Is polygamy necessary for exaltation?

[Guest]

If not what's the big deal and worry?

[LeSellers]

21 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

If [Plural Marriage is] not [necessary for exaltation] what's the big deal and worry?

Again with the mystery questions.

We do not know. Some believe one thing, others imagine a second. Others still think it will be something else entirely.

Our prophets have said it is not known, so anything we speculate is worth exactly nothing.

Lehi

[NeedleinA]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Our prophets have said it is not known, so anything we speculate is worth exactly nothing.

On 7/19/2016 at 10:11 AM, NeedleinA said:

Regarding Plural Marriage, this quote has always stood out to me and been ingrained in my mind. This comes from the Church Manual to help Seminary Teachers know what they should or should not be teaching regarding Plural Marriage. So the instruction to Seminary Teachers reads...

"Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation."

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS AND CHURCH HISTORY SEMINARY TEACHER RESOURCE MANUAL

 

 

[bytebear]

Answer:  No.

However, some individuals were commanded to do it, so for them, it is maybe leaning toward yes.  Or at least, they will miss out on promised blessings.

Edited July 23, 2016 by bytebear

[Awakened]

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.

[MrShorty]

May I ask an extended question? I will agree with bytebear and others that the practice of polygamy/polygyny/plural marriage is not necessary, Is it necessary/important to believe that the practice was "inspired"? I note this statement from the plural marriage essay

Quote

During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, not all Latter-day Saints were expected to live the principle, though all were expected to accept it as a revelation from God.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

 

I see many in the 21st century who not only dislike the idea of polygamy, but go so far as to say that do not believe that God revealed "the principle" to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. How important is it to accept plural marriage as a revelation, even if we don't practice it today, and may never practice it again?

Edited July 23, 2016 by MrShorty
typos

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

How important is it to accept plural marriage as a revelation, even if we don't practice it today, and my never practice it again?

Since Doc&Cov section 132 is all about celestial marriage with a more-than-healthy dose of Plural Marriage, to reject it as a revelation would negate the whole concept of eternal marriage, the need for Temples and many other of our "second-tier" doctrines.

So, since "we believe all that God has revealed", it seems that this is also a rejection of modern prophets and that Father is leading His Church.

One might say that rejecting the revelation of Plural Marriage is tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy.

Lehi

Edited July 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

We can be uncomfortable with the idea, but still believe it was revelation. 

I won't lie, I've struggled with it in a pretty big way. But I won't reject its standing as revelation. I don't know yet for sure that it was executed exactly as intended, at least in the beginning. I think we've seen that some things were not done perfectly in the beginning by early church members... but would we have done better? 

I have a testimony of the Restoration, and of modern revelation, and I do believe that Heavenly Father instituted plural marriage for a reason at that time. I don't pretend to know the reason or be comfortable with it. I don't think I need to be, since it is forbidden except when the Lord calls for it. I believe that if there comes a time that I do need to, I'll have the understanding I need and help from the Spirit. For now, I just have to have faith that Heavenly Father wants me to be happy in the eternities, and so if I follow Him I will be. (Not that that is an easy thing all the time.)

Edited July 23, 2016 by Eowyn

[Just_A_Guy]

I like the following quotation, from Orson Scott Card's Stone Tables (a dramatization of the life of Moses):

Quote

But the God of Abraham was not to be tamed by scribes or rulers. His intentions were not invented by men to give divine sanction to their own actions.  He spoke his own mind, and it was often at odds with the will of the men who served him, and they had to change their course to fit what he designed.  Sometimes they obeyed when he spoke to them; other times he had to shape events against the will of the men who either did not understand him or opposed him openly.  This was a God who was alive. This was a wild God, in that no man could ride him; rather it was the men themselves who had to be broken to the will of God, so that he could ride in their hearts and guide them as a man guides his chariot. 

 

[estradling75]

Obedience is always necessary.

I see polygamy in the same light as i see the Law of Moses...Something when commanded then our exaltation depends on it... and when it is not, it does not.

 

 

 

[NeedleinA]

2 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I won't lie, I've struggled with it in a pretty big way. But I won't reject its standing as revelation. I don't know yet for sure that it was executed exactly as intended, at least in the beginning. I think we've seen that some things were not done perfectly in the beginning by early church members... but would we have done better? 

I agree with Eowyn. We sometimes fall victim to thinking the Restoration was a one time event and volumes and volumes of policies, manuals, libraries of books, codes, how-to-dos, just fell from the sky all at once and presto the Gospel was restored instantly. Many, if not most things, were not done "perfectly" by early members or leaders, and as a body of saints they could have been compared to gospel infants. Even today, centuries later we still don't execute things perfectly. The Lord works with imperfect people AND he knows he does AND fully expects they will make mistakes and is ready for it. 

Take the very beginning of D&C, Section 1, the Lord himself says:

1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high,...
4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.
24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. 
25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;
26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;
27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;
28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The Lord choose his disciples, he knew they had weakness, would error, would sin, BUT was willing to work with them, correct them and teach them so that at some point they "might (eventually) come to (an) understanding". 

Edited July 23, 2016 by NeedleinA

[MrShorty]

9 hours ago, LeSellers said:

One might say that rejecting the revelation of Plural Marriage is tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy.

"wholesale, personal apostasy"? For this one revelation? I'm not sure I am ready to declare someone who questions D&C 132 as revelation as a wholesale apostate, but that could just be me. Certainly an opportunity to reflect on what it means that Father is leading His church and what it means to have modern prophets if one also believes that God allowed a "nonrevelation" to be canonized, but I am not sure I want to be the one to declare someone a wholesale apostate.

Perhaps it has been too long since I last read D&C 132 in some detail, but I would be interested in understanding why you tink that rejecting D&C 132 would necessitate rejecting everything about eternal marriage and temple worship.

[Phineas]

Not in my reading of D&C 132.  In speaking of the exaltation of husbands and wives, the singular "wife" is used.  But section 132 is a confusing document.  I could be wrong.

[Awakened]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

"wholesale, personal apostasy"? For this one revelation? I'm not sure I am ready to declare someone who questions D&C 132 as revelation as a wholesale apostate, but that could just be me. Certainly an opportunity to reflect on what it means that Father is leading His church and what it means to have modern prophets if one also believes that God allowed a "nonrevelation" to be canonized, but I am not sure I want to be the one to declare someone a wholesale apostate.

Perhaps it has been too long since I last read D&C 132 in some detail, but I would be interested in understanding why you tink that rejecting D&C 132 would necessitate rejecting everything about eternal marriage and temple worship.

In terms of full-on established doctrine and full established revelation to the church as a whole, (in which D&C 132 is very well both) it's pretty black and white here in that you accept it all to be truth or you don't. There is no, "Well... Maybe just that part's wrong." Sorry. We can't start cherry-picking the truth or else we'll start going down some rather bad paths.

[LeSellers]

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

if one also believes that God allowed a "nonrevelation" to be canonized, but I am not sure I want to be the one to declare someone a wholesale apostate.

There are several "nonrevelation(s)" in the Doctrine and Covenants. The significant difference between them and the revelations is that they are all labeled as such. Section 134, for example, and the letters Joseph wrote regarding Baptism for the Dead, are clearly noted as being letters and statements of policy, etc.

But to reject a clear revelation is to reject the prophet who received it. One cannot reject Joseph the Prophet of the Restoration without rejecting the Restoration.

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I would be interested in understanding why you tink that rejecting D&C 132 would necessitate rejecting everything about eternal marriage and temple worship.

Aside from section 132, where else do we have explicit doctrine on either Temples or Celestial Marriage? And what is the purpose of the Temples aside from sealings? Sealings are the culmination of the Endowment (which means, literally, "gift"). Without them, the Temples are just buildings.

Lehi

Edited July 24, 2016 by LeSellers

[Nothing]

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. 

 

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” -Joseph Smith in The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by Nothing

[NeedleinA]

I do believe D&C is inspired by God. It's of divine origin. It does seem like a clear revelation to me. I believe in the restoration. I of course believe in Christ.

I believe on occasion comments are left here with dubious intentions and really have nothing of value to contribute to believing members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  

Edited July 30, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Guest]

If it was a divine revelation why aren't we living it now?

[NeedleinA]

6 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

If it was a divine revelation why aren't we living it now?

Why do you think Zarahemla? What have you learned from your studies?

[zil]

Also, @Zarahemla, while pondering @NeedleinA's question, it might be wise to review each verse and ask yourself whether we are living that verse today.

 

3 hours ago, 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. 

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” -Joseph Smith in The Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184

I would recommend you ponder whether you are correctly applying the principle taught in that quote from Joseph Smith.  And ask yourself how that fits with this quote from Joseph Smith:

Quote

“I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught” (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369).

