How do Mormon males get 'exalted' since polygamy is banned?

[flameburns623]

Mormons are frequently ‘sealed’ (married ‘eternally’) to unmarried departed persons, as plural wives in the Temple. This does not ‘oblige’ the departed to accept the marriage, but allows them in the afterlife the option to do so. Since Mormons on their way to Celestial Exaltation will already have many God-like characteristics, they would be presumably be very ‘choice’ prospects in every fashon for marriage. It is now taught that because Mormons are being faithful in obeying civil magistrates in this life vis’a’vis the ban on polygamy, that He will make provisions in the Millenial Kingdom for plural marriage.

I have to point out, as have others, that the official line of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based in Salt Lake City is that because American courts have ruled that polygamy has been constitutionally forbidden, Mormons in good standing must NOT practice polygamy. Any ‘Salt Lake’ Mormon who does is excommunicated from the LDS Church and is reported to the civil authorities. The official practice of the LDS Church in Salt Lake is to actively report ALL known instances of the practice of polygamy. As things work out in daily life there is sometimes a ‘don’t ask/don’t tell’ policy. There is, however, no small measure of fear among schismatic groups that they are being spied upon by “Church Security” ( the arm of the LDS Church which ostensibly provides protection for LDS luminaries and which ensures that only LDS church members in good standing gain access to Mormon temples. It is sometimes believed to serve as an investigative arm as well). In addition: federal authorities in areas which are heavily Mormon engage in period aggressive ‘search and indict’ missions seeking out polygamists.

Modern polygamists form their own schisms from the LDS Church and I am told that members are somewhat ‘coy’ about whether they do or do not personally practice polygamy. All such schismatics will usually say is that they believe that polygamy continues as an ‘eternal principle’. It actually takes a little while for most members of these schismatic groups to get to know outsiders before they actually acknowledge their personal practice of polygamy. In many cases polygamous sects are not even open to the public: one has to be ‘invited’ to attend worship in such groups.

 

[Katholikos]

In addition: federal authorities in areas which are heavily Mormon engage in period aggressive ‘search and indict’ missions seeking out polygamists.

Polygyny has been openly practiced in Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, sister cities separated by a common state line, for many, many, MANY years. There has been no law enforcement action taken – local, county, state, or federal. The local cops are polygynists too. These cities exist solely for the practice of polygyny.

Have you read the first post of this thread? Or the newspaper story (I posted the URL)? What do you think? Do you believe that the feds are on a ‘search and indict’ mission in these cities? Uh uh.

JMJ Jay

 

[Micaldor]

1. “Mormon Fundamentalist’s” are our “Protestants”. Don’t blame us for what they do.
2. Read the whole section 132, it doesn’t say everyone must have plural wives, it says that you must if God commands you personally.

 

[Micaldor]

Katholikos:

The name “fundamentalist” has been applied to those who practice Mormonism as it was originally taught by its founder and “prophet,” Joseph Smith. Polygyny practitioners call themselves “fundamentalists” to signify their reversion to original Mormonism and others use this terminology as well. It’s authenic, unadulterated Mormonism. Those who have complied with the demands of the United States Government to “refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land” are going against their founder’s teaching. Plural marriage was illegal when Smith started it, and it’s illegal now.

Polygyny is just on “hold” until the political climate permits it to again be practiced without legal consequences. The doctrine has not been repudiated.

JMJ Jay

Actually, it was legal when they started.

By your logic, anyone who doesn’t practise “authenic, unadulterated” Judaism. The kind before Moses came and “added” stuff.*

*Yes, this is a joke.

 

[ex-mormon]

1. “Mormon Fundamentalist’s” are our “Protestants”. Don’t blame us for what they do.

