Is polygamy necessary for exaltation?

[omegaseamaster75]

32 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

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

Lehi

I don't know raising your husbands illegitimate daughter by your maid seems like a pretty nice thing to do. I have never read that she was unhappy quite the opposite in fact

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

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

I don't know raising your husbands illegitimate daughter by your maid seems like a pretty nice thing to do. I have never read that she was unhappy quite the opposite in fact

No question, Emma was a good woman, but the fact of an illegitimate daughter, and one the legal wife had to raise, does not indicate that the marriage was happy. Certainly Bidamon wasn't as happy as he could have been.

If Emma opposed Plural Marriage, one wonders what she felt with the de facto, but unsanctioned, plural marriage of her husband to another woman. The contrast may have let her release her pride and accept The Principle later on. Who knows.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2016 by LeSellers

[omegaseamaster75]

6 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

No question, Emma was a good woman, but the fact of an illegitimate daughter, and one the legal wife had to raise, do not indicate that the marriage was happy. Certainly Bidamon wasn't as happy as he could have been.

If Emma opposed Plural Marriage, one wonders what she felt with the de facto, but unsanctioned, plural marriage of her husband to another woman. The contrast may have let her release her pride and accept The Principle later on. Who knows.

Lehi

I think that she flip flopped on the doctrine quite a bit (my personal opinion) while her husband was alive.  Due mostly because she was a true believer in HIM meaning Joseph Smith and tried desperately to reconcile her feelings about it (plural marriage) with what her husband the prophet was telling her.  Certainly there are some marriages that Emma knew about and may have even approved of, but many others JS hid from her. You can guess as to why but the answer should be obvious. 

Historical evidence clearly proves that she was against the practice on the whole.  I do not think that there is a "If" she opposed plural marriage, she clearly did no doubt about it.

[Just_A_Guy]

43 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

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

Lehi

Lehi, the original word you used for "illegitimate" was theoretically objectionable, even in that context, for a family board; so I took the liberty of substituting a tamer synonym.  Moderators do reserve the right to do this; but I should have PM'd you about it and I didn't--so, my apologies.  

Edited August 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

36 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Historical evidence clearly proves that she was against the practice on the whole.  I do not think that there is a "If" she opposed plural marriage, she clearly did no doubt about it.

The biography, as I recall, called Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith about Emma shows that she did not oppose Plural Marriage, but used language reminiscent of Joseph himself, including "code words" to disguise the practice.

No doubt she was not happy about Plural Marriage, but she, however resignedly, accepted it as a true principle. The book was written by a Latter-day Saint and a Reorganite (now Community of Christ), and they reluctantly agreed that Emma was not quite the apostate we hear about today.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Lehi, the original word you used for "illegitimate" was theoretically objectionable, in that context, for a family board, so I took the liberty of using a tamer synonym.  I should have PM'd you about it and I didn't--my apologies.  

There are people who get irritated at the slightest usage, even correct, of wonderful English words because idiots use them wrongly. Much like everyone's horror of the swastika, even though used anciently by Hindus as a sign of good, or the inverted star now called the Mendenez goat when it was originally a sign of Christ (in His role as "the bright and morning star"). Alas! that we must cater to the ignorant.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

There are people who get irritated at the slightest usage, even correct, of wonderful English words because idiots use them wrongly. Much like everyone's horror of teh swasticak, even though used anciently by Hindus as a sign of good, or the inverted star now called the Mendenez goat when it was originally a sing of Christ (in His role as "the bright and morning star"). Alas! that we must cater to the ignorant.

Lehi

Sure; I've even used the term here once or twice myself--but generally, only when it seemed that no other word would do.  In modern discourse it is certainly very jarring.

O tempora!  O mores!

Edited August 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Nothing]

Lehi, I did not say Joseph Smith was an adulterer or that he gave false revelations. Please don't make assumptions about my meaning or intent.

 

That quote does not mention scripture specifically, but one might say I am finding fault with the Church for keeping section 132 in the D&C. That would be a fair assessment. I accept that I might be “in the high road to apostasy”, but that does is not “tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy”. It seems to me that you are rising up to condemn me, but I don’t know and I could be wrong.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Nothing

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Lehi, I did not say Joseph Smith was an adulterer or that he gave false revelations. Please don't make assumptions about my meaning or intent.

Lessee, Doc&Cov 132 is not revelation, according to you, but Joseph called it one. If it is not a true revelation, then it must be a false revelation.

If he claimed to be married to other women, and it was not based on a revelation as he said, then he must have been committing adultery.

You didn't say he was an adulterer, or that his revelation was false, but it seems inescapable that you implied both.

11 minutes ago, Nothing said:

That quote does not mention scripture specifically, but one might say I am finding fault with the Church for keeping section 132 in the D&C. That would be a fair assessment. I accept that I might be “in the high road to apostasy”, but that does is not “tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy”.

If you reject section 132 as false (as you say, "a fair assessment"), and you are on the high road to apostasy, it seems reasonable to say that it is, indeed, "tantamount to wholesale. personal apostasy". Just how else would you categorize it: "retail" or "remainder" apostasy?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

4 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.