Edit: also from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.368

...and for that matter, every revelation he taught, because the Gospel only works when the whole of what you know is considered as a whole, each truth helping to shed light on every other truth so that the light of the whole gives you a clearer picture than the light from any one piece alone (which is why we are constantly striving to learn more - to increase the total light, which increases our understanding of each piece we already have).

Edited July 30, 2016 by zil
add reference

[Nothing]

NeedeinA, I commented because I disagree with this comment from LeSellers: “One might say that rejecting the revelation of Plural Marriage is tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy.” I also disagree with “But to reject a clear revelation is to reject the prophet who received it. One cannot reject Joseph the Prophet of the Restoration without rejecting the Restoration.”

I reject D&C 132. I do not believe it’s a revelation from God. This does not mean I reject Joseph Smith and the Restoration. Please believe me when I say there are many members fulfilling callings and attending the temple who also reject section 132.

I hope this is of value to someone.

zil, I do believe I am correctly applying that quote. I do not have to believe in section 132 to be a member of the Church. Many others would agree with me.

[LeSellers]

34 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I reject D&C 132. I do not believe it’s a revelation from God. This does not mean I reject Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

Well, yes, it does.

Joseph was a prophet or he was not. There is no middle ground.

If you reject the concept of Celestial Marriage (which is what section 132 is all about), then Joseph's mission and the Restoration were false.

The Doctrine and Covenants is a book of revelations (unless a section is explicitly noted as being something else). How can you reject a revelation from God and not reject the prophet through whom it came? Doc&Cov 132 is a revelation. There is no way to reject it without

Lehi

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Nothing said:

NeedeinA, I commented because I disagree with this comment from LeSellers: “One might say that rejecting the revelation of Plural Marriage is tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy.” I also disagree with “But to reject a clear revelation is to reject the prophet who received it. One cannot reject Joseph the Prophet of the Restoration without rejecting the Restoration.”

 

I reject D&C 132. I do not believe it’s a revelation from God. This does not mean I reject Joseph Smith and the Restoration. Please believe me when I say there are many members fulfilling callings and attending the temple who also reject section 132.

I hope this is of value to someone.

 

zil, I do believe I am correctly applying that quote. I do not have to believe in section 132 to be a member of the Church. Many others would agree with me.

 

You and others can choose to reject Section 132 if you wish...  However when others believe you and reach the logical conclusion from your statements you don't then get to shift the blame for what they understand that you are telling them.

 

Lets break it down... Section 132 is the scriptural justification for Plural Marriage, and understandably some people struggle with that and want to reject it wholesale.  The problem is that Section 132 is also the only scriptural place where we find out what Exaltation is, its the only place we have a scriptural foundation for Eternal Marriage (aka Sealing) and Eternal Family

When some one rejects Section 132 they also reject Exaltation, Eternal Marriage and Eternal Family... That is a very high price to pay to also reject Plural Marriage.

Without Section 132 we have no foundation for how we interpret  Jesus's very plain statement "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."  Or Paul's statement that while marriage is good it is better to be single and celibate.  Without Section 132 the LDS church has no reason not to follow the standard Christian understanding of those statements.

Without Section 132 we don't understand what Malachi meant about "Turning the hearts of the fathers to the children" making all our temple work a lie

Clearly someone that claims to be an active and faithful member while rejecting Section 132 either doesn't really understand what they are saying or they are kidding themselves about how faithfully they really are when they attend the temple.

In addition without Section 132 in place, Jacob 2 then is in force.   This means the Prophet Joseph Smith practiced abominations in the sight of the Lord and he lead the Church astray as he got the members of the Church to follow him.  Kind of hard to believe such an action would not make him a fallen prophet...  And all the prophets  who later followed him up to when it was stopped

So by all logic and reason someone that claims to reject Section 132 can not also be a faithful to the restoration and the believe that the prophet of the restoration did anything other then fall... tainting everything

Either that or they really have no idea what they are really saying

Of course they can be Christians... There are tons of people in other churches that do not accept any modern revelations at all that are good Christian people 

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by estradling75

[Guest]

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.

[estradling75]

4 minutes 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.

Indeed they are... 

We also have to remember that during Brigham Young's time Polygamy was commanded of the Lord... and obedience is always required.

Thus Brigham Young would council, advise, and teach with all his power to encourage people to obey.

Then the Lord give the command to stop.

Now Brigham Young quote is dated...   if he was alive he would council differently now.  That is why we need living prophets, not just dead ones.