Interesting Gordon B. Hinckley Quote

[inquirer_Jn1717]

VisionsOfLehi: If God told me to speed through a red light, then I would. Is that likely to happen? No. It's called obedience. And, my thoughts on polygamy hardly matter. It's what the LORD says, not what I think.

You are absolutely correct, we are dealing with what God says, and you seem to agree that God would not tell us at the same time both to stop at red lights and to run them at our leisure. (Of course there are situations where even police have to run red lights, and if God told me to run one for who knows what reason then I hope I would obey too, but this is not about situational ethics.)

So you can see then why non-LDS would read IL State Law from 1800 (remembering Rom 13:1-5), then look at the D/C revelation from Joseph Smith and conclude that God must not have actually given the latter at all.

HiJolly: Ya know, Inq, I wish I could get a sense of willingness to learn from you, or at least a willingness to understand, but I'm just not feeling it.

This is my favorite way to learn actually, constantly asking questions and playing devil's advocate. It's just more fun that way. I would much rather learn YOUR answers to certain questions than re-hash my own.

[VisionOfLehi]

According to ancient Jews, Christ Himself was breaking laws.

[inquirer_Jn1717]

oy-vey

[captain_nephi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Joseph Smith receive the revelation sanctioning polygamy while the LDS Church was still in Illinios, even though the practice had already been officially against the law for 10 years prior in that state?

Both the LDS Articles of Faith and Paul's letter to the Romans will tell you to obey State Law, because the ruling authority is put there by God with His authority. So why would God then tell the Church to do something contrary to the law of the land?

I think there is a canon of laws--10 commandments, etc.--that are the general guidelines that we are to follow in the absence of something more direct and immediate. So regardless of what has been written previously, if the prophet, angel, talking donkey, or God himself directs otherwise, that's what you do first and formost.

In such situations, it is easy for apparent contradiction to exist. When in fact, there is no contradiction.

[captain_nephi]

Of course that's not what he said (what you saying he didn't and didn't say). It just you interpreting his word in a way that fits in with your views on the matter. What he actually DID say is that it is not doctrinal and anything beyond that is speculation.

We are left to speculate why he choose to say that it - polygamy - was not doctrinal. Could it be because it was being practiced by fundamentalists? Of course THAT wouldn't be doctrinal just as the fundamentalist appointing a prophet or blessing the sacrament or baptizing their children wouldn't be doctrinal just as Catholics having a pope of saying the Rosary wouldn't be doctrinal. He went out of his way to specify that they weren't Mormon and had nothing to do with Mormonism.

So would he have said that polygamy practiced by people had nothing to do with Mormonism is not doctrinal? He was a very skilled and practiced speaker. I doubt he choose his language without much care or consideration.

THAT is exactly where I was going with the initial post.

[Moksha]

We are left to speculate why he choose to say that it - polygamy - was not doctrinal. Could it be because it was being practiced by fundamentalists?

I think for the same reason he said "we don't know much about that" regarding a couple of other items of speculation. It is a way of distancing the LDS Church from wild speculation and in this case, an injurious practice from the past.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Moksha

[lilered]

There are times when the unjust laws must be done away with. Times when obedience to the Lord means disobeying the laws of the land. Times when, even without the Lord's say so, that disobeying the laws are good.

I have two words for you: American Revolution.

How does your point square with the 12th Article of Faith?

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I would offer that the Lord wants us to obey the law of the land, if the law is unjust, then set about to change the wrong but do it within the law. Not disobey the existing laws because we happen to not agree with them.

[captain_nephi]

I would offer that the Lord wants us to obey the law of the land, if the law is unjust, then set about to change the wrong but do it within the law. Not disobey the existing laws because we happen to not agree with them.

IMHO its:

Direct Commandments from the Father, Jesus, Angels, etc.

Prompting of the Spirit

Laws and Commandments as giving by Prophets

Laws of the Land

Natural laws

Sometimes these "laws" are harmonious--other times they are not. And when one of the lower "laws" conflict with a higher "laws" the higher law wins, every time.

Obeying earthly laws is more of a means to end than the end itself.

Any way. My 2 cents.

[NateHowe]

As far as we can tell in Biblical history, plural marriage has only been authorized at periods when the Lord needed to raise up a large number of the faithful in a short time. When it has not been necessary, it has not been authorized.