1. Read the whole section 132, it doesn’t say everyone must have plural wives, it says that you must if God commands you personally.

micaldor,

To answer this question on the position of the erly church we can quote the actual documents written. composed by Kelly

Brigham Young - Adam was a polygamist:

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and Sinner! When OUR FATHER ADAM came into the the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, ONE OF HIS WIVES WITH HIM.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50)

Apostle Orson Hyde:
“I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that JESUS CHRIST WAS MARRIED at Cana of Galilee, THAT MARY, MARTHA, AND OTHERS WERE HIS WIVES, AND THAT HE BEGAT CHILDREN.(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 210)

Brigham Young, answering critics who claimed polygamy as a relic of barbarism:

“ Yes, one of the relics of Adam, of Enoch, of Noah, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses, David, Solomon, the Prophets, OF JESUS, AND HIS APOSTLES.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 328)

Brigham Young:

“The Scripture says that He, the LORD, came walking in the Temple, with HIS TRAIN; I do not now who they were, unless HIS WIVES AND CHILDREN;…” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 309)

Apostle Orson Pratt:

“…it will be seen that the GREAT MESSIAH who was the founder of the Christian religion, WAS A POLYGAMIST, …the MESSIAH chose…by MARRYING MANY honorable WIVES himself, show to all future generations that HE approbated the PLURALITY OF WIVES under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensation in which His Polygamist ancestors lived. “We have now clearly shown that GOD THE FATHER HAD A PLURALITY OF WIVES, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His first Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as his only begotten in this world. We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many honorable wives were to be married We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit THEIR WIVES IN ETERNITY as well as in time;… And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, JESUS AND HIS HONORABLE WIVES, all eating occasionally at the same table, and visiting one another, and conversing about their numerous children and their kingdoms. Oh, ye delicate ladies of Christendom how can you endure such a scene as this?.. If you do not want your morals corrupted, and your delicate ears shocked, and your pious modesty put to the blush by the society of POLYGAMISTS and their wives, do not venture near the New Earth; for POLYGAMISTS will be honored there, and will be among the chief rulers in that Kingdom.”
(The Seer, page 172)

Brigham Young - To become a god, one must be a polygamist:
“The ONLY MEN WHO BECOME GODS, even the Sons of God, are those WHO ENTER INTO POLYGAMY.”(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)

or you can read more at realmormonhistory.com/

ex-m

 

[ex-mormon]

Here are some comparisons on the Book of Mormon and Doctorine & Covenants (Josephs revelations)Mormon canonical works contradict God’s stand concerning polygamy:

**BOOK OF MORMON **
“For behold, thus saith the Lord:
This people begin to wax in
INIQUITY; they understand NOT
the scriptures, for they seek to
excuse them- selves in committing
WHORE- DOMS, because of the
things which were written concern
ing David, and Solomon his son.
“Behold, David and Solomon truly
had many wives and concubines,
which thing was ABOMINABLE
BEFORE ME, saith the Lord.”
(Book of Mormon, p. 111, verses
23-24)

DOCTRINE & COVENANTS
“Verily, thus saith the Lord…you
have inquired of my hand to know
and understand wherein I, the Lord,
JUSTIFIED my servants…David
and Solomon,…as touching the
principle and doctrine of - having
MANY WIVES AND
CONCUBINES—“David’s wives
and concubines were given unto
him of me,…”
(Doctrine and Covenants, section
132, verses l and. 39)

food for thought on the subject

ex-m

 

[Tmaque]

1. “Mormon Fundamentalist’s” are our “Protestants”. Don’t blame us for what they do.

1. Read the whole section 132, it doesn’t say everyone must have plural wives, it says that you must if God commands you personally.

Mormon Fundamentalists are not your “protestants.” That implies that they rejected a long held truth or doctrine, or some sort of behavior or policy that they disagreed with. The opposite happened. As the LDS Church changed, and started to teach doctrines contrary to it’s own scriptures, the FLDS refused to accept the new, heretical doctrines. If the the Catholic Church ever declared, for instance, that homosexual relationships were valid, that would be a sign that there is a serious problem. Those that left the LDS church recognized a serious flaw. They could no longer accept the authority of a church that had changed(and continues to change) it’s doctrines on matters of faith and morals.

I have read the entire 132nd section. It’s meaning is clear.
A. If you want to be a God you must be a polygamist.
B. Having more than one wife is not a sin of any kind, even having ten wives is not a sin.