Being a member of the Church is does not preclude one's being an apostate. Sam Brannan was a member of the Church, even a bishop (or branch president), and he was an apostate. John C. Bennett was a member of the Church and an apostate. Ed Decker was a member of the Church, twice, and he was apostate.

Yes, one can be a member of the Church while rejecting revelation. That doesn't mean he is not apostate.

Lehi

[tesuji]

48 minutes ago, Nothing said:

Lehi, I did not say Joseph Smith was an adulterer or that he gave false revelations. Please don't make assumptions about my meaning or intent.

 

That quote does not mention scripture specifically, but one might say I am finding fault with the Church for keeping section 132 in the D&C. That would be a fair assessment. I accept that I might be “in the high road to apostasy”, but that does is not “tantamount to wholesale, personal apostasy”. It seems to me that you are rising up to condemn me, but I don’t know and I could be wrong.

Nothing, 

You are certainly free to privately believe what you want. I personally haven't heard of active LDS members who reject part of the LDS scriptures. The scriptures are canonized, which means they are pretty core to what Mormons believe.

Quote

Canon

... Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/canon?lang=eng

So to say that D&C 132 - the entire section - is false, is pretty much saying that the prophet and apostles are in error by keeping it in there. That's pretty close to apostasy, I think.

Quote

Apostasy

... Although there will not be another general apostasy from the truth, we must each guard against personal apostasy by keeping covenants, obeying the commandments, following Church leaders, partaking of the sacrament, and constantly strengthening our testimonies through daily scripture study, prayer, and service.

https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

I think the most important thing for you is to keep the commandments and follow the teachings of Jesus.

Meanwhile, I recommend you continue to study and pray about D&C 132. I personally don't think the Lord requires you to believe something you don't believe, if you are not ready to.

But I think he does require that you keep your baptismal and temple covenants, and try to follow and sustain his chosen prophets. We must all press forward in faith, living the truths that we understand, and seeking to continue serving, growing - and learning by obeying God's will for us, as best we can find it out.
 

As others have pointed out D&C 132 is about marriage in general, and the (now outdated) polygamy stuff is just a part of it.

Why is the polygamy stuff still in there? Well, I don't think the church has ever said it was wrong to practice polygamy in the past. The Lord commanded it at that time. Now, the prophets have said through modern, continuing revelation that we are not to do it at present. The Lord directs us through prophets, and the most important prophet to listen to is the current one.

Edited August 3, 2016 by tesuji

[Nothing]

Okay, Lehi. You can judge me all you want.

[Guest]

This is a quote from Brigham Young from another message board:

“Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, ‘My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife; No, not a happy day for a year,' says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not he liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men together with their own folly.
“I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, No go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. ‘What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate you all....
“I wish my women, and brother Kimball's and brother Grant's to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel – the whole of it.... say to your wives, ‘Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too without any murmuring and whining. You must fulfill the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to walk up to the mark without any grunting.' Now recollect that two weeks from tomorrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, ‘It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;' then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children....
“Sisters, I am not joking, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. But I do know that there is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many of the women in this Territory; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heels, and that it may be following them all day long....
“Prepare yourselves for two weeks from tomorrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the celestial law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from tomorrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, pp. 55-57, also printed in the Deseret News, v. 6, pp. 235-236

[omegaseamaster75]

1835 edition D&C Section 101:4

4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. In asmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with  the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we be lieve, that one man should have one wife; and one woman,  but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at  liberty to marry again.

In the 1844 edition this was moved to section 109 I think.... will have to check and in 1876 was removed in its entirety because it conflicted with the addition of section 132. There are those that will argue "well section 101 was written by Oliver Cowdery" and while that may be true JS certainly knew about it and approved its printing as well as the rest of the body of the church.

Edited August 3, 2016 by omegaseamaster75

[NeedleinA]

30 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

This is a quote from Brigham Young from another message board:

Oh, Yoda strikes again. Each time you try to shock us with non-doctrinal Brigham quotes (especially from another "message board"), the FORCE will rise up! 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Oh, Yoda strikes again. Each time you try to shock us with non-doctrinal Brigham quotes (especially from another "message board"), the FORCE will rise up! 

So a lot of what 1 of the first 2 prophets said is wrong?

[Guest]

At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral in 2007, Gordon B Hinckley testified that President Hunter would be with both his wives in heaven:

President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister [Inis] Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery.

Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990. ("Sister Hunter's humor and cheerfulness remembered as she is laid to rest," Deseret News, Oct. 22, 2007).

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church, remarried twice after the death of his first wife, and in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked: "...my wives will be mine in eternity."

