Activism vs the Gospel


scottyg
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship

This was a good read. There are many persons that I associate with in my ward and workplace that are struggling with this very thing, and their kids are suffering as a result. One brother has had all 3 of his children leave the church in the past 2-3 years, and he cannot understand how it happened. For decades this brother has been actively involved in parties or groups that oppose not just the church, but all moral issues including the family. What did he expect would happen to his kids...you cannot teach them principles that are in direct opposition to the Lord, and then be surprised when they decide to choose what you taught over Him. Do we trust in the political parties of the day more than the words of the Lord? Do we try to fit the gospel into our political narrative rather than accepting it as a whole? This brother is now distancing himself from the church, believing it not to be the only way to salvation. He is angry that "it has not brought him the promised blessings" - not being humble enough to see that he has been pushing them away himself.

I fear that this upcoming election cycle will turn many in my ward away much more so than covid did. They are wedded to the ideals their preferred political party and/or other organizations, and will not accept the fact that the Lord would not be on their side of the argument. Some of them just want to win because they hate their opponent more than they love their side, and no matter how much destruction they will cause, they just want to be "right" and claim the moral highground...even though in reality they couldn't be lower than the gutter. No matter how much debauchery these groups promote, or how much filth they spew, these church members continue to vote for, and be associated with those that push such ideals. 

Be humble, and seek the Lord's opinion on who you should be. "Not my will but thine be done"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the philosophies of men at work. 

Many people who identify as culturally and politically "progressive" consider religion a hurdle to be overcome, a wall that needs to be broken down, because old-time religion serves as a check on what these people want to do. 

So rather than ask "why?" old-time religion is opposed to something, they just assume that the opposition is borne of evil intention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is the primary factor preventing the entire nation from falling victim to the woke mentality.

Activism is very public.  But religion is mostly private.  We have networks.  We have organizations.  We have meetings.  But for the most part people have no idea what our religious positions are.

It used to be the same with politics.  Our politics were private.  And it was considered polite to avoid discussing politics at work or in social circumstances.  Why?  We didn't want the drama that unfolds.

Today, we have an entire culture whose primary M.O. is to shove their politics/religion down our throats.  And yet they cry about Dobbs shoving religion down their throats.  make no mistake.  Abortion is now (effectively) a religious rite, or fast becoming one. And that is the only issue that they are now parading out there as the primary reason to vote Democrat.  Is anyone else tired of seeing (or at least rolling their eyes when seeing)women dressed in red robes with funky white hats?

Point being that the left seems to think that because they are visible in their protest, they're winning.  The private religious people of the land (which includes quite a wave of formerly Democratic voters who are going to switch because of religious conviction over the Trans issue) will show what private observance of faith can do to help a country survive spiritually.

2% Salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scottyg said:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/11/1/23424931/brother-ahmad-s-corbit-activism-discipleship

This was a good read. There are many persons that I associate with in my ward and workplace that are struggling with this very thing, and their kids are suffering as a result. One brother has had all 3 of his children leave the church in the past 2-3 years, and he cannot understand how it happened. For decades this brother has been actively involved in parties or groups that oppose not just the church, but all moral issues including the family. What did he expect would happen to his kids...you cannot teach them principles that are in direct opposition to the Lord, and then be surprised when they decide to choose what you taught over Him. Do we trust in the political parties of the day more than the words of the Lord? Do we try to fit the gospel into our political narrative rather than accepting it as a whole? This brother is now distancing himself from the church, believing it not to be the only way to salvation. He is angry that "it has not brought him the promised blessings" - not being humble enough to see that he has been pushing them away himself.

I fear that this upcoming election cycle will turn many in my ward away much more so than covid did. They are wedded to the ideals their preferred political party and/or other organizations, and will not accept the fact that the Lord would not be on their side of the argument. Some of them just want to win because they hate their opponent more than they love their side, and no matter how much destruction they will cause, they just want to be "right" and claim the moral highground...even though in reality they couldn't be lower than the gutter. No matter how much debauchery these groups promote, or how much filth they spew, these church members continue to vote for, and be associated with those that push such ideals. 

Be humble, and seek the Lord's opinion on who you should be. "Not my will but thine be done"

That was a good article.

