Is polygamy necessary for exaltation?

[zil]

35 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

When some one rejects Section 132 they also reject Exaltation, Eternal Marriage and Eternal Family...

I would like to emphasize this point.  Many people believe (and perhaps grew up believing this and haven't gone back to do a verse-by-verse analysis because the section now makes them uncomfortable) that this section is ONLY about plural marriage.  But in reality, a fairly small number of its verses are about plural marriage.  A significant percentage of it is about other things, including eternal marriage between one man and one woman.  If people would study and understand that, I think they would avoid the section less and understand its teachings better.

In my teens and twenties, I believed this.  The plural marriage portion and concerns of that doctrine blinded me to all the rest of the stuff in there.  So, to anyone whose skin crawls then they think about reading this section about the "icky practice of plural marriage", I challenge you to put your feelings aside and take an analytical, verse-by-verse walk through this section and note whether the verse really is about plural marriage, or whether it's about something else.

@estradling75: Dude, nice avatar!

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

I would like to emphasize this point.  Many people believe (and perhaps grew up believing this and haven't gone back to do a verse-by-verse analysis because the section now makes them uncomfortable) that this section is ONLY about plural marriage.  But in reality, a fairly small number of its verses are about plural marriage.  A significant percentage of it is about other things, including eternal marriage between one man and one woman.  If people would study and understand that, I think they would avoid the section less and understand its teachings better.

In my teens and twenties, I believed this.  The plural marriage portion and concerns of that doctrine blinded me to all the rest of the stuff in there.  So, to anyone whose skin crawls then they think about reading this section about the "icky practice of plural marriage", I challenge you to put your feelings aside and take an analytical, verse-by-verse walk through this section and note whether the verse really is about plural marriage, or whether it's about something else.

@estradling75: Dude, nice avatar!

I personally love verses 19 and 20 of section 132.

[tesuji]

19 minutes ago, zil said:

I would like to emphasize this point.  Many people believe (and perhaps grew up believing this and haven't gone back to do a verse-by-verse analysis because the section now makes them uncomfortable) that this section is ONLY about plural marriage.  But in reality, a fairly small number of its verses are about plural marriage.  A significant percentage of it is about other things, including eternal marriage between one man and one woman.  If people would study and understand that, I think they would avoid the section less and understand its teachings better.

Yes, I always thought section 132 was just about regular (monogamous) marriage with a little of the outdated polygamy referred to as well. I was surprised to hear anti-Mormons saying this section was about polygamy.

Yes, lot of important doctrine in there for all LDS.

Edited August 3, 2016 by tesuji

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, zil said:

@estradling75: Dude, nice avatar!

You can blame/thank @NeedleinA They are responsible for it

[SpiritDragon]

52 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You can blame/thank @NeedleinA They are responsible for it

Thanks @NeedleinA, @estradling75 seems happier now  it's like a new ray of sunshine to cast away the clouds of grumpiness!

Edited August 3, 2016 by SpiritDragon

[Nothing]

LeSellers, do you an authoritative source saying that someone who rejects a part of scripture is an apostate? I think not. I think you are giving your own opinion.  I think it's not as black and white as you think. 

[Guest]

On 7/29/2016 at 4:37 PM, Nothing said:

I do not believe D&C 132 is inspired by God. It's of dubious origin. It does not seem like a "clear revelation" to me. I can still believe in the restoration. More importantly, I can still believe in Christ. 

Please elaborate on the "dubious origin" that you speak of.  Does this mean that Joseph never spoke these words to a scribe, nor wrote them down himself?  What do yo believe it is?

[nuclearfuels]

On 7/23/2016 at 2:15 AM, Awakened said:

Jesus Christ is the way to exaltation/purification/etc. There is no other way but by him. He is the way, the light, and the life and no man can unto the Father, but by him.

True, and by following His example.  Does this include Prophets' and Apostles' writings in the Journal of Discourses, specifically those which speculate on His martial status? I like to think it does - though I know these discourses are NOT considered cannon or anything even resembling cannon - because those texts with current Prophets and Apostles' guidance add more and compliment each other.

[NeedleinA]

15 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Brigham Young said only polygamists would become exalted gods. Brigham Young said "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" Brigham Young also said "if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith" Those are some interesting quotes from a prophet.

[Nothing]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Please elaborate on the "dubious origin" that you speak of.  Does this mean that Joseph never spoke these words to a scribe, nor wrote them down himself?  What do yo believe it is?

Carborendum, I don't want to open that can right now. I want to talk about whether rejecting a scripture constitutes wholesale apostasy. 

Also, I don't think we have to throw out eternal marriage if section 132 is thrown out. D&C 131:1-3 says "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it." So that refers to eternal marriage. No, it doesn't have details, but we also have no details about the endowment in the scriptures. 