When the Lord gives instruction to the current prophet, all previous instructions on that subject are superseded. The former practices thus become not doctrinal, in the way President Hinckley described. It is not doctrinal for us to sacrifice goats and doves in our Sacrament Meetings. That doesn't mean it was wrong for the ancient Jews to do it in accordance with the laws Jehovah gave them.

[VisionOfLehi]

How does your point square with the 12th Article of Faith?

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I would offer that the Lord wants us to obey the law of the land, if the law is unjust, then set about to change the wrong but do it within the law. Not disobey the existing laws because we happen to not agree with them.

There are times when the laws of man are unjust and won't allow for proper change.

My belief squares well with the 12th Article of Faith. We believe in it, yes. But I always believe obedience to the Lord is greater than obedience to the law.

GOD and His SON are Kings, Presidents, Rulers. (Dunno about magistrates, ). And they give us the Law.

Always comes before civil law. Obedience is the First Law of Heaven.

[Snow]

I think for the same reason he said "we don't know much about that" regarding a couple of other items of speculation. It is a way of distancing the LDS Church from wild speculation and in this case, an injurious practice from the past.

Maybe but in the case when he said "we don't know much...", we really don't know much at all, next to nothing practically.

[MrNirom]

You have to take a look at the definition of Civil Disobedience and how it worked in this country. Especially for the Church.

Here is an example. You are told that our Government wants to round up all non Christians and put them into a concentration camp. Your neighbors are non Christians and have been friends for years. You know that they are being persecuted unjustly. They are in your home. A knock on the door. It is Govt troops asking you if there are any non Christians in your home. What do you tell them?

God gave the law of polygamy.

God expects the law to be obeyed.

You are rewarded in his kingdom for obedience to those laws he gives. Many have died and been imprisoned in the past for obeying Gods laws.

Edited July 4, 2008 by MrNirom

[Islander]

You have to take a look at the definition of Civil Disobedience and how it worked in this country. Especially for the Church.

Here is an example. You are told that our Government wants to round up all non Christians and put them into a concentration camp. Your neighbors are non Christians and have been friends for years. You know that they are being persecuted unjustly. They are in your home. A knock on the door. It is Govt troops asking you if there are any non Christians in your home. What do you tell them?

God gave the law of polygamy.

God expects the law to be obeyed.

You are rewarded in his kingdom for obedience to those laws he gives. Many have died and been imprisoned in the past for obeying Gods laws.

You have the right to remain in silence. You are not compelled to answer that question without due process. Besides, they (next door) may have converted an hour before after realizing that they had been wrong for a long time. And you are in no position to accuse your neighbors without being sure you are not baring false witness. I would honestly answer "I do not know." You are still within the bounds of the law.

[Snow]

As far as we can tell in Biblical history, plural marriage has only been authorized at periods when the Lord needed to raise up a large number of the faithful in a short time. When it has not been necessary, it has not been authorized.

When the Lord gives instruction to the current prophet, all previous instructions on that subject are superseded. The former practices thus become not doctrinal, in the way President Hinckley described. It is not doctrinal for us to sacrifice goats and doves in our Sacrament Meetings. That doesn't mean it was wrong for the ancient Jews to do it in accordance with the laws Jehovah gave them.

Interesting. How many offspring did Joseph Smith raise up through his plural marriages?

[VisionOfLehi]

How many offspring will he raise up with Celestial Plural Marriage?

[lilered]

So if I understand those that place obediance to Gods laws over civil laws, then what is being stated is that for example.

We have a civil law that states the practice of polygamy is unlawful, as a religion, we should not obey that law, if our church leaders tell us to start practicing polygamy?

[Avrham]

I always wondered about that you would see half the church leave the building I have no problem as a practice personally but that would be a tough call it would cause a civil war in my ward/stake

I believe the leaders would never lead us ashtray but good question?

[NateHowe]

So if I understand those that place obediance to Gods laws over civil laws, then what is being stated is that for example.

We have a civil law that states the practice of polygamy is unlawful, as a religion, we should not obey that law, if our church leaders tell us to start practicing polygamy?