I think Satan is the original "activist" against the Lord and he is employing the same tactics now as he did in the pre-existence. "Don't like the plan? Well let's demand change. Nevermind the fact that "the Man" in charge is omniscient and omnipotent. We clearly know what's best." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, laronius said:

I think Satan is the original "activist" against the Lord and he is employing the same tactics now as he did in the pre-existence. "Don't like the plan? Well let's demand change. Nevermind the fact that "the Man" in charge is omniscient and omnipotent. We clearly know what's best." 

The way he twists the meaning of love has always troubled me. I personally don't think that everyone who chose to follow the adversary was inherently evil at the time. I think many of them could have been scared or uncertain of themselves, and knew that they wouldn't be able to make it to His presence, so in their minds (though wrong) they had no other choice.

Others, despite the warnings, may not have thought that God would actually cast them off if enough of them banded together. "He loves us, and if x number of us band together, and show Him that we want another way, He will change His mind. Surely a loving Father wouldn't cast all of us out." 

And some were just plain ol nasty spirits. Whatever reasons they had, they all chose not to follow the Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across this today. It's from an article written by Stephen E Robinson for I believe the Ensign in October 1993. A little long but goes right along with the OP.

"If Satan can’t intimidate us with physical trials, he’ll sometimes try to fool us with substitute programs. He would like us to invest our time, talent, and energy in causes that are not the cause of Zion, in the hope they may ultimately replace our commitment to the gospel. Often, these other concerns are valid and worthwhile. The deception comes in giving them a higher priority than our covenants. Those who are fooled in this way usually feel the Church is not doing enough in the area of their pet concerns. They may become disenchanted with the program of the Church and begin to follow “alternate voices.”

            These members do not lack zeal; indeed, they are often strong enough to endure tremendous trials. But Satan has diverted their zeal to the wrong causes, and they don’t perceive their shifting loyalties as unfaithfulness. Generally, they do not feel that they are rejecting Christ; they just decide to interpret his will differently or to serve him in different ways according to new standards and values. Consequently, their original commitments take a back seat to their new agenda. But the bottom line is still that they couldn’t be trusted to hold their original course and keep their original commitments. They didn’t endure.

Again and again the Lord has warned the Church about following other voices. (See, for example, D&C 43:1–6.) Right now, there are many alternate voices vying for the attention of the Saints—social voices, intellectual voices, political voices, and other voices. In our premortal life, all of us rejected Satan’s persuasions to subscribe to a plan alternate to the Father’s. Now in mortality, we must do it again. If we are to endure, we must avoid alternate religious “special interest” groups.

   I know a man who is going through a difficult time. He is politically intense and is particularly worried about what he sees as events leading up to the end of the world. He sees conspiracies in government and society, and he can’t understand why the Church isn’t as intense and as concerned as he is about these perceived threats. He spends a great deal of time trying to warn other members of the Church whom he believes to be asleep, and he privately wonders if some in leadership positions aren’t also asleep. Basically, his thinking runs like this: “My Church and my politics are telling me two different things, and I know that my politics are true … so there must be something wrong with the Church.” He does not consider the other logical possibility, nor does he recognize the reversal of loyalty evident in his thinking.

   There may be some truth in some things he says, but that is not the point. The point is that he is listening to other voices and has transferred his highest loyalty to programs other than the Lord’s. Tragically, his politics have become the idol to which all else in his life must bow—even his commitment to the Church."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2022 at 5:01 PM, laronius said:

I know a man who is going through a difficult time. He is politically intense and is particularly worried about what he sees as events leading up to the end of the world. He sees conspiracies in government and society, and he can’t understand why the Church isn’t as intense and as concerned as he is about these perceived threats. He spends a great deal of time trying to warn other members of the Church whom he believes to be asleep, and he privately wonders if some in leadership positions aren’t also asleep. Basically, his thinking runs like this: “My Church and my politics are telling me two different things, and I know that my politics are true … so there must be something wrong with the Church.” He does not consider the other logical possibility, nor does he recognize the reversal of loyalty evident in his thinking.

This is half of the story. The other half is: The Church leaders used to preach openly against communism, lasciviousness, and all manner of carnal sin. They no longer preach the same way they used to, even if they arguably are still saying the same things. Many interpret this as the Church's leaders backing off from proclaiming the gospel and preaching against sin.