Harold B. Lee, the eleventh president of the church, also remarried after his wife's death and was sealed to another woman and was looking forward to being with both women in heaven. He, in fact, wrote a poem in which he reflected that his second wife, Joan, would join his first wife, Fern, as his eternal wives:

My lovely Joan was sent to me: So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
"O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee"
(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17)

After being widowed, Apostle Dallin Oaks remarried in the temple and believes he will be married eternally to both women. In 2002 he commented on his second sealing:

When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later—a year and a half ago—I married [in the LDS temple] Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side. (Dallin Oaks, "Timing," speech delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, January 29, 2002

Edited August 3, 2016 by Zarahemla

[NeedleinA]

3 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

At Howard W Hunter's 2nd wife's funeral .... [insert the rest of the paste job]

11 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Zarahemla -  I just am picking up on an over zealous concern and a lot of regurgitated "in your face", cut and paste, shock statements from across the web that you are sharing. 

Another cut and paste job, shocking
This time you are just cutting and pasting from an anti-mormon website, you know which one I'm talking about too. wink, wink
Thanks for shedding light on your over zealous concerns, at least I know why now. If I thought you were here with pure intentions, I would be happy to help, but now, I'm not inclined to play the Zarahemla game any longer. As a famous author once wrote, you are currently "trying to find treasure in the sewers" and drinking from a anti-water well that will not satisfy your thirst. 

John 4:
13 Jesus answered and said unto [Zarahemla], Whosoever drinketh of this [anti] water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; 

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Guest]

@Zarahemla, you did not write that last post. I need to know who did.

[Guest]

No one is saying that those who are sealed to more than one person, in a way sanctioned by God in their time, won't continue to be sealed to them. What on earth is your point Zarahemla?

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Nothing said:

Okay, Lehi. You can judge me all you want.

Oh, I shall. Fortunately for you, my judgement is only personal, and will have no effect on your reward at all.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

@Zarahemla, I agree with others that looking for edification from anti-Mormon websites isn't usually the best way to go about resolving spiritual questions.  But I also recognize that your underlying question--whether polygamy is necessary for exaltation--is a valid one.  Let me give you my own impressions about a few of the Brigham Young quotes you have offered above:

Quote

 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"

This, to me, isn't all that problematic.  If you reject the doctrine of polygamy--not just fail to practice it, but reject it and condemn those who have practiced it--you aren't going to become an heir to the Abrahamic covenant yourself.  It is quite easy for me to live monogamously without condemning those who have lived polygamously.

Quote

"The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"

This comes from Journal of Discourses 11:269, and a little extra context is illuminative:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

If you read more of the surrounding text, it becomes even clearer.  Young is talking to Church members in his own day, when proper priesthood authority had permitted the practice of polygamy and a number of men, thinking the practice inconvenient, demurred.  Under such circumstances, Young suggests, those who are permitted to live the principle are also obligated to live the principle.  But Young's teaching does not speak to us in our day, where we have been explicitly prohibited from entering into polygamous marriages.  How can we penalized for "refusing" a blessing that isn't even being offered to us?

Quote

If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children....

I know some folks are very uncomfortable with this notion, but Brigham Young was very clear that our eternal reward is directly proportional to the number of children we have:

When I see a man in this Church with those feelings, and hear him say, “I do not wish to enlarge my family, because it will bring care upon me,” I conclude that he has more or less of the old sectarian leaven about him, and that he does not understand the glory of the celestial kingdom.

Says one, “How will you explain this to me?” We understand that we are to be made Kings and Priests unto God; now if I be made the king and lawgiver to my family, and if I have many sons, I shall become the father of many fathers, for they will have sons, and their sons will have sons, and so on, from generation to generation, and, in this way, I may become the father of many fathers, or the king of many kings. This will constitute every man a prince, king, lord, or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon us.

In this way we can become King of kings, and Lord of lords, or Father of fathers, or Prince of princes, and this is the only course, for another man is not going to raise up a kingdom for you.

If I did not feel disposed, in my poverty, to enlarge my family and to build up the kingdom, I could not be acquainted with the difficulties thereof, neither should I be counted worthy to enjoy the blessings conferred upon those who are faithful.

--Journal of Discourses 3:266

Now, note what Brigham does not say.  He does not say that people who have only a few children will lose their place in the Celestial Kingdom--the criteria for rising with a celestial body are clearly set out in D&C 76, D&C 132, and D&C 131; and it has nothing to do with how many children a person has.  But the essence of exaltation is the potential for eternal increase; and not every exalted being is going to be identical in glory and honor and thrones and principalities and dominions.  What Young is suggesting is really just an expanded application of the parable of the talents, or D&C 130:18-19--any advantage you gain in the here-and-now, rises with you in the hereafter; and Young says that continuation of seed is one of those advantages.  We're all on the same journey; it just happens that those who have more children might tend to find themselves a little further along the path than those of us who had fewer children.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

10 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. 

I'm so firm on my position I'm going to declare it in a public forum.  But I just don't want to discuss it with strangers.  That's why I came to a public forum to declare my positions publicly to a bunch of strangers...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Eowyn said:

@Zarahemla, you did not write that last post. I need to know who did.

I just Googled prophets who believe in polygamy and found a site.

[tesuji]

6 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

So a lot of what 1 of the first 2 prophets said is wrong?

 

Quote

The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ... It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.
https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng