Doctrine and Covenants 132--Revelation on Mormon plural marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic20064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You make a good point and I need to remember the “restoration of all things” concept when discussing things with LDS.

What throws me off is the often quoted references to OT scripture. If LDS is a restoration of all things, then why reference the OT? Just start over with a new religion all by itself with its own ideas and doctrines not tied to anything else. (Ooops! I forgot I am not supposed to ask you these questions because you are a former LDS). If you choose to answer, I would appreciate your insight. I might get a hand slap for it, but maybe LDS will answer too, then all will be balanced. 😉

Do LDS acknowledge the possible influence of Cochran on JS or LDS teachings? Once again, this question is open to all.
We claim to be the restoration of the original church that Christ founded. That would include accepting the scriptures that He did, y’know.
 
The LDS received a new “revelation” in 1890 when president Wilford Woodruff said he received a revelation “to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land”
So, does that mean that LDS can practice polygamy now, as long as the country they live in doesn’t forbid it?
 
So, does that mean that LDS can practice polygamy now, as long as the country they live in doesn’t forbid it?
Amontoya,
No. That particular talk was used to explain to the LDS members why the Lord was rescinding the provision that had been temporary as to the practice of plural marriage. It applied and still applies to all members throughout the world, with a “no”.
 
Amontoya,
No. That particular talk was used to explain to the LDS members why the Lord was rescinding the provision that had been temporary as to the practice of plural marriage. It applied and still applies to all members throughout the world, with a “no”.
So, does that mean that the Lord was rescinding his command, because “the law of the land” was against it?
 
So, does that mean that the Lord was rescinding his command, because “the law of the land” was against it?
Amontoya,
I suppose that that is one way to look at the situation, inasmuch as the Act of congress (Edmunds Tucker) that was needing to be faced was men were being jailed and property was subject to being taken over by the government.

But I look at that situation as one where the president of the LDS church (prophet) received the specific guidance needed from the Lord in answer to prayer as to what to do given the situation–the guidance being that the leaders and members needed to comply with the law although not agreeing with it in this case, given that in order for many purposes to continue to be fulfilled, the LDS communities needed to be within the bounds of the voting laws and regulatory laws so that Utah could become a state, LDS members could vote, LDS members could serve in Congress or as other political or appointed leaders, and at the same time the members would understand that the requirement that had earlier been in effect for some members to have plural marriages as Jacob (Israel) had had in his day, was no longer a requirement and the people should follow the living prophet.

That became a test, or course, for some, just as the earlier revelation had been a test of faith and understanding of both the Bible and its precedent of God interacting with man in giving guidance and direction to the people through a prophet, and of the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost available to every member so they would know the prophet had indeed received a revelation from God about what they should do as members in order for their happiness and for being able to serve Him most effectively as their futures unfolded in the modern world they lived in. The members are to be “in the world” and “render unto Ceasar the things that be Caesar’s” meaning not try to live totally apart from the world and instead accept conditions where imperfect governments do imperfect things and try and be influential within those imperfect governmental conditions rather than try and live separately from them.

Have a good day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top