I do not agree, but I see their point. Even though I don't agree with their conclusions, I think their observation should be acknowledged at least as much as the observations of those who work against the Church and gospel teachings while proclaiming their dedication to "liberty" or "morality" or "rights" or some such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

This is half of the story. The other half is: The Church leaders used to preach openly against communism, lasciviousness, and all manner of carnal sin. They no longer preach the same way they used to, even if they arguably are still saying the same things. Many interpret this as the Church's leaders backing off from proclaiming the gospel and preaching against sin.

I do not agree, but I see their point. Even though I don't agree with their conclusions, I think their observation should be acknowledged at least as much as the observations of those who work against the Church and gospel teachings while proclaiming their dedication to "liberty" or "morality" or "rights" or some such.

When I was a temple worker years back, we attended a special meeting that was just for temple workers in the Mount Timpanogos district. Elder Bednar was one of the speakers. When he first stood up to talk, he started by saying something along the lines of, "Okay...so you all are my peeps here...my homeboys...my buddies...so I can talk with you like I wouldn't otherwise...." (I don't remember the exact phrasing he used, but it was something casual like that...) And then he proceeded to speak bluntly on things more akin to the way you might have heard them in the open past preaching you speak of.

My take away... well, frankly... an application of, "Don't cast your pearls before swine." I know that's not the whole story. It's multi-faceted I'm sure, related to gathering, etc. Among other things. But the stated comment was that he couldn't talk frankly in the open any longer.

But for anyone who cares to look, the exact same teachings are still present. Yes, it does seem sometimes that they've changed the messaging. I've struggled with it, emotionally speaking, in the past (it's related to why I'm less active in the forum here than I once was). Once I let go a bit and just committed to humility, all that struggle faded away. I can still speak intellectually on the conflict I faced, but emotionally it's a non thing.

I see people who fall away, just as is suggested in the OP, because they feel the church isn't standing strong for the values they once did (or in the way they once did). It's a sad thing. The means Satan uses to deceive and destroy are varied and complex. When push comes to shove, there's a reason faith, humility and obedience are key principles of the gospel. And more and more as I go through life I believe that the "test" that we are here for is one of humility vs. pride. It's multiple choice. A. Humility. B. Pride. One could phrase that a myriad of different ways and still be accurate (a trial of faith, for example, which is the same thing). But that's a solid way to look at it in my opinion. We either humble ourselves or we don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2022 at 6:01 PM, laronius said:

I came across this today. It's from an article written by Stephen E Robinson for I believe the Ensign in October 1993. A little long but goes right along with the OP.

This is the result of some of my family members. Rather than putting the Lord first, they put their pet priority over the Lord such that they now are willing to accept the truth, lifestyle, and decisions of a telestial kingdom rather than putting the priority of the Celestial first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And then he proceeded to speak bluntly on things more akin to the way you might have heard them in the open past preaching you speak of.

It makes me sad they can't speak more bluntly on things, but I get it. It just makes me have that much more of a desire to be there in the times and places where they do feel free to speak bluntly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2022 at 7:01 PM, laronius said:

and he privately wonders if some in leadership positions aren’t also asleep.

Part of the error of this thinking is the assumption that if the leaders of the Church were aware of the present dangers, they would act the way I would expect them to act.

We shouldn't make any such assumptions, not only do they receive revelation about which dangers are a threat to the church and its mission, but they also receive revelation on how to respond to those dangers, revelation were not always made privy to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

Part of the error of this thinking is the assumption that if the leaders of the Church were aware of the present dangers, they would act the way I would expect them to act.

We shouldn't make any such assumptions, not only do they receive revelation about which dangers are a threat to the church and its mission, but they also receive revelation on how to respond to those dangers, revelation were not always made privy to. 

I would agree. In the parable of the wheat and tares we see an example of the Lord NOT going after the bad but just letting it be so at least in part to maintain some stability. He sees the entire chessboard and every move the enemy has and will make. It is very presumptuous of us to ever believe we know what needs to happen when we see so little, even if that part we do see is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

This is the result of some of my family members. Rather than putting the Lord first, they put their pet priority over the Lord such that they now are willing to accept the truth, lifestyle, and decisions of a telestial kingdom rather than putting the priority of the Celestial first.

