the same with section 132?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I can’t believe that these men who claim to speak with God, receive revelations and be successors of JS (with the same keys) don’t know the answers to these questions.

When was the last time you heard that claim, in the most literal sense, from one of them personally? How many times is that claim made in our entire scriptural canon?

I know a large sub-set of our culture assumes and believes that, but how often do we actually hear it from them?

I hate unrealistic expectations, and this is a good example of why.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

It’s just too difficult for the Church to believe that women or gay people are less-than, when the core of the Gospel is that “God is no respecter of persons” and that “All are alike unto God” and that “we believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved.” My faith is that those core doctrines will make it increasingly difficult for the Church to have exceptions, especially with the rise of the younger people, who are products of society whose norms have changed to focus much more on fairness for people who are different from ourselves.

I agree. I was wondering whether “bringing in” terms like racism and sexism, is part of the process, or not. I honestly don’t know. Right now, it’s detractors who will call the church sexist, but the term is sort of out-of-bounds for stayers because it feels too harsh. And it is too harsh when you know and love the men who would be painted with that broad brush.

The BOM scripture is one that my daughter triple-highlighted recently.

Quote:

For behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness.

He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.

Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price.

Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.

Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.

Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.

…

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

[Anonymous]

I believe in a pruning process described in Jacob 5 – and that it focuses on incorrect traditions of our own fathers (and mothers).

I want to be part of that pruning.

[Anonymous]

Alex wrote:

I used to think earlier in my life that polygamy was a test for the saints. I just can’t accept that anymore….

Yeah, I really dislike the idea that it was a test. I can’t imagine God saying, “I need to test my people so I’m going to command them to do totally inappropriate things.” I do, however, see Abraham’s test differently.

Is your girlfriend LDS? Active? I hope you don’t mind me asking.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Losing a child to stillbirth was particularly frustrating in this regard. We seem very certain that making and keeping temple covenants will bind our families together in the afterlife. On the fate of stillborn children we just don’t know. While I appreciate that this leaves open multiple options that might work best for individual people, this approach was also very disorienting given the certain language on temple ordinances and eternal families that I had grown accustomed to.

I have heard reported a few times that everything in the temple is symbolic. Is it possible that the sealing ordinance, priesthood power, and eternal families are also symbolic?

Roy, that IS frustrating to have that big question mark. In some ways, my faith crisis has helped me deal with questions like this that the church doesn’t have an answer for. So much of our focus in church is about what we believe. My perspective has shifted away from what we believe, to a more personal relationship with God and I now focus on what I believe. I don’t have to rely on the church to answer my questions. I can have my own beliefs, seek my own answers, and receive my own personal revelation; and none of it has to take a backseat to what we believe. If you find your own answers to your questions and frustrations, I think you have every right to those personal beliefs.

As that applies to this topic of polygamy, it’s been freeing for me to say that I don’t believe that it ever came from God, and I personally believe that it came from Joseph Smith’s imagination (with the help of the OT), and used as an excuse to exercise his own vices. I recognize and respect that this isn’t what we believe, but it is what I believe.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I can’t believe that these men who claim to speak with God, receive revelations and be successors of JS (with the same keys) don’t know the answers to these questions.

When was the last time you heard that claim, in the most literal sense, from one of them personally? How many times is that claim made in our entire scriptural canon?

I know a large sub-set of our culture assumes and believes that, but how often do we actually hear it from them?

I hate unrealistic expectations, and this is a good example of why.

Well,…I understand what you are saying at face value, but disagree. These are “special witnesses”. Is that because of their calling, or because they have more “light” and can be leaders and examples to others BECAUSE they are further along?

If these men don’t have more light and knowledge than do I, regardless of their claims, why would I follow them?

Special witness had better be “special”, and they had better have more knowledge than do I, because considering they have no more knowledge than I is terrifying!

Ray, I know I am making a claim here…but this generalization is something these men rely on. They write books. They discourse. They answer questions in Q&A sessions. It is more difficult for me to believe they don’t know the answers than that they do, but don’t feel a need to share.

And I do believe scriptural and historical claims exist that create precedence. For examples, God did say: “Line upon line, precept on precept”…and there are scriptural examples of leaders whose mouths were shut BECAUSE the people didn’t believe, and were denied more knowledge. But, the leaders had the knowledge in each of these cases.

Another example, historical in nature, is JS himself. He said in affect that the reason why God doesn’t give more knowledge is because we don’t keep it under wraps. He could keep a secret until “dooms day” (If I remember the lecture from Truman Madsen on this). JS often spoke of the physical description of Paul, for example. Clearly, if this is true, JS had more knowledge than I did. How is it a leap of faith to believe that Thomas Monson doesn’t have more light than the average member?…and I concede the point that I haven’t heard Monson say he knows the answers to these specific questions. BUT I have also not heard him say he didn’t know the answers either.

I agree it is an assumption that Monson and others haven’t claimed to know the answers. I haven’t, however, heard them claim they didn’t know the answers either. So, It feels safe to make the assumption considering the claims of JS, and the claims that these current men are literal successors of JS himself.

If they don’t know the answers,…yikes. That is disturbing to me.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Rob4Hope wrote:

I can’t believe that these men who claim to speak with God, receive revelations and be successors of JS (with the same keys) don’t know the answers to these questions.

When was the last time you heard that claim, in the most literal sense, from one of them personally? How many times is that claim made in our entire scriptural canon?

Every six months, they are sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators.” By definition, they should prophesy, see beyond the natural realm, and receive revelations from God.

[Anonymous]

Rob and Shawn, my question was specific, since the wording was “speak with God”.

Seriously, that is a HUGE unrealistic expectation, imo, since “the most literal sense” of speaking with God is not supported at all by our scriptures or in the words of our leaders. We have a few examples there, but they are few and far between. Nearly everything is framed in terms of visions or hearing voices – not literal visitations and conversations. We even have apostles talking about receiving revelation in the same way we are asked to seek it.

Joseph Smith is one thing – like Moses and Jesus and the Brother of Jared. (Interestingly, they all are people who started a new religion or lead a people in its original separation from the rest of the world.) People who came after them are another thing altogether.

My point is simple: If they aren’t making the claim, we shouldn’t be holding them to it – no matter how much we might want to do so.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Well, we disregard parts of D&C 89, so can we do the same with section 132?

Shawn I believe we already do, that’s where the problem comes in, we just gloss over the polygamy part, much like eating meat only in times of famine. Problem comes that it leaves it on the table. Leaving meat sparingly on the table doesn’t effect a person as much as a spouse thing does. At the same time we co-opt scriptures so much, that I came to my own polygamy answer that way. Not all the biggies ever practiced it, so I don’t either. I will take it up with Heavenly Parents when I get home.

[Author]

Posts