 

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Carborendum, I don't want to open that can right now. I want to talk about whether rejecting a scripture constitutes wholesale apostasy. 

The reasons why, and what you believe it actually is, speak directly to whether it would be considered apostasy or not.  So, you're avoiding the issue because you don't actually want to talk about what you want to talk about?

27 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Also, I don't think we have to throw out eternal marriage if section 132 is thrown out. D&C 131:1-3 says "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it." So that refers to eternal marriage. No, it doesn't have details, but we also have no details about the endowment in the scriptures. 

So, you can pick and chose what parts of a section of the D&C you're going to believe was or was not inspired?  This gets more and more interesting by the post.

I can understand if you had some unknown reason to believe the whole section was from an unreliable source.  But if you feel you can pick and chose what verses are inspired vs others, then you're placing yourself on a level that you simply are not at.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Guest

[Nothing]

Carborendum: "So, you can pick and chose what parts of a section of the D&C you're going to believe was or was not inspired? "

Yes, I can choose which parts I BELIEVE are inspired. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Yes, I can choose which parts I BELIEVE are inspired. 

And your reasoning for that?  That may seem like an odd question given your italicized capitalization.  But there is a reason I'm asking.  Could you elaborate?

Edited August 3, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

25 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Also, I don't think we have to throw out eternal marriage if section 132 is thrown out. D&C 131:1-3 says "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it." So that refers to eternal marriage. No, it doesn't have details, but we also have no details about the endowment in the scriptures. 

So you accept Section 131 which was given in May 1843 and Section 135 which was given in June 1845 but not Section 132 which was given July 1843...

You still also claim that while Polygamy is an abomination when practiced with out the Lord's approval per Jacob 2... that you can say that the Lord did not approve of Joseph Smith's practice and teaching of it and yet he did not fall for this abomination.

Basically you believe that he was a true prophet while leading the church astray and practicing abominations?

[Nothing]

My only point is that I can choose to reject some scriptures - and some doctrines, as well - and still be a member of the church. Others can do the same. I don't have to explain my reasoning or justify myself. I bet all of you know active members who reject some scriptures and doctrines and you are not aware of it. I don't want to be contentious about it. That's all. 

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Nothing said:

My only point is that I can choose to reject some scriptures - and some doctrines, as well - and still be a member of the church. Others can do the same. I don't have to explain my reasoning or justify myself. I bet all of you know active members who reject some scriptures and doctrines and you are not aware of it. I don't want to be contentious about it. That's all. 

Of course you can reject and believe what you wish...

But when you publicly announce your "customized" religious belief you open yourself self up to having such beliefs examined and poked and prodded and dissected and countered. And if serious holes and flaws are found you can either expand, alter or reject your original statement.

And you have yet to show how you can accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet when your own "customized" belief has him practicing abominations and leading the church astray. 

 

[omegaseamaster75]

Jumping in late but can someone explain how these prophetic claims made in section 132 have been fulfilled? see parts I have put in bold print.

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

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; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

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; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice

 

Emma, as we know opposed plural marriage and to the end of her days rejected the practice and rejected the notion that Joseph Smith practiced it. She was clearly not destroyed as outlined. She lived another 34 years.

Joseph's blessing were not multiplied, and he certainly did not receive 100 fold in this world.  He was murdered a year later and left basicly nothing but debt behind.

 

For the record I do accept D&C 132 as part of our cannon, but I can also see where someone might have a problem with it.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Jumping in late but can someone explain how these prophetic claims made in section 132 have been fulfilled? see parts I have put in bold print.

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

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; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

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; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice

 

Emma, as we know opposed plural marriage and to the end of her days rejected the practice and rejected the notion that Joseph Smith practiced it. She was clearly not destroyed as outlined. She lived another 34 years.

Joseph's blessing were not multiplied, and he certainly did not receive 100 fold in this world.  He was murdered a year later and left basicly nothing but debt behind.

 

For the record I do accept D&C 132 as part of our cannon, but I can also see where someone might have a problem with it.

 

Omega, I think a couple of things to bear in mind are as follows:

--Emma did, for a few months, accept plural marriage after this revelation was recorded.  She was present at several of Joseph's polygamous sealings.  As I recall, she even suggested he marry the Partridge sisters (not knowing that Joseph had already done so secretly).

