The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS
captain of 100
Posts: 800

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS »

Fiannan wrote:
shellertx wrote:Here's a thought... Perhaps the world will shift and polygamy will be legalized, but the church will stand against it? I see this happening. Because the Lord has no need to "raise up seed unto me" as stated in Jacob 2:30. The Lord is very specific about when polygamy is allowable, and I don't see there ever being a time in the future when it will be needed.
Oh really, even the leaders of the Church, in private of course but those recordings got out, are terrified that the Church's future as an inter-generational institution is in jeopardy due to low marriage and birth rates among the members today.
What recordings are these you're referencing?

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

TrueIntent wrote:Ummm, there is a desire for it to return....you should have seen all the hooplah one of my family members went through just so that she could have an ex-wife removed from the sealing. The new husband and she were requesting not to be sealed to the x-wife, and the church not only would not honor the request (because of a denial of blessings, which completely contradicts scripture...no one can take anyones blessings from the x-wife...she killed her own blessings by what she did during the marriage). But it required multiple letters from family members on both sides, two bishops involved. They were even told by a bishop that if they could claim it was causing emotional distress, that the higher ups are more lenient with allow the sealing to be cancelled. I had to write a letter on their behalf as well....including 4 other family members. In the process the x-wife character assasinated the new couple and they were left trying to prove all kinds of nasty slanders against them. It was a guilty until proven innocent thing. At one point, whoever was handling the situation suggested that they turn over their medical records to prove their innocence against one of the accusations made by the x-wife. It was a personal example to me, of how leadership at the top (because it wasn't the local authorities) are crossing boundaries like never before. Basically, it was a big mess.....if we don't believe in the doctrine of polygamy, and we believe in agency...then why on earth are we giving people so much crap about having an ex spouse sealing cancellation, especially when it is at the request of both of the new spouses. Its a control thing. It's a constant reminder.

Your words show a fundamental misunderstanding behind the purpose of what is going on, and it also shows that what has happened has colored your understanding and may have made you bitter towards sealing arrangements that you do not understand, and the purposes for them. Your understanding is not only shallow, but you aren't giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone, wanting to think the worst of them, and it seems that you are too quick to want to find fault in this ignorance. And your knee-jerk tendency is to place blame for this on an entirely unrelated issue, which is polygamy. You have conflated polygamy with what is really going on here, and I urge you to open your mind to a more profound truth about what is going on, and stop your fault finding.

While it is true that some people die who were sealed, and the living spouse goes on to be sealed to another, and in that type of case, it is indeed a plural marriage, but you can't conflate that with what is going in on in divorces. But even in that arrangement, the spouse who is died is not *compelled* in eternity to remain with their spouse, and can choose differently. The point is, in whatever case, sealings are preserved until death until whatever arrangements are made in eternity can me made. Nobody is compelled to remain with anyone, and the Holy Spirit of Promise is not going to put a stamp of approval on a union where there is either unrighteousness, or some other type of problem going on. And therefore, the effectiveness of sealings entirely depends on a number of factors.

Your anecdotal example, while lamentable as far as the pain it caused goes, is not evidence of a "desire for polygamy," but just to keep people sealed when they are not sealed to anyone else, so that a sealing is kept until some other arrangement can be made, so that someone doesn't die without *some type of sealing*. You have no evidence for your position at all. That has nothing to do with polygamy. It has to do only with sealings. It doesn't mean that this person will end up as a plural wife if the sealing is not cancelled. It means that a sealing was kept in place so that that person can be given to someone else in the Lord's time. It doesn't mean that this person will end up with the person they are sealed to. It is a mere *place holder* for a future arrangement. You have entirely misinterpreted the nature and purpose of this type of practice.

And besides, your "example" is actually an example of the old policy. You are apparently unaware of the recent change in policy where these kinds of things will not be happening anymore.

