- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On this topic, MH and Bruce and others: Can you take a shot at my idea of Adam and Eve? I’d like a response on that if someone has one.
It would seem if it was the way God intended things to be, He would have taught Adam from the beginning, just like he taught him to make sacrafices (Assumption: Adam and Eve story was literal, not figurative).
If it was so necessary to JS that an angel with a flaming sword make them live it, why was it not important to restore to the book of Genesis in the revisions made by Joseph Smith?
I would like to propose that Adam and Eve’s story and how the original family is told in Genesis suggests one man and one woman. In later times, it was allowed for families and less organized societies to survive in the wilderness, but was not required. Then Joseph Smith restored the priesthood and temple blessings, but under the conditions of the early church, it was needed under those circumstances also. However, polygamy is not the saving ordinance, just one “program” of the church from time to time allowed for the church to achieve its mission. Today, there are other ways the Lord has provided for the mission of sealing people together.
This would be similar to God telling Mohonrimoriacmr to find a way to light the ships. Using crystals was one idea but not the “only way” to do it or really what was important, but getting the ship across the ocean to the promise land was the end in mind.
Interesting posts all. The way I’ve always thought of it, this is the last dispensation and many spirits have been saved to come forth now.
Plural marriage may not have been a commandment for the whole body of believers in Biblical times, which makes it a “NEW and Everlasting” covenant.
The arguement would be that the new and everlasting covenant was monogamous sealings….either first or second annointings….I don’t read it or understand it that way.
Personally if something doesn’t seem to line up with what’s Biblical, I dismiss the Biblical. I figure a spring is always purest at it’s source and the Bible just doesn’t measure up to the knowledge that we need for these last times….too much left out, changed, and mistranslated IMHO. I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t use the Bible to judge the BoM or revelations given to our early prophets in this dispensation.
That’s just me though.
This is a good thread with some great insights.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
Bruce in Montana wrote:“NEW and Everlasting” covenant.
Simple and straight forward Bruce. Hard to argue with that. I agree with your thoughts on the bible.
I just posted the following over on Mormon Matters: Quote:As to Joseph, I sincerely, deeply, passionately hope that my life is never examined like his is. I don’t hold him up on any pedestal, even as I accept him as a Prophet and a great man. I think he was greatly flawed, as well, but I can’t think of a single person throughout history who had a massive impact on history who wasn’t greatly flawed – except Jesus, himself. I mean that; I have taught history, and it appears that it requires a deeply conflicted, complex, flawed personality and character for someone to have a far-reaching and long-lasting effect on history. A sanitized Joseph probably couldn’t have done what he did – and I really love the end result of what he did (even as I have to acknowledge the lingering fruits of the apostasy even within the Church). Since the Book of Mormon itself talks about that issue (the lingering effects of the apostasy within the Church itself in the last days), and since Joseph is the most chastised person in the entire D&C (and it’s not even close), I find it hard to condemn Joseph for being what I believe he had to be to have the effect he had.
Old-Timer wrote:I mean that; I have taught history, and it appears that it requires a deeply conflicted, complex, flawed personality and character for someone to have a far-reaching and long-lasting effect on history.
Great insight, Ray. The legacy of the founding fathers of the U.S. is another great example. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin being the most obvious of the deeply conflicted, complex, flawed. But the legacy they left will impact human history for at least another 500 years, and, of course, inform history for as long as our species survives on earth.
Heber13 wrote:However, polygamy is not the saving ordinance, just one “program” of the church from time to time allowed for the church to achieve its mission.
Heber, you mentioned in another thread that SSM is doctrinal but here you say that polygamy is/was a “program”. Explain?
swimordie wrote:Heber, you mentioned in another thread that SSM is doctrinal but here you say that polygamy is/was a “program”. Explain?
What?? I have to be consistent???
😆 Ok, let’s see if I can make any sense of myself (now you’re asking a lot of me, ya know):
Quote:In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
My point is, the doctrine of marriage between men and women is stated in the Proclamation as central to God’s plan. That is the doctrine established. Marriage for anything other than man and woman is not ordained of God (as I read the proclamation). Therefore it is doctrinal.
