- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
there really isn’t much of a current position other than, “We don’t do it anymore,” and, “We don’t know exactly, but we trust God to work it out in the end.”
I agree that “We don’t do it anymore” is part of the church’s current position, as found in OD1, and the lesson manuals I referenced earlier. However, I don’t think that “We don’t know exactly, but we trust God to work it out in the end” is the church’s position. That might be the view of some members of the church, but that is different from doctrine. Feel free to point me to a statement in a church publication; if there is one, I’d love to see it, because this would represent an important step forward.
In spite of the lack of dialog, I think I can summarize the church’s doctrine as:
– Polygamy is a legitimate and eternal institution, sanctioned by God (D&C 132:61-65)
– Polygamy in doctrinal terms, means one man, many women, and does not go the other way (D&C 132:61-63)
– Polygamy is not to be practiced currently on the earth (OD1)
– There will be exalted men who have multiple wives in the next life (D&C 132:63)
Somebody please provide evidence that it is something different than this.
On Own Now wrote:In spite of the lack of dialog, I think I can summarize the church’s doctrine as:
– Polygamy is a legitimate and eternal institution, sanctioned by God (D&C 132:61-65)
– Polygamy in doctrinal terms, means one man, many women, and does not go the other way (D&C 132:61-63)
– Polygamy is not to be practiced currently on the earth (OD1)
– There will be exalted men who have multiple wives in the next life (D&C 132:63)
Why don’t we feel this is necessary information for potential members? Apply the Golden Rule and you are the investigator, wouldn’t you want to know this? It isn’t a little thing. “We used to do it; we don’t do it now” is not acceptable in my opinion because it’s a half-truth.
As I said, the currentposition is that we used to do it, we don’t do it now and we don’t know exactly who will or will not be involved in some sort of plural marriage arrangement in the next life. We certainly don’t teach currently that polygamy is going to be a requirement of the Celestial Kingdom. I’ve never heard that in my lifetime from the General Conference pulpit or, to the best of my memory, from the local Sacrament Meeting pulpit. The lack of statements after the active polygamy days saying everyone who is exalted will be part of a polygamous relationship means, to me, “We don’t know, but God will work it out in the end” – and I think that is the view of the VAST majority of members now and the majority of members even in Brigham’s day. In other words, I think the Church’s
currentposition is that monogamy is the default but that polygamy was practiced at various times in history – so both polygamy and monogamy will exist in the next life. That’s what I meant in my comment about not knowing and God working it out. Old-Timer wrote:
That’s not very satisfying, but, honestly, the only change for which I hope is that women will be allowed to be sealed to multiple men in this life in situations where men can do so – in the cases of divorce or death of a spouse. Make that equal, and I have no issue left. Tomorrow can take care of tomorrow; all I really care about is equal treatment in the here and now.I don’t consider myself an extremely prickly person when it comes to men and women in the church, priesthood, etc., but in my opinion the D&C 132 verses constitute unequal treatment in the here and now because of the emotional toll it takes on women.
Old-Timer wrote:The lack of statements after the active polygamy days saying everyone who is exalted will be part of a polygamous relationship means, to me…
In fact, as I mentioned earlier, it is the published doctrine of the church that polygamy is not a requirement for salvation or exaltation… This is a bit dubious, because the only direct church-publication statement I am aware of is the Seminary Student Study Guidehttps://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-church-in-nauvoo-illinois/doctrine-and-covenants-131-132-the-new-and-everlasting-covenant-of-marriage?lang=eng – Polygamy is a legitimate and eternal institution, sanctioned by God (D&C 132:61-65)
– Polygamy in doctrinal terms, means one man, many women, and does not go the other way (D&C 132:61-63)
– Polygamy is not to be practiced currently on the earth (OD1)
– Polygamy is not essential to salvation or exaltation (Seminary Student Study Guide, 2005, p150)
– There will be exalted men who have multiple wives in the next life (D&C 132:63)
I think that’s a good summary, On Own Now. Ann wrote:I don’t consider myself an extremely prickly person when it comes to men and women in the church, priesthood, etc., but in my opinion the D&C 132 verses constitute unequal treatment in the here and now because of the emotional toll it takes on women.