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

Mormon Fundamentalists are not your “protestants.” That implies that they rejected a long held truth or doctrine, or some sort of behavior or policy that they disagreed with. The opposite happened. As the LDS Church changed, and started to teach doctrines contrary to it’s own scriptures, the FLDS refused to accept the new, heretical doctrines.

We get the point that the FLDS consider the LDS apostate because of the decision to discontinue the practice of polygamy. The same could be said of the RLDS church much earlier in reaction to restoring the practice. I think you have stated the FLDS position rather well, but the LDS have a cogent counter-argument.

Following the living prophet is a “long held truth or doctrine”, and it is more (ironically) fundamental then the decision on whether to practice polygamy is. Following the prophet started in 1830 and polygamy wasn’t practiced openly until the 1850’s. If the longetivity of a doctrine sets a precedent for how important it is relative to other doctrines, then it follows that it is the FLDS and RLDS who are the “protestants” for rejecting a prophet. Comparisons can be made of the RLDS (now Communities of Christ) to mainstream protestantism, and the FLDS to their Biblical fundamentalist counterparts.

As I like to point out, a living prophet–when acting as a prophet-- trumps scripture. That means that a prophet can receive revelation that clarifies past misunderstandings of scripture. The prophet is also the official interpretter of scripture. The scriptures regarding whether to practice polygamy or not place it squarely at the commandment of the Lord (see Jacob 2:30) and only one man at a time (the prophet) is authorized to recieve such a command on a church wide basis (see Doctrine and Covenants 132 :7)

They could no longer accept the authority of a church that had changed(and continues to change) it’s doctrines on matters of faith and morals.

Ah, the fatal flaw of fundamentalism. . .

I have read the entire 132nd section. It’s meaning is clear.
A. If you want to be a God you must be a polygamist.
B. Having more than one wife is not a sin of any kind, even having ten wives is not a sin.

Mic shouldn’t have presumed that all those who disagree with him/her haven’t read the relevant material. There is room for differences of interpretation. I notice that you are selectively sensationalistic with what you present from section 132. Personally I would nuance your interpretations as follows:

A. If you want to be a [g]od you must [have an eternal marriage].
B. Having more than one wife is not a sin of any kind [if done when following a commandment through the authorized priesthood channel], even having ten wives is not a sin.

later,
fool

 

[Tmaque]

mormon fool:

We get the point that the FLDS consider the LDS apostate because of the decision to discontinue the practice of polygamy. The same could be said of the RLDS church much earlier in reaction to restoring the practice. I think you have stated the FLDS position rather well, but the LDS have a cogent counter-argument.

Following the living prophet is a “long held truth or doctrine”, and it is more (ironically) fundamental then the decision on whether to practice polygamy is. Following the prophet started in 1830 and polygamy wasn’t practiced openly until the 1850’s. If the longetivity of a doctrine sets a precedent for how important it is relative to other doctrines, then it follows that it is the FLDS and RLDS who are the “protestants” for rejecting a prophet. Comparisons can be made of the RLDS (now Communities of Christ) to mainstream protestantism, and the FLDS to their Biblical fundamentalist counterparts.

As I like to point out, a living prophet–when acting as a prophet-- trumps scripture. That means that a prophet can receive revelation that clarifies past misunderstandings of scripture. The prophet is also the official interpretter of scripture. The scriptures regarding whether to practice polygamy or not place it squarely at the commandment of the Lord (see Jacob 2:30) and only one man at a time (the prophet) is authorized to recieve such a command on a church wide basis (see Doctrine and Covenants 132 :7)

Ah, the fatal flaw of fundamentalism. . .

Mic shouldn’t have presumed that all those who disagree with him/her haven’t read the relevant material. There is room for differences of interpretation. I notice that you are selectively sensationalistic with what you present from section 132. Personally I would nuance your interpretations as follows:

A. If you want to be a [g]od you must [have an eternal marriage].
B. Having more than one wife is not a sin of any kind [if done when following a commandment through the authorized priesthood channel], even having ten wives is not a sin.

later,
fool

Are you saying that you would accept anything the LDS prophet taught even if you knew it was wrong? That is not reasonable. There has to be a standard by which you can measure truth…something. If there isn’t one (and that’s what you’re saying it seems to me) then anything goes and you’re operating on nothing but blind faith. If simply having a prophet is the objective measure of an authentic religion then the FLDS are in good shape.