In describing the people of the terrestrial kingdom the Lord uses the word honorable. There are indeed many honorable causes in the world but none can produce salvation but the Lord's. And once we put any of them before the Lord's we put ourselves at great risk to move from honorable to dishonorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My belief is that we (the Church) are trying to get as many people into the Gospel as possible before the calamities of the last days occur.  I think if the Brethren continued in the vein of Ezra Taft Benson, the global Gadiantons/Secret Combinations would bring much of the worldwide missionary work to a halt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2022 at 6:51 PM, mirkwood said:

My belief is that we (the Church) are trying to get as many people into the Gospel as possible before the calamities of the last days occur.  I think if the Brethren continued in the vein of Ezra Taft Benson, the global Gadiantons/Secret Combinations would bring much of the worldwide missionary work to a halt.

That is a good point. It reminds me the first Official Declaration, a lot of members were disappointed in what they felt was President Woodruff surrendering to the Federal government over plural marriage, but given the attacks that would have occurred on the Church if it hadn't, abolishing the practice was the wisest course of action. I think there are some parallels there to today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

That is a good point. It reminds me the first Official Declaration, a lot of members were disappointed in what they felt was President Woodruff surrendering to the Federal government over plural marriage, but given the attacks that would have occurred on the Church if it hadn't, abolishing the practice was the wisest course of action. I think there are some parallels there to today. 

As a faithful Latter-day Saint, I ask in all sincerity: Why did the Lord withdraw the commandment for plural marriage? Why would he have allowed our enemies to destroy the very kingdom of God in revenge for the Saints living the very law that God himself had revealed to them, commanded them to live, and assured them that it was the true order of eternal marriage? (NB: I am asking sincerely, but I do not expect a public answer.)

To be clear, I believe:

1. That God revealed the principle of plural marriage to Joseph Smith some time in the mid-1830s and commanded him to live it;

2. That God's commandment to Joseph was extended to others of the leading brethren, and eventually to the Church as a whole (though not by absolute constraint);

3. That God revealed to the prophet (Wilford Woodruff) that the Church, the very kingdom of God on earth, would be uprooted and effectively destroyed if the people did not cease living the principle of plural marriage.

I confess myself utterly befuddled. In my (mortal, ignorant, highly imperfect) view, #3 looks to be in conflict with #1 and #2. It can't be, but it looks like it is. I do not know the solution. Apparently, even though God promises to fight our battles for us if we but obey him, and even though God is faithful and cannot lie, the mind of God is very different from the mind of man. Or at least the mind of Vort.

We want to know what is right and then be able and allowed to live that right-ness from then on, regardless of its effects on others. Perhaps that's the key. We have seen changes in emphasis in our leaders' teachings, changes in doctrinal emphases, and even changes in our most sacred rites. Most of those changes have been minor, but not all. I personally have no issues with these changes in sacred rites; I believe I understand why they were changed, and have no doubt that the underlying principles remain intact, even if faithlessness and unbelief among those who are called Saints have caused certain elements to be hidden or removed.

(Worth noting that the word "saint" has the same etymology as the word "sanctify". To sanctify something is to make it holy; likewise, a saint is one who is made holy. We are to be the Saints of the Most High; that is, we are to be sanctified--made holy--by him. I am distressed that I fall short of that literally every day of my life, but hope and believe that my Savior's strength can make up for my weakness.)

Had I been a Saint who had emigrated to Utah and was living in the West in the late 1800s, with two or maybe three wives*, having gone to prison and/or fled to Canada or the Mexican colonies to continue pursuing my eternal path, I would surely have been sorely grieved to have read President Woodruff's proclamation. I surely would have felt, at least a little, that the kingdom of God was literally turning its back on my families. I could hardly but have wondered if President Woodruff had listened to the wrong spirit and was leading the kingdom astray. Would I have obeyed? I like to think I would have, but I honestly do not know. When you're so much smarter and more faithful than God's anointed, it can be hard to humble yourself and do as you're told.