I completely agree. The polygamy portion of D&C 132 is abhorrent, IMO. Just look at some of the sexist, oppressive, unequal and threatening language “God” used in it:
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that
have been given unto my servant Joseph… 53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and
I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things… 54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and
cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord… 56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses;
and thenshall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me… 59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice… if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.
60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him…
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery
for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto himand to no one else. 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery,
for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. 63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man,
she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto himto multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment… and for their [the men’s] exaltationin the eternal worlds… 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man
have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the lawof my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her… 65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if
shereceive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto himaccording to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah [he doesn’t need her permission]… To me, simply ignoring it does not make it go away. “We don’t practice it anymore because it is contrary to the law of the land” is terribly inadequate. I believe the church should remove D&C 132 from its canon and replace it with a statement that polygamy is not from God, nor is it part of our gospel… otherwise the DOCTRINE is still there in the form of a decomposing elephant in the room, that smells worse and worse all the time. I don’t say this lightly; polygamy was the biggest factor in my faith crisis.
Ann wrote:I don’t consider myself an extremely prickly person when it comes to men and women in the church, priesthood, etc., but in my opinion the D&C 132 verses constitute unequal treatment in the here and now because of the emotional toll it takes on women.
I agree completely Ann!
I agree, as well. For the first time in my whole life I have had a real, though virtual, conversation about this. I’m not a flame-thrower. I think a lot of women are like me. I burst into tears when I read these replies. Again, really impressive OON. Sorry to hear it brought you to tears Ann. I can appreciate that frustrated feeling that comes from feeling let down by Joseph/the church.
mackay11 wrote:Again, really impressive OON.
Sorry to hear it brought you to tears Ann. I can appreciate that frustrated feeling that comes from feeling let down by Joseph/the church.
Sorry, I thought it would be more apparent that my emotion is one of relief. The relief that comes from expressing myself, being heard and understood. Thanks.
I agree Ann we do not talk about this usually as women. Glad that we can do so here. Ann wrote:mackay11 wrote:Again, really impressive OON.
Sorry to hear it brought you to tears Ann. I can appreciate that frustrated feeling that comes from feeling let down by Joseph/the church.
Sorry, I thought it would be more apparent that my emotion is one of relief. The relief that comes from expressing myself, being heard and understood. Thanks.
Oops, well in that case, good.
My mum is already planning to be a ministering angel. My parents divorced, she’s “done with men” and says that she’ll be no-one’s second wife. The best she’ll consider is finding some poor guy who died in the trenches of the 1WW who needs to be kept in shape.
We’ll see…
On Own Now wrote:…
While the church is emphatic about how it has ended the practice here on earth, it is silent about what it means in the afterlife.Note that the church doesn’t make the statement that it doesn’t know… rather, the topic is simply ignored… and I take that to mean that Section 132 is the “eternal” doctrine, even if the practice is suspended…Please feel free to add evidence for the current position of the church on polygamy. I dislike how it just sits there, like an elephant in the room, and the church still tries to serve herbal tea to everyone…. I think the current position is more or less what GBH said in public interviews, basically that “it’s in the past” so “don’t worry about those little flecks of history” and the fact that it is still right there in D&C 132 shows just how much many Church members don’t really pay much that much attention to most doctrines other than a handful of things like the WoW, testimony, and temple marriage. I’m sure many of them don’t even realize that it was never completely left behind, it was more like the Church simply stopped practicing it mostly because that was politically convenient at the time.
The problem with coming out with an official statement that it wasn’t ever inspired to begin with and Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others were simply acting on their own is that this would draw more attention to the issue and directly cast serious doubts on the Church’s origins and the reliability of prophets in general. So my guess is that’s why they would rather just avoid facing the issue as much as possible and hope most active members don’t notice or worry too much about it. Some hardcore apologists don’t think polygamy was wrong at all and to be honest what always bothered me more than the idea of polygamy in general was simply the way it changed and when because I thought if they were right before then why did they change and if they were wrong before then why didn’t God step in and correct them sooner?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.