--The warning against Emma does not contemplate her immediate death should she reject polygamy.  If she rejects the commandment--yes, the ultimate penalty is "destruction" (v. 54), whatever that means; but in the interim Joseph is to "do all things for her, even as he hath said" (v. 55)--in other words, he is to keep whatever deal it was that he offered and that the Lord commanded Emma not to accept (v. 51).  We aren't quite sure what that "offer" entailed--the most prosaic explanation is that Joseph was to deed certain properties to Emma, outright, in her own name.  A more salacious explanation is that Emma may have been threatening a public divorce, or even the possibility of taking a second husband of her own (William Law's name often comes up in these sorts of speculations).  At any rate, the revelation contemplates that Emma would live for a while even if she rejected it.  And for what it's worth, my recollection is that Emma's subsequent marriage to Lewis Bidamon seems not to have been a particularly happy one.

--Joseph's promises in verse 55 were contingent on a) Emma's rejection of the commandment (apparently, in a very permanent way), and b) Joseph Smith's following through on the offer alluded to in verse 51.  We don't know whether Emma may have come around again on polygamy, given enough time (Joseph seems to have thought she might); and even if her rejection were of an irreversible nature, we don't know whether Joseph actually did follow through on his offer (we know certain properties were subsequently deeded to Emma, but we don't know if that was the whole of the offer or if it was even part of the offer at all). 

But I think it's worth noting that as to material blessings--Joseph had already been told, some twelve years ago, that he would never prosper financially (D&C 24:9).  And as to family blessings--Joseph did, through plural marriage, obtain a multitude of wives, siblings-in-law, parents-in-law, and--in time--children who, regardless of their biological parentage, considered themselves to be the sealed children of Joseph Smith.  Most notable among these may be apostle Orson F. Whitney, who was one of eleven children born to Helen Mar Kimball (yeah, that Helen Mar Kimball) and Horace Whitney.

[LeSellers]

57 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Emma, as we know opposed plural marriage and to the end of her days rejected the practice and rejected the notion that Joseph Smith practiced it. She was clearly not destroyed as outlined. She lived another 34 years.

She opposed it sometimes and supported it other times.

You seem to be equating "destroyed" and "death". I don't see a perfect, one-to-one parallel.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Emma's subsequent marriage to Lewis Bidamon seems not to have been a particularly happy one.

Louis's illegitimate daughter by their maid, and Emma's raising the little girl sorta kinda point that way.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

13 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Louis's illegitimate daughter by their maid, and Emma's raising the little girl sorta kinda point that way.

Lehi

Edited 9 minutes ago by Just_A_Guy

How'd that happen? Can a moderator edit a post and the fact be announced in the footnotes?

Lehi

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Nothing said:

My only point is that I can choose to reject some scriptures - and some doctrines, as well - and still be a member of the church. Others can do the same. I don't have to explain my reasoning or justify myself. I bet all of you know active members who reject some scriptures and doctrines and you are not aware of it. I don't want to be contentious about it. That's all. 

The sophisticated and intellectual term for "rejecting some scriptures" is called textual criticism.  I personally try to avoid either term of textual criticism or rejection - rather I prefer to think in terms of scriptural interpretation.   I believe it is kind of a similar thing concerning doctrines.  When it comes to doctrine - I am more of the mind that what a person does speaks so loudly I cannot hear a word they say.  But I will be a bit more specific about what a person does - what I observe is consistency and discipline.  If a person is at least consistent and disciplined - I believe there is a chance they know what they are talking about.  And I am not shy about calling out (seeking explanation of) someone that is inconsistent and undisciplined - but I have discovered they are the most likely to be contentious when called out or asked to explain.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Nothing said:

My only point is that I can choose to reject some scriptures - and some doctrines, as well - and still be a member of the church. Others can do the same. I don't have to explain my reasoning or justify myself. I bet all of you know active members who reject some scriptures and doctrines and you are not aware of it. I don't want to be contentious about it. That's all. 

The sophisticated and intellectual term for "rejecting some scriptures" is called textual criticism.  I personally try to avoid either term of textual criticism or rejection - rather I prefer to think in terms of scriptural interpretation.   I believe it is kind of a similar thing concerning doctrines.  When it comes to doctrine - I am more of the mind that what a person does speaks so loudly I cannot hear a word they say.  But I will be a bit more specific about what a person does - what I observe is consistency and discipline.  If a person is at least consistent and disciplined - I believe there is a chance they know what they are talking about.  And I am not shy about calling out (seeking explanation of) someone that is inconsistent and undisciplined - but I have discovered they are the most likely to be contentious when called out or asked to explain.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

How'd that happen? Can a moderator edit a post and the fact be announced in the footnotes?

Lehi

Apparently they can.

[LeSellers]

16 hours ago, Nothing said:

LeSellers, do you an authoritative source saying that someone who rejects a part of scripture is an apostate? I think not. I think you are giving your own opinion.  I think it's not as black and white as you think. 

Nothing more than a statement by Joseph Smith:

Quote

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.

But he was an adulterer and gave the Church false revelations, so his word would not persuade you.

Lehi