Most FLDS groups do indeed have a prophet. They would argue that your prophet is not the true prophet because he abandoned the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. They would argue that the LDS Church lost it’s priesthood authority and that it’s size is no indication of an authentic nature, just as the Catholic Church’s size is no indication that it is true either. The largest FLDS group is now building a temple in which they will perform ordinances EXACTLY as they were done in the latter part of the 19th century. They wear temple garments EXACTLY as those worn by early LDS. They believe ALL the words of Mormon scripture even if it brings condemnation upon them. They use old copies of the Book of Mormon that haven’t been altered to make them politically correct.

Their beliefs are an accurate snapshot of LDS beliefs in the late 19th century. They are fanatical about maintaining the restored gospel as it was given to them. They care nothing about the world and what it thinks of them. They see themselves much as the Pioneers did, fighting against the world for God. In case you’re wondering, many of my relatives are FLDS, that’s how I know what they believe. I’m certain that if Brigham Young were to come back he would call them the authentic Latter Day Saints and the rest of Mormonism he would call apostate. Just my opinion of course.

I didn’t mean to be sensationalistic regarding the 132nd section. And, I agree with your version. It is more accurate.

 

[mormon_fool]

The short answer to the title question “How do Mormon males get ‘exalted’ since polygamy is banned?” is that exhaltation can occur without practicing polygamy. Whether exhaltation occurs or not is largely determined by how faithful one is in keeping the covenants that he or she has made with the Lord. A “New and Everlasting” covenant is “new” to the person just entering into it and “everlasting” because it has eternal ramifications for that person. Not all individuals are commanded to enter into a specific covenant at all times. Where there is no commandment there is no accountability.

Some material has been presented earlier that seems to establish a firmer link between polygamy and exaltation. I would like to consider Paul Dupre’s earlier quotes. First, he cites Doctrine and Covenants 132:1-6. This is the only official and timely source for LDS doctrine that he cites. Verse 4 seems to be the most problematic:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

What is the “new and an everlasting covenant” ? V. 4 makes it seem like it involves polygamy, but let’s wait until the section later reveals what it is. Rather than fully defining what the covenant does or doesn’t entail, a simple phrase in V. 15-18 repeatedly affirms that the covenant is made when “a man marry a wife”. Therefore it is clear a monogamous eternal marriage will satisfy “abiding” by the covenant. Polygamy is merely an extension, with a man, by command, entering into multiple covenants.

Paul cites Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p.269 but the context of the quote actually rebuts the idea that polygamy is unconditionally required for the exaltation of males. I will give some snippets from the same speech:

“If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.”

This demonstrates that Brigham Young was open to a revelation that changed the practice.

“I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained.”

Here is a clear cut admission that exaltation is achievable without actual participating in the practice, as exceptions are made for merely believing the doctrine. As a side note it is not the doctrine of polygamy that has changed over time in the LDS, just the practice (or not) of it.

Paul’s other quotes are really far down on the totem pole of approved sources for for LDS doctrine. I don’t disagree with them, per say, because being obedient to a principle requires observance of every aspect of that principle, including observing when the right time is to apply that principle. (see Ecclesiastics 4), if that makes sense.

Later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque,

Your analysis of the FLDS is very on target, and the presence of those types of groups does cause me to seriously ponder the vitality of my chosen faith in comparison. Didn’t you mention earlier that you had some interaction with some of them before leaving mormonism?

Yes, between the LDS and splinter groups “Will the real prophet please stand up” is a divisive issue. But I think that the FLDS came rather late, when issues of prophetic succession and prophecies of the continuity of the LDS church had already been precedented. By rebelliing against those in authority, these groups have cut themselves off from that authority.

I disagree with “snapshot” conservativism in religion. The visual analogy is apt because still frames do a poor job of capturing motion dynamics. The church that Joseph Smith was a part of was to be lead by continuing revelation to the standing prophet. If this dynamic is violated, attempts to recreate the picture are flawed. At some point the FLDS went against the revelations to the then standing prophet.