*How could some men have supported more than three wives, financially and emotionally? I love my wife dearly, better than anyone else in the world, but I do not see how that intensity of relationship could be sustained between myself and more than one woman. Wives are not children. Although I think it's instructive to consider the nineteenth-century plural marriage having of several wives simultaneously in the same mindset as having several children simultaneously, where your love for each child is not diminished by the presence of and love for the other children, I think it must be recognized that the actual relationship between man and wife is simply a different ball of wax from the relationship between parent and child. But back to the topic at hand.

Perhaps our situation today is not so different. I think that at least our choice is not much different. Do we hold to the rod of iron and follow God's anointed, who surely speak the words of God to us? Frankly, I would feel a great deal better about the whole situation if I felt like I were in a good place spiritually, with my standing before God strong and sure. Alas, such is not yet the case, and try as I might to repent, repentence often eludes me.

Anyway, as usual, I'm oversharing. I'm glad I have a measure of anonymity here, where I can make a fool of myself without too much personal repercussion.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I confess myself utterly befuddled. In my (mortal, ignorant, highly imperfect) view, #3 looks to be in conflict with #1 and #2. It can't be, but it looks like it is. I do not know the solution. Apparently, even though God promises to fight our battles for us if we but obey him, and even though God is faithful and cannot lie, the mind of God is very different from the mind of man. Or at least the mind of Vort.

If it had been important to the Lord's plan for his kingdom on earth to continue practicing plural marriage, he would prepared a way for it to happen regardless of what the U.S. government did. Instead of preparing the way to defend it, he choose to discontinue it, so we can infer that whatever purpose the Lord had in commanding the early saints to live plural marriage was fulfilled by the 1880s and the practice was no longer necessary. To my knowledge, what those reasons are hasn't been revealed. 

Edited by Poseidon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Poseidon said:

That is a good point. It reminds me the first Official Declaration, a lot of members were disappointed in what they felt was President Woodruff surrendering to the Federal government over plural marriage, but given the attacks that would have occurred on the Church if it hadn't, abolishing the practice was the wisest course of action. I think there are some parallels there to today. 

 

Of interest, it DIDN'T stop plural marriage. 

It should be noted that Woodrow Wilson never FORBIDS Plural Marriage in the Declaration.  In fact, what he strongly does in regards to Church policy is to ADVISE us to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

In that same light, we were advised not to drink hot drinks at the time nor drink alcoholic beverages.  The Saints still did so.

The wording is very interesting in what it DOES NOT say, vs. what it says, a precise wording of it could be seen to side step several items.  Even though it SOUNDS specific, by being so specific it actually makes several items extremely vague, especially considering what happened later in that decade.

He denies teaching it or authorizing it, but he does not strictly say that it is something the Church teaches is wrong or is against. 

Now, the question came into being on whether someone was authorizing these new marriages, which it appears WERE occurring.  That said, both Wilford Woodruff was adamant he was not pursuing them in the territory and later, in the State of Utah.  Lorenzo Snow also was thought to have been adamant in NOT allowing new marriages.

However, somewhere in that period the policies were relaxed and some plural marriages occurred.  Some think it was Joseph F. Smith that relaxed the policy (others actually say it was from those before him, using his actual harder crackdown on it as evidence that he was not the primary one responsible).  In either case, it was actually under Joseph F. Smith that the rules against plural marriage got teeth and were enforced vigorously.  This is when we see the fracture which gave rise to some fundamentalist sects because finally they had no place to escape within the church.  Under Joseph F. Smith he made it an excommunicatable offense. 

It is under Joseph F. Smith where it finally comes out as the Church being STRONGLY against plural marriage and it being taught against publically and often.  It is here where you see several leaders of the church, upset with this course of action, start their own splinter groups (claiming authority by various means, most being rather dubious). 

That said, in relation to the original manifesto, one reason that it was given, or a reasoning, was given by George Q. Cannon.

Quote

I know myself that it was the will of God that the Manifesto should be given. I know it was the will of God that the word should go to the Latter-day Saints that plural marriage should cease and that we should conform to the requirements of the law . . .