Polygamy, on the other hand, is marriage between man and woman. Just that there are more partners included in the marriage, but still man and woman where children can be raised by both genders as God planned. It is no longer necessary, but it doesn’t go against this doctrine of man and woman.
Polygamy can be one way for the family to raise children, or monogamy. But because of the Proclamation, until they change that, it is doctrine that it cannot be anything else. IMO.
I’m not saying we can agree on whether that is right or not. But someone asked if it was doctrine, and because of the Proclamation, I say it is.
That’s how I try to keep a straight face and answer both those questions that way!
🙄 Heber, I liked your explanation about Adam and Eve in your last post about them. Is there more to your theory than that? (I’ve been keeping up with the latest comments, but apologize if you said something before that I missed.) I tend to agree that monogamy is the ideal, not polygamy. MH, Here is the rational for my Adam and Eve importance in my belief that polygamy, while allowed or suffered by the Lord, was not the original perfect family as created by the Lord himself:
Moses 3: 5
Quote:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;
In the Creation story, it is established things were created spiritually before physically, that is, there was a divine design to things.
The Lord then places man on the earth, and breaths life into him. He is told to tend the garden and eat of all the fruit except one forbidden tree.
Quote:18 And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten, that it was not good that the man should be alone; wherefore, I will make an help meet for him.
21 And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and I took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof;
22 And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not shamed.
When kicked out of the Garden of Eden, chapter 5 we read:
Quote:1 And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him.
2 And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth.
3 And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters.
The last verse sheds particular light, that their children paired off as they left their parents and cleaved to each other.The Bible creation story in Genesis may certainly have been subject to “translation error” or people over time changing wording. But the Book of Moses by Joseph’s hand himself, would seem to provide the ultimate opportunity to show that in the beginning, when things were setup by God Himself under divine design as all else was created spiritually before physically, we would see signs of polygamy as the “proper way”. But it clearly is not. In fact, it clearly states Eve was the only women in the garden of Eden, and no indication of other wives after being kicked out. Indeed, their children paired off “two by two” (sounds like the same pattern used by Noah in the ark).
This is the basis for my theory, that from the beginning, man and wife were the basis of the family unit. At other times in history (including Nauvoo etc), additional wives were allowed as long as it wasn’t adultery. But one revelation in D&C 132 which is difficult to understand, does not over rule all other indications of the way things were setup, or the way our current prophet teaches the basic unit of the family, being man and wife. I’m not saying D&C 132 is wrong, but more in the camp of the Word of Wisdom revelation in D&C 89, which in my opinion, is good for us to follow as a matter of faith to our current prophet, but has not been required of every son of Adam or daughter of Eve since the beginning, only to those who have been told to live by it as a matter of faith. Baptism, on the other hand, is required of everyone. We don’t do polygamy marriages in the temple for those who have passed away, but we do baptisms and sealings.
No disrespect to anyone intended, just my theory and what it is based on.
I really like your theory, and I think I’ll adopt it! 
Heber13 wrote:We don’t do polygamy marriages in the temple for those who have passed away, but we do baptisms and sealings.
I’m pretty sure there are still polygamy marriages in the temple for those who have passed away. Remarried widower convert? (I’m going to need a full-time fact checker at some point
Also, the proclamation takes an extremely hard line on gender and, in the future, this will almost assuredly have to be changed/adjusted. (Sex-change, gender identity, etc.)
Lastly, it feels as if this line of thinking is not that the nuclear family is ideal but rather, doctrinal. Especially following the Adam and Eve construct. If that’s the case, shouldn’t the church take just as hard a stance against divorce as it does against SSM? And, shouldn’t unwed mothers be incentivized doctrinally to put their children up for adoption to a One Man/One Woman family? Just random thoughts
I kind of think one man and many woman just doesn’t work for mother/father roles. One man can’t take care of many wives and a whole ton of kids on ONE income … The women shouldn’t have to go to work to help … If they want to raise their own children .. and keep up with the standard (Old-School) “Mother” role. Polygamy ( from what I’ve heard) worked out for men that were wealthy/supported..So only in “The Right” situation ( THE rich and elite ) I guess it can work ( or so I’ve heard ) .. But anyway I’ve heard the arguments .. I won’t knock it 100% BUT I don’t think it came from God (90% sure) – IOW he lied
JS might have thought it did ( BUT it really didn’t-AND misused it while doing so) – about 6%.
God commanded it temporarily on EARTH – For spiritual reasons/maybe physical needs – shelter/food w/e ( AND JS misused it – 4%).
AND 100% don’t believe an Angel would have killed anyone or would have damned them for NOT accepting it … Also believe that lying about it … TO anyone .. BUT most importantly Emma was sneaky and wrong – Makes him very untrustworthy. SO two huge lies … FOR me anyway-One the Angel and .. Two, continually hiding and lying about it mostly to his own wife. My mind goes back and forth so much on it .. One second I’m like .. WoW maybe he really had to do it … Then I think about it ( B/C God would want me to know the truth ) and I’m like WoW what a crock. I lean more to the crock and “JS thought of it in his own head-and took it from there” side most times I try to sit and think about it. – I don’t even know why I think about it … That whole issue is between the people that practised it and God – The hard part is telling my children what “The Truth” is .. Which I would never be 100% .. So better go with- He thought it was right – But he is fallible and he was wrong. At least that is my persoal answer.
Quote:We don’t do polygamy marriages in the temple for those who have passed away, but we do baptisms and sealings.
In fact, we do, for both men and women. Let’s say you’re doing your genealogy, and find a man with multiple wives (divorced, passed away, etc.) He is sealed to all of them, with the idea that God will decide who they should be sealed to permanently. The converse is also true. If we find a woman with multiple husbands (divorced, passed away, etc.), she is sealed to all the husbands, because God will decide who they should be sealed to permanently.
I learned this from a temple worker.
Yep. The official temple practice is, in summary, “Seal all who were married. It’s not our call to figure out the eternal arrangement. That’s up to God and the people involved.” I really like that policy.
mormonheretic wrote:In fact, we do, for both men and women. Let’s say you’re doing your genealogy, and find a man with multiple wives (divorced, passed away, etc.) He is sealed to all of them, with the idea that God will decide who they should be sealed to permanently. The converse is also true. If we find a woman with multiple husbands (divorced, passed away, etc.), she is sealed to all the husbands, because God will decide who they should be sealed to permanently.
Good clarification, and I think this adds to my point. Get them all sealed so they all have those blessings. My point wasn’t that we never seal multiple partners together in the temple, only that we get people sealed and let God work out the rest. The ordinance is the sealing, not a “Polygamous Sealing”. In other words, my Dad passed away 4 years ago. He is only sealed to my mom. We don’t rush to the temple now and try to find other women not sealed and seal them to my Dad because he MUST have multiple wives. In the temples we make sure everyone is baptised, confirmed, endowed, and sealed. Multiple baptisms or multiple sealings are irrelevant, as long as they have it done once is all that matters.
On earth, some situations may call for polygamy. But I don’t view it as necessary, just allowable, and when allowed, must be done right. Adam only had one wife, Abraham and Joseph Smith had multiple, I will only have one. We’re all good, because it isn’t about sex, or about men dominate over women, or women make the babies. It is about getting sealed so we can live with God.
Does this mean we’ve made sense of Joseph Smith yet?
Heber13 wrote:
Get them all sealed so they all have those blessings. My point wasn’t that we never seal multiple partners together in the temple, only that we get people sealed and let God work out the rest. The ordinance is the sealing, not a “Polygamous Sealing”. In other words, my Dad passed away 4 years ago. He is only sealed to my mom. We don’t rush to the temple now and try to find other women not sealed and seal them to my Dad because he MUST have multiple wives. In the temples we make sure everyone is baptised, confirmed, endowed, and sealed. Multiple baptisms or multiple sealings are irrelevant, as long as they have it done once is all that matters.
Wait I understand that men don’t NEED multiple wives But if my DH were to die tomorrow AND I was still living – Would he be used as the “Male” or w/e in a sealing if other women needed to be sealed. If they do..Do they ask permission? Is it the same with women .. Can random men be sealed to me then if they have never been sealed.. if I die tomorrow BUT my DH is still living? I completly understand God working everything out – But if it really doesn’t matter sealings should go both ways … Men with multiple sealings and Women with multiple sealings..If it is just to get the “Feet in the Doors”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.