Are you saying that you would accept anything the LDS prophet taught even if you knew it was wrong?

I do not have inerrant expectations of a prophet. I would have to weigh my faith in my own ability to “know” right from wrong vs. my faith in the prophetic calling which will “never lead the church astray”. In contrast to fundamentalists, I would trust the prophet’s abilities to be the spokesman for God on what is right or wrong then I would my own. My faith is that God would remove a seriously errant prophet from his place by “natural” causes or through already established procedures for doing so. For less severe errors, I have faith that later prophets will rectify them. The current prophet also has apostolic brethren to counsel with to keep him in line. It would not be not be my job “to steady the ark”.

I prefer to think of my faith as “informed” rather than “blind”. While I believe in the existence of objective religous truth, a person’s path of obtaining a knowledge of this truth is heavily subjective, by design!

later,
fool

 

[puzzleannie]

sorry I read the title wrong, I thought you said “exhausted” not exalted

 

[Tmaque]

mormon fool:

Tmaque,

Your analysis of the FLDS is very on target, and the presence of those types of groups does cause me to seriously ponder the vitality of my chosen faith in comparison. Didn’t you mention earlier that you had some interaction with some of them before leaving mormonism?

Yes, between the LDS and splinter groups “Will the real prophet please stand up” is a divisive issue. But I think that the FLDS came rather late, when issues of prophetic succession and prophecies of the continuity of the LDS church had already been precedented. By rebelliing against those in authority, these groups have cut themselves off from that authority.

I disagree with “snapshot” conservativism in religion. The visual analogy is apt because still frames do a poor job of capturing motion dynamics. The church that Joseph Smith was a part of was to be lead by continuing revelation to the standing prophet. If this dynamic is violated, attempts to recreate the picture are flawed. At some point the FLDS went against the revelations to the then standing prophet.

I do not have inerrant expectations of a prophet. I would have to weigh my faith in my own ability to “know” right from wrong vs. my faith in the prophetic calling which will “never lead the church astray”. In contrast to fundamentalists, I would trust the prophet’s abilities to be the spokesman for God on what is right or wrong then I would my own. My faith is that God would remove a seriously errant prophet from his place by “natural” causes or through already established procedures for doing so. For less severe errors, I have faith that later prophets will rectify them. The current prophet also has apostolic brethren to counsel with to keep him in line. It would not be not be my job “to steady the ark”.

I prefer to think of my faith as “informed” rather than “blind”. While I believe in the existence of objective religous truth, a person’s path of obtaining a knowledge of this truth is heavily subjective, by design!

later,
fool

One of the reasons I harp on the changes in LDS doctrine so much is because that is precisely the same argument used against the Catholic church to prove it has apostatized. If the LDS Church has changed (and I think we all agree that it has), then how can you claim it is still true when you claim the Universal Christian Church (Catholicism) is not true because it has deviated from it’s original doctrines? I’m sure the answer you will give is that “we know it’s false because a prophet of God told us it’s doctrines had been corrupted and it is in a state of apostasy”. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth but if that is your reasoning then you sound very much like the FLDS, and to me the arguments are identical.

When you come from the LDS paradigm it’s very hard to look at the evidence objectively because you have an unwavering agenda going in. That’s because LDS’s are taught to get a sure testimony, to “know” the Church is true. That exercise closes your mind. If you can’t accept at least the possibility that Joseph Smith may have been a deceiver, then there is no point in discussing points of disagreement with you. I believe an objective look at the evidence tells us the early Church was nothing like the LDS Church. I’ll also admit that it doesn’t look like the modern Catholic Church in many ways either. But, if you are using logic and evidence to claim your Church is restored, then I would expect that it would look substantially like the early Church.

On “knowing” the truth:
Preconceived notions are the locks on the door to wisdom. ~Merry Browne

On learning new ideas from others:
The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[Tmaque]

I need to add one final thought. The LDS church places incredible emphasis on it’s members gaining a “testimony”. While growing up I was taught to avoid people and ideas that conflicted with my LDS beliefs. I was taught to avoid these things because it may cause me to “question my faith”. I believe there is an underlying fear in the LDS leadership that if the people take a hard, objective look at the evidence many would leave. I think that’s why the idea of gaining a “knowledge” of the truth of the Church is so pushed for. This idea of needing to gain a testimony is, I find, unique to the LDS culture. It’s very prevalent in the FLDS as well. As a Catholic I have no fear of the truth. I have never once had a question that I couldn’t find a great answer for. Anyway, just wanted to add that.

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque,

Wow, sometimes your posts make me think too hard, but that is a good thing! Here is my criteria for evaluating alleged apostasies: First of all change can be good or bad, but a lack of change is inherently bad! No change means to me that a church system is not getting timely guidance on how to handle the unique heresies and challenges of its day. Divine timely guidance is best dispensed by revelation to authorized spokesmen, as I infer from the records we have of God’s dealings with mankind. Then it was up to seekers of truth to evaluate and decide what they are hearing is true or not.

Therefore, in my mindset a prophet can be good or bad (false) but the lack of a prophet is a serious drawback for a church system. Having a living, authorized, prophetic leadership is not a mere doctrine, it is a super-doctrine, a governing doctrine. Of course, the Christological doctrines rank higher as does one’s personal relationship with God, but gaining a sufficiently approved understanding of the latter two is heavily dependent on the former.

Change in accordance to revelation to an authorized leader is good. Change without inspired leadership inevitably corrupts. Change (or failure to change) occuring as a rejection to authorized leaders is bad. Supplanting those leaders with usupers in protest is a mutiny or apostasy as is clearly the case for the FLDS, from my perspective of which leaders are “authorized”. In comparison the apostasy of the early christian church is much more subtle (and mostly off stage).

I’m sure the answer you will give is that “we know it’s false because a prophet of God told us it’s doctrines had been corrupted and it is in a state of apostasy”.

Your words adequately sum up my position and yes an FLDS adherent can make the same statement. But when an FLDS says it doesn’t have as much meaning. Their tradition has a notable incident of turning the statement around and pronouncing a (in their view–authorized) prophet false because of what appears to them to be false doctrine. In other words, the very justification for the existence of their prophet hinges on the lack of ability of another authorized prophet to make a doctrinal call correctly. This implicitly undercuts the authority of their current prophet to declare something true or false, and hardly gives them an Archimedes’ Lever to judge the rest of the world’s doctrines. This becomes a circular argument, which maybe for them is a good thing because it has no loose ends . And for us outsiders because it has little persuasive power.

[W]hen you come from the LDS paradigm it’s very hard to look at the evidence objectively because you have an unwavering agenda going in.

I see no reason to single the LDS paradigm out on this. Any stable paradigm comes complete with its own set of tools for evaluating and interpretting objective data. Validating any religious paradigm of necessity (see John 7:17) requires the subjective experience of putting those tools to use and making value judgements. Evaluating a competing paradigm while using the preferred tools of another are always going to bias the results.

That’s because LDS’s are taught to get a sure testimony, to “know” the Church is true. That exercise closes your mind.

Before one obtains this experience, the mind is actually stretched. Investigators and members alike are asked to study and ponder and make a tentative decision for themselves before praying for confirmation. The nature of the confirmation will vary from person to person and whether it closes an individual’s mind is also going to vary. Then again it might be better to consider the more *closed-minded *among us as loyal or dedicated.

As I have already confessed to, I have had a subjective experience that leaves me “knowing” Joseph Smith was a prophet and so forth. The LDS paradigm values the “vertical” means of acquiring religous knowledge. But this does not mean that I completely ignore “horizontal” objective methods especially in the harder sciences, nor do I ignore anomalies (that might be resolved easier by other paradigms) made apparent by them.

As one encyclopedia points out: “a person knows some statement X if and only if that person believes X, and if X is true, and if the person has good reasons for believing X”. On message boards such as this I attempt to share or defend my belief in terms and types of reasons that others value. When I hear others do the same, I can’t help but modify my reasons and values and ultimately what I know. And that is as close as I can get right now to admitting my current “knowledge” about Joseph Smith and the restoration is possibly wrong.

With that I probably should go back to my school work for awhile. These boards are fascinating and spiritually uplifting, but they take up so much time.

Much Later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

On another thread Maranajewell quite amicably observes:

Lastly, I have noticed that when documentation from your scriptures are given to support a non-LDS view, they seem to be rarely ackknowledged in favor of what the current teaching in your church may be without little or no documentation explaining the reason for the change in a given disputed topic.

Part of the problem is the way these mormon threads get so off tangent, resuscitated, and bits and pieces of the conversation are actually on other threads. My own participation on these boards comes in bursts. Some people don’t like excessive documentation with little actual dialogue. For example posters from both sides have recently contributed entire posts that and nothing more than cut-and-pastes or links to a website AND went off on tangents.

I don’t mind a few gentle reminders to stay on topic or to provide more (or less) documentation.

The official reason for the change in the policy of practicing polygamy is found here:

scriptures.lds.org/od/1

I also provided quotes from a recent LDS authority on the topic question in another thread a month ago as well as some other explanations and thoughts on why the change was made in posts 371, 372, and 376.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23801&page=4&pp=100&highlight=mormon+polygamy

On to some quotes I was asked to acknowledge:

**BOOK OF MORMON **
“For behold, thus saith the Lord:
This people begin to wax in
INIQUITY; they understand NOT
the scriptures, for they seek to
excuse them- selves in committing
WHORE- DOMS, because of the
things which were written concern
ing David, and Solomon his son.
“Behold, David and Solomon truly
had many wives and concubines,
which thing was ABOMINABLE
BEFORE ME, saith the Lord.”
(Book of Mormon, p. 111, verses
23-24)

DOCTRINE & COVENANTS
“Verily, thus saith the Lord…you
have inquired of my hand to know
and understand wherein I, the Lord,
JUSTIFIED my servants…David
and Solomon,…as touching the
principle and doctrine of - having
MANY WIVES AND
CONCUBINES—“David’s wives
and concubines were given unto
him of me,…”
(Doctrine and Covenants, section
132, verses l and. 39)

Do people really think that putting in ellipses that stretch over pages of text think it is a fair way to paint a contradiction? The Doctrine and Covenants gives a quite nuanced description of what exactly was sinful in David and Solomon’s behavior.

Section 132
"38 %between% David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
http://scriptures.lds.org/themes/graphics/spacer.gif
39 %between% David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for Igave them unto another, saith the Lord."

The point that all the passages in Jacob 2, D&C 132, and OD #1 drive home is that polygamy is sinful when is not expressly commanded. Clearly some, but not all, of Solomon’s and David’s participation in polygamy was sinful.

ex-mo also quotes alot of early mormons speculating on whether Jesus was polygamous. One source, “the Seer”, was denounced by the then authorities of the church and Pratt himself-- not authoritive mormon teaching by any means. And finally no one should be impressed by 19th century documentation that has no collaboration from current teachings. If modern leaders aren’t reiterating some speculations or teachings, it is a fair indicator that it is not a important part of the current mormon belief set.

How’s that for acknowledgement?

Bye,
fool

 

[ex-mormon]

from Mormon_Fool

Do people really think that putting in ellipses that stretch over pages of text think it is a fair way to paint a contradiction? The Doctrine and Covenants gives a quite nuanced description of what exactly was sinful in David and Solomon’s behavior.

Fool,

I don’t believe this was addressed correctly. The question is wich Revelation of Joseph Smiths is the one that should be followed. The Book of Mormon or The Doctorine and Covenants. This is the true Mormon enigma. The revelations of the Book of Mormon cotradict a lot of church doctrine for example plurality of gods.
Joseph Smith taught “that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father,” and that “you may suppose that He had a Father also.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) Orson Pratt said, “If we should take a million worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.” (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, page 345) The Bible teaches throughout it’s pages of there being only one God. Even the Book of Mormon teaches monotheism:

“And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea there is a true and living God. Now, Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.” Alma 11:26-30

“…I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” 3 Nephi 9:18

“so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:6

" …I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." Isaiah 46:9

“…Is there any God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Isaiah 44:8

“Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein…” Nehemiah 9:6 The God who made the universe says he is LORD alone. I believe he leaves no room for doubt. If God had a father wouldn’t he know of him? If there really were other Gods why is there no mention of them in the Book of Mormon or the Bible? The message God sends time and time again is that he is the only God.

continued…

 

[ex-mormon]

…more

The Mormon Church teaches heretically that man can become a God, and that God was once a man. Joseph Smith taught, “First God himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity… God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did,… You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves;…No man can learn you more than what I have told you.” This teaching is one of the tenants of Mormonism. Think about it- isn’t this very idea, that man can work his way up to being a God, a major tenant of humanism and new age belief? Think about it again- where is the first place in the Bible that one finds the idea of a man becoming like God? It was whispered by the serpent to Eve; saying eat of the apple and “…ye shall be as gods…”(Genesis 3:5) This was not whispered as a good thing, but as an enticement by the father of lies himself! The Bible does not teach about a changing God who once was a man, once died, and once sinned. It does not teach that a man can become a God. It teaches exactly the opposite. Again the Book of Mormon is in agreement:

“For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Moroni 8:18

“For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting,…” Moroni 7:22

“Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them. For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” Mormon 9:8,9

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Hebrews 13:8

“(God has)…no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17

" …I am God, and not man…" Hosea 11:9

“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Isaiah 44:6

“God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind…” Numbers 23:19

“O LORD are you not from everlasting?..” Habakkuk 1:12

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psalms 90:2

“I the LORD do not change…” Malachi 3:6

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD…before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10 This is clearly the first and last God. We have not “imagined” that God was God from all eternity, the Bible says so definitively. The Bible leaves no room for other “Gods” to be formed. It emphatically states throughout its pages that God has always existed as God and has never changed. How could the Bible have made it more clear? God is God alone, and there never were, nor will there ever be any others. Also see Mosiah 3:5, Alma 11:39, Psalms 41:13, 93:2, 103:17, Proverbs 8:23, Revelation 1:8. It is important to note that when you study one of these passages in Hebrew, the case is made even more unambiguous. In Isaiah 43:10 for example, the word used for God is El meaning " mighty one". Once this is understood, it is obvious that the scripture is not talking about idols per Se, but about Gods. Thus read the scripture would say: “… Before me there were no ‘mighty ones’ formed, neither shall there be after me.”

from Mormon_fool
ex-mo also quotes alot of early mormons speculating on whether Jesus was polygamous. One source, “the Seer”, was denounced by the then authorities of the church and Pratt himself-- not authoritive mormon teaching by any means. And finally no one should be impressed by 19th century documentation that has no collaboration from current teachings. If modern leaders aren’t reiterating some speculations or teachings, it is a fair indicator that it is not a important part of the current mormon belief set.

These examples are just the tops of the mountains, the root of the problems are much deeper and larger. As to the references I used only one of the six in references to adam and Jesus Christ being polygamous was from the seer and from Pratt who was an Apostle of the early church. The other five references were to the Journal of Discourses, I do believe this is an accepted set of books or standards by the current leaders considering the church gave permission to print these speaches and adresses to the people of the church.
Another question would be why did’nt the revelations from the Prophets in the Journal of Discourses ever make it into the Doctorine and Covenants.?

God bless,
ex-mo

 

[momathome]

I found this thread in answer to my question about Joseph Smith’s wives on the other current lds thread. I already know that polygamy is definitely necessary for exaltation into the highest level of the celestial kingdom (the three kingdoms within the highest kingdom)
or in other words exaltation. I found a link that is helpful in explaining the necessity of polygamy from an lds point of view:

lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/necessary.htm

But I still haven’t found an answer as to why Joseph Smith practiced polygamy behind Emma’s back, why he married already married women, etc… This just makes me very uncomfortable. Why doesn’t the church answer these type of questions openly? If I ask my lds friends these type of questions I am not thought of as unfaithful, or worse, antimormon. I even feel uncomfortable asking such questions on lds boards such as fairlds.org Does anyone have an answer?

Thanks

 

[Joseph_Romero]

Many of these questions need to be addressed on a Mormon apologetics site.

This thread has wandered and is now closed.

God Bless,