God gave the command, and it required the command of God to cause us to change our attitude. President Woodruff holds the same authority that the man did through whom the revelation came to the Church. It required the same authority to say to us, “It is enough.” God has accepted of your sacrifice. He has looked down upon you and seen what you have passed through, and how determined you were to keep His commandments, and now He says, “It is enough.” It is the same authority that gave us the principle. It is not the word of man. Now, it is for us to obey the Law.[4]

When plural marriage was originally given in strong effect, Utah was not yet part of the States.  It came under the States shortly thereafter, but as a territory, and at some points, under the control of the Prophet.  This gave leeway to the Saints in the participation of the laws pertaining to this effect.

However, after the Civil War and later as the Church faced increased scrutiny, it became harder for the Saints to continue the practice.  In addition, it gave a difficult conflict for they were commanded to obey the laws of the land on the one hand, and on the other, by obeying the laws of heaven, to disobey the very laws of the land they were called to follow.

It WAS a great sacrifice and a great proving ground of the Saints.  From this sacrifice many blessings have come.  The children of these Saints were faithful for GENERATIONS.  There have been three or four generations of faithfulness (much like the Nephites in the Book of Mormon after the Lord's visitation and after their great trials after his death, those surviving being the more righteous who then, refined, became a more perfect people themselves) among those descendants of those who underwent these trials and sacrifices.  They have grown the Church several times over, and then beyond that. 

If we had that type of obedience and sacrifice today, who knows how strong the church would grow to be!

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Vort said:

I think it must be recognized that the actual relationship between man and wife is simply a different ball of wax from the relationship between parent and child.

I can't help but wonder how much of this sort of feeling (which I share) is manmade, cultural, carnal, and unimportant eternally. And...if so...actually, theoretically, harmful. In other words, the intensity of relationship and emotional support and the fulfillment that we see as fundamental to marriage might be based on some level of selfishness -- something we have been culturally trained to feel is important, when it is actually a negative thing that we must, ultimately, overcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Poseidon said:

If it had been important to the Lord's plan for his kingdom on earth to continue practicing plural marriage, he would prepared a way for it to happen regardless of what the U.S. government did. Instead of preparing the way to defend it, he choose to discontinue it, so we can infer that whatever purpose the Lord had in commanding the early saints to live plural marriage was fulfilled by the 1880s and the practice was no longer necessary. To my knowledge, what those reasons are hasn't been revealed. 

My view of the matter is torn between two points of view. The one being what you share here. Jacob 2:30 seems to imply that having one wife is the Lord's default commandment with plural marriage only as needed, at least here in mortality.

The other point of view is like unto the Lord's original command to establish Zion in Missouri. Had the saints been more faithful the Lord would have made it possible for them to keep his commandment but they failed to do so. As a result the commandment was temporarily put on hold. So might have plural marriage been the same? I don't know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Poseidon said:

To my knowledge, what those reasons are hasn't been revealed. 

You are correct.  It has not been revealed.  But we can at least make an educated guess based on what we do know.

Jacob said that the Lord will command plural marriage when He feels the need to "raise seed unto the Lord."  This has two parts: "Raise seed" and "unto the Lord."

During the Utah period, there was a mismatch of men and women.  We had plenty of young men (youth) and plenty of old men.  But very few of "family age."  But the women were well distributed by age.  By the time the 1880s rolled around, the demographics leveled out so that we had a fairly even ratio of men:women of all age categories.

Not all men were allowed to enter into plural marriage.  Or at least, not many really enter into the practice.  There were a handful of men with a LOT of wives.  And those family names dot the Utah landscape today.  They were faithful families whose posterity has remained faithful.

Today, we don't need the practice.  And in many ways, it would be impractical.  And we have a sufficient population to move forward.

Not established doctrine, but it seems to be a logical conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You are correct.  It has not been revealed.  But we can at least make an educated guess based on what we do know.

Jacob said that the Lord will command plural marriage when He feels the need to "raise seed unto the Lord."  This has two parts: "Raise seed" and "unto the Lord."

During the Utah period, there was a mismatch of men and women.  We had plenty of young men (youth) and plenty of old men.  But very few of "family age."  But the women were well distributed by age.  By the time the 1880s rolled around, the demographics leveled out so that we had a fairly even ratio of men:women of all age categories.

Not all men were allowed to enter into plural marriage.  Or at least, not many really enter into the practice.  There were a handful of men with a LOT of wives.  And those family names dot the Utah landscape today.  They were faithful families whose posterity has remained faithful.