Polygamy was not ended immediately when it became illegal. The Church went to great lengths to be able to do what the Lord had commanded on the subject. But when the time to end the practice was at hand (according to the Lord's will, not man's), the Prophet did what the Lord required. Wilford Woodruff said:

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

Laws of man are important, and we should obey them as far as they are just and compatible with the revealed will of God. We should further strive to make the laws of our country fit these criteria. When there is a conflict, peaceable practice of revealed faith should override an unjust law in our minds and our actions.

[MrNirom]

So if I understand those that place obediance to Gods laws over civil laws, then what is being stated is that for example.

We have a civil law that states the practice of polygamy is unlawful, as a religion, we should not obey that law, if our church leaders tell us to start practicing polygamy?

That would be a yes. Our church leaders would only tell us that if it came from the Lord. A choice between laws is given.

Adam & Eve

Be fruitful & multiply

Do not eat from the tree of knowledge

Abraham

Thou shall sacrifice thy son Issac

Thou shall not kill

Early Saints

The new and everlasting covenant - polygamy

Obey the laws of the land

People have been put in prision and killed in the past for their beliefs. Did the savior not say:

Matt. 16: 25

25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Mark 8: 35

35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.

Luke 9: 24

24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

Luke 17: 33

33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

[MrNirom]

I always wondered about that you would see half the church leave the building I have no problem as a practice personally but that would be a tough call it would cause a civil war in my ward/stake

I believe the leaders would never lead us ashtray but good question?

Kind of like watching 1/3 of the hosts of Heaven leave? I am sure there was a lot of weeping going on there!

[Fiannan]

12 We believe in being asubject to bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.

As long as those laws do not conflict with our values, yes...then people should follow the law.

However, if the laws do conflict...

[skalenfehl]

As long as those laws do not conflict with our values, yes...then people should follow the law.

However, if the laws do conflict...

The thing is, our Constitution was framed by Christian men for a moral and God-fearing society. As each generation pushes God out of the picture through legislation, our values are being attacked and the new laws come in direct conflict with them. And they aren't just our values, they were the values of the founding fathers and the citizens of our fledgling country.

[VisionOfLehi]

The thing is, our Constitution was framed by Christian men for a moral and God-fearing society. As each generation pushes God out of the picture through legislation, our values are being attacked and the new laws come in direct conflict with them. And they aren't just our values, they were the values of the founding fathers and the citizens of our fledgling country.

I must add to this post. It wasn't because they were the morals of the founding fathers. The founding fathers were chosen because of their morals.

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

90 And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce anger, in his time, will cut off those wicked, unfaithful, and unjust stewards, and appoint them their portion among hypocrites, and unbelievers;

Christ established the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those leaders who do not enforce it properly or who operate in violation of it shall be dealt with by Him.

[Elphaba]

I don't know if, as a church, we don't discuss it because we are embarrased of it or because we are afraid it offends a lot of people--in particular, the sisters.

I understand why the Church wants to distance itself from polygamy, as has been demonstrated by the Texas raids.

At the same time, as an amateur historian of the Utah pioneers, I think it is sad the Church can't discuss how the pioneers actually practiced polygamy, particularly the sisters.

I have read numerous journals from the period, and to a one they never complained about "the principle." Always, they spoke of how God had commanded it, and they would obey.

As I made it to about my tenth journal, I began to see the pattern of how the sisters communicate how they really felt about polygamy.

If they wrote about disagreements with their sister-wives at public get-togethers, that was a sign this woman was not happy in polygamy.

Conversely, if a woman wrote of her sister-wives with affection at a public get-together, that indicated she was fairly happy in the lifestyle.

But again, not one of them denied the practice of polygamy was a commandment from God.

I think this would be an incredible gift to the young men, but especially to the young women, if it weren't such a volatile topic. The convictions of these women are astounding, and even though I am no longer a member, I am constantly moved by their sacrifices, and their love for God, which included living in polygamy.

I am also honored to count my ancestors among these women.

Elphaba

Edited July 6, 2008 by Elphaba

[skalenfehl]

At the same time, as am amateur historian of the Utah pioneers, I think it is sad the Church can't discuss how the pioneers actually practiced polygamy, particularly the sisters.

Do you mean the church isn't allowed to or the church simply refrains from it?