Today, we don't need the practice.  And in many ways, it would be impractical.  And we have a sufficient population to move forward.

Not established doctrine, but it seems to be a logical conclusion.

FWIW, I somewhat disagree with this logic. I'll explain. (This for the sake of discussion, not by way of argument or contention. And this is sort of thinking as I go and trying to explain the way I feel about it more than even perfectly reasoned out reasoning...so.....)

I don't buy the meaning everyone translates "raise seed unto the Lord" to mean, logically speaking. That the Lord would command polygamy only for the express purpose of creating more righteous people implies 3 things to me. 1. The Lord would ALWAYS command polygamy then because it is His work and His glory to save His children. And 2. Those who are born under polygamy have a better unfair chance at salvation than those who weren't.  3. The responsiveness people have to certain blessings or trials as to being more righteous seems to be tied to too many other factors to be a set standard. (I mean Jacob specifically says the reason they are NOT to practice it is because the Lord wants raise up a righteous branch (vs 25-26).

That is not to say I reject the truth of "raising up seed unto the Lord" being a reason why the Lord commands plural marriage. I just don't buy the common logic that it means more numbers of righteous people, or that it's an eternal truth of what plural marriage will always lead to. To my thinking it's retconning logic into pre-conceived truths. Something some of the finest minds in the church are guilty of, and for which they have come up with myriads of wildly differing points of view on the matter. (I definitely don't buy the "our culture is superior, so our logic is best" approach to these sorts of things. We're way too corrupted in our thinking by, among other things, the Disney-princess, happily-ever-after culture we've been raised in as to concerning love and marriage. And that corruption is growing rather than getting better.)

Were I to apply my best logic (which is likely retconned into my understanding as much as anyone's logic is), I'd say we desperately need plural marriage now to humble us, try us, and weed out the chaff. Population of church members is really  not the issue. Righteousness is. I don't believe re-instigating plural marriage would increase the numbers of the church members. I do believe it would increase the righteousness of those who abjectly humbled themselves to obey. I'd also guess that there's actually a pretty big statistical problem of the number of righteous women to men (though I don't have hard data on that), which implies a need as well, and I expect that number would increase were plural marriage re-instated. When push comes to shove, most men in the church would say, "How can I take on such a thing as a 2nd family?" Women would be the ones more likely to humble themselves and share a husband with another women. Men would be more likely to be like, "I barely have time to watch my sports as it is!" Okay...maybe that's too cynical of me....

Anyhow, in other words, I translate "raise up seed to the Lord" to mean that the Lord knows when that is going to be the result, and will command it in those times for a very specific purpose He has that we probably don't understand. I don't think that means that (as has been interpreted by some) the monogamy is "the standard" and plural marriage is the exceptions. I think that marriage is the standard, plural marriage IS marriage, and that the Lord gives us commands now and then that are best and right for what He knows we need in our times.

That being said, I'm clearly wrong on some of my thinking or plural marriage would be reinstated already.

But I also know that were plural marriage reinstated tomorrow, there'd be a mad scramble by people (fine minds and otherwise) to retcon our logic to fit the why and wherefore of it all. The simple truth is we don't understand the why and wherefore of plural marriage. The moderately cryptic teachings from Jacob on the matter don't solve the riddle at all to my thinking. Neither do the moderately cryptic teachings in D&C 132 (which seem to me to contradict Jacob on the matter without some level of logical retconning). I tend to think it's safer to just let it lie. We don't need to understand plural marriage. We only need to humble ourselves, obey, and follow the prophet.

Not that I begrudge you or others reasoning the matter out as best you can. Like I said, I'm just sharing. Not trying to debate (though I recognize that disagreement naturally implies debate, and that's fine. It's just not my objective.)

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I somewhat disagree with this logic. I'll explain. (This for the sake of discussion, not by way of argument or contention. And this is sort of thinking as I go and trying to explain the way I feel about it more than even perfectly reasoned out reasoning...so.....)

I can't see anything I disagree with.  I see it lining up with what I said.  You just have to understand a million conditions, exemptions, rules, and caveats, etc. which I didn't feel like getting into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share