I'll give you another anecdote as another example. My brother in law was one of these characters that did the rope swings in Moab. Well, he had been in a divorce that was not his fault, but it was his ex wife that asked for the divorce. And the sealing was not canceled yet, and he was preparing to marry another woman in the temple. They had submitted the papers to the Bishop for the sealing cancellation. Regardless of how hard he tried, the spirit just kept giving him a stupor of thought every time he would try to make a move to submit the paperwork. So he just sat on it, because he knew something was happening that he didn't understand. Then, six or so months later my brother in law fell 100 or 200 feet to his death in a canyon in Moab, and was all over the news. Then my Father in law asked the Bishop if he had turned in that paperwork. He said no, and explained what he felt. And it is clear now why. So, my brother in law never was ever able to marry the woman he was courting, and the sealing was preserved. Yet, his ex-wife and sort-of-widow has no intent to preserve that sealing, nor should she, when she is ready to re-marry. Yet my brother in law is "safely dead" having had his sealing in place until death. Now the Lord can judge him as having that sealing still valid in the sense that he was under that covenant and can be given to another, as the D&C states.

My brother in law died with a sealing in place, but not for the sake of being sealed to his ex wife. It was for the sake of the maintaining of a sealing until his death, because he would never live to marry that woman that he was courting, yet the Lord knew the intent of his heart. Now that woman that he was courting is married and sealed to another man. Now my brother in law has the opportunity to find someone on the other side and he never had a broken sealing, and all will be made right. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Spirit was not preserving that sealing for the sake of his broken marriage to his ex wife, when she had been the one to divorce him, not the other way around. It was for the sake of there being a sealing in place as a place-holder. This is the way the Spirit worked in this case, and the intent is the same for every other sealing that has not been canceled yet. It is a place-holder, and doesn't mean anyone will end up with an ex that they have divorced.

Sorry, you are wrong. I'm sorry for your pain and the pain your family went through, but you are wrong.
Last edited by EdGoble on February 2nd, 2017, 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
shellertx wrote:Here's a thought... Perhaps the world will shift and polygamy will be legalized, but the church will stand against it? I see this happening. Because the Lord has no need to "raise up seed unto me" as stated in Jacob 2:30. The Lord is very specific about when polygamy is allowable, and I don't see there ever being a time in the future when it will be needed.
Oh really, even the leaders of the Church, in private of course but those recordings got out, are terrified that the Church's future as an inter-generational institution is in jeopardy due to low marriage and birth rates among the members today.
What recordings are these you're referencing?
"In Which They Fret Over the Young Single Adults" - YouTube

User avatar
andsmith0723
captain of 50
Posts: 63
Location: Houston, Tx.
Contact:

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by andsmith0723 »

I find this very troubling...Islam is the religion of the devil. We should not be likening ourselves to them. If we are the church of Jesus Christ we should be in direct opposition to them.
This is not good. The antichrist will be muslim, how many LDS people will follow him because of us not establishing the truth about Muhammad? He didnt receive a portion of light. He was a very very very wicked man and servant of satan.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

EdGoble wrote:
TrueIntent wrote:Ummm, there is a desire for it to return....you should have seen all the hooplah one of my family members went through just so that she could have an ex-wife removed from the sealing. The new husband and she were requesting not to be sealed to the x-wife, and the church not only would not honor the request (because of a denial of blessings, which completely contradicts scripture...no one can take anyones blessings from the x-wife...she killed her own blessings by what she did during the marriage). But it required multiple letters from family members on both sides, two bishops involved. They were even told by a bishop that if they could claim it was causing emotional distress, that the higher ups are more lenient with allow the sealing to be cancelled. I had to write a letter on their behalf as well....including 4 other family members. In the process the x-wife character assasinated the new couple and they were left trying to prove all kinds of nasty slanders against them. It was a guilty until proven innocent thing. At one point, whoever was handling the situation suggested that they turn over their medical records to prove their innocence against one of the accusations made by the x-wife. It was a personal example to me, of how leadership at the top (because it wasn't the local authorities) are crossing boundaries like never before. Basically, it was a big mess.....if we don't believe in the doctrine of polygamy, and we believe in agency...then why on earth are we giving people so much crap about having an ex spouse sealing cancellation, especially when it is at the request of both of the new spouses. Its a control thing. It's a constant reminder.

Your words show a fundamental misunderstanding behind the purpose of what is going on, and it also shows that what has happened has colored your understanding and may have made you bitter towards sealing arrangements that you do not understand, and the purposes for them. Your understanding is not only shallow, but you aren't giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone, wanting to think the worst of them, and it seems that you are too quick to want to find fault in this ignorance. And your knee-jerk tendency is to place blame for this on an entirely unrelated issue, which is polygamy. You have conflated polygamy with what is really going on here, and I urge you to open your mind to a more profound truth about what is going on, and stop your fault finding.

While it is true that some people die who were sealed, and the living spouse goes on to be sealed to another, and in that type of case, it is indeed a plural marriage, but you can't conflate that with what is going in on in divorces. But even in that arrangement, the spouse who is died is not *compelled* in eternity to remain with their spouse, and can choose differently. The point is, in whatever case, sealings are preserved until death until whatever arrangements are made in eternity can me made. Nobody is compelled to remain with anyone, and the Holy Spirit of Promise is not going to put a stamp of approval on a union where there is either unrighteousness, or some other type of problem going on. And therefore, the effectiveness of sealings entirely depends on a number of factors.

Your anecdotal example, while lamentable as far as the pain it caused goes, is not evidence of a "desire for polygamy," but just to keep people sealed when they are not sealed to anyone else, so that a sealing is kept until some other arrangement can be made, so that someone doesn't die without *some type of sealing*. You have no evidence for your position at all. That has nothing to do with polygamy. It has to do only with sealings. It doesn't mean that this person will end up as a plural wife if the sealing is not cancelled. It means that a sealing was kept in place so that that person can be given to someone else in the Lord's time. It doesn't mean that this person will end up with the person they are sealed to. It is a mere *place holder* for a future arrangement. You have entirely misinterpreted the nature and purpose of this type of practice.

And besides, your "example" is actually an example of the old policy. You are apparently unaware of the recent change in policy where these kinds of things will not be happening anymore.

I'll give you another anecdote as another example. My brother in law was one of these characters that did the rope swings in Moab. Well, he had been in a divorce that was not his fault, but it was his ex wife that asked for the divorce. And the sealing was not canceled yet, and he was preparing to marry another woman in the temple. They had submitted the papers to the Bishop for the sealing cancellation. Regardless of how hard he tried, the spirit just kept giving him a stupor of thought every time he would try to make a move to submit the paperwork. So he just sat on it, because he knew something was happening that he didn't understand. Then, six or so months later my brother in law fell 100 or 200 feet to his death in a canyon in Moab, and was all over the news. Then my Father in law asked the Bishop if he had turned in that paperwork. He said no, and explained what he felt. And it is clear now why. So, my brother in law never was ever able to marry the woman he was courting, and the sealing was preserved. Yet, his ex-wife and sort-of-widow has no intent to preserve that sealing, nor should she, when she is ready to re-marry. Yet my brother in law is "safely dead" having had his sealing in place until death. Now the Lord can judge him as having that sealing still valid in the sense that he was under that covenant and can be given to another, as the D&C states.

My brother in law died with a sealing in place, but not for the sake of being sealed to his ex wife. It was for the sake of the maintaining of a sealing until his death, because he would never live to marry that woman that he was courting, yet the Lord knew the intent of his heart. Now that woman that he was courting is married and sealed to another man. Now my brother in law has the opportunity to find someone on the other side and he never had a broken sealing, and all will be made right. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Spirit was not preserving that sealing for the sake of his broken marriage to his ex wife, when she had been the one to divorce him, not the other way around. It was for the sake of there being a sealing in place as a place-holder. This is the way the Spirit worked in this case, and the intent is the same for every other sealing that has not been canceled yet. It is a place-holder, and doesn't mean anyone will end up with an ex that they have divorced.

Sorry, you are wrong. I'm sorry for your pain and the pain your family went through, but you are wrong.
Well tell the brethren it is an OLD POLICY...because that happened less than 6 months ago. Sorry about the loss of your brother-in-law, but do you actually believe that the piece of paper from the first presidency is what validates the sealing???? In order to be sealed, we must live worthy to receive that sealing. The piece of paper is comfort or discomfort.....for my family members that experienced all the drama....they believed in the piece of paper...which is why they were willing to fight for it. I personally saw the ridiculousness of the policy, but was willing to support them. For people who believe in the paperwork...they make the brethren their God instead of God their God. It's who we end up worshiping. Basically, we turn our agency over to a bunch of church policies and handbooks, and then we beg God to fix the paperwork instead of our belief in it. We really need to fix ourselves. Paperwork only has power when you give it power...I have been guilty of this. Im not criticizing you or your brother-in-law, just the culture.

Btw, Im not as shallow as you think I may be. I believe in agency. So if people want to practice plural marriage....go for it. My problem is that we used "gods name in vain" to justify a practice as a universal doctrine. People were compelled to practice it because "God commanded it." I was compelled to believe it was a true practice because I believed the church was "true." What does that really mean?? looking back through records and scriptures...culture is always mingled with scripture. Truth is lost in translation. Truth is also contained in a path, but the experience in ones life is individual. Your brother-in-law did what the spirit told him to....good for him. The spirit told me not to believe in every "doctrine" that has ever been taught, as it harms my relationship with God and my husband...I was told to believe in agency..and many are afraid to choose that because it goes against what others has taught as "god's commandments". It's not all righteous.....some of it is evil....and since many are called but few are chosen....the many called to practice polygamy were not chosen...hence the reason all the stories coming out in historical records that are unflattering.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

andsmith0723 wrote:I find this very troubling...Islam is the religion of the devil. We should not be likening ourselves to them. If we are the church of Jesus Christ we should be in direct opposition to them.
This is not good. The antichrist will be muslim, how many LDS people will follow him because of us not establishing the truth about Muhammad? He didnt receive a portion of light. He was a very very very wicked man and servant of satan.
I don't dispute that men can receive a portion of light. However, many men get a little bit of authority and it turns into pride...which is why Joseph smith taught even the devil can appear as an angel of light.

I am also perplexed at why the church is comparing the prophet Joseph Smith to Mohammed. Like I said, those quotes were taken out of context. The speeches given by pratt and orson Hyde were controversial. The church likes to cherry pick quotes from history.

For example....these are a few of Parley Pratt's quotes from his speech, the same speech ldsliving got the other information.
The Greek and Roman Churches, which have been called Christian, and which take the name of Christians as a cloak, have worshipped innumerable idols. On this account, on the simple subject of the Deity and His worship, if nothing more, I should rather incline, of the two, after all my early traditions, education, and prejudices, to the side of Mahomet, for on this point he is on the side of truth, and the Christian world on the side of idolatry and heathenism.
Now, if we take Mahometanism during those dark ages, and the corruptions that are so universally prevalent over the earth, and the idolatrous systems of religion, falsely called Christianity, and weigh them in a balance; with all my education in favor of Christian nations and Christian powers, and Christian institutions, so called, with all my prejudices of early youth, and habits of thought and reading, my rational faculties would compel me to admit that the Mahometan history and Mahometan doctrine was a standard raised against the most corrupt and abominable idolatry that ever perverted our earth, found in the creeds and worship of Christians, falsely so named.
So far as that one point is concerned, of worshipping the one true God under the name of Mahometanism, together with many moral precepts, and in war only acting on the defensive, I think they have exceeded in righteousness and truthfulness of religion, the idolatrous and corrupt church that has borne the name of Christianity.
Now let me quote a line from the LDSliving.com article....
He (mohammed) sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them.



If Latter-day Saints want an honest history written, they should first be honest about their own history themselves.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:
If instead of focusing on large birthrates to increase church size and health, maybe the focus should be to let people have the kids they are able to and focus on retention!
Retention of who, young men? Then one must focus on their needs, not the middle-aged women's needs primarily.

Retention of the young women forced to marry outside the Church and eventually falling away? How will that work if they find good husbands who are great fathers but have no desire to consider our religion?
I have no idea where your view or ideas spin from. I made a very incredibly simple statement about not neglecting the core members of the church (active, worthy) members. They are the ones who everyone leans on to do all the work of the church. If you take them for granted or forget about them simply because you assume they go to church so they are fine, they will struggle.

Most members are forgotten that are active and do their callings and everything else they can to serve. The focus is nearly always on getting more numbers or always looking outside to serve more etc. What happens when the active family faces a trial or set back? They don't feel they can reach for help and often times don't get visited or talked to because they are perceived as good and fine.

It's a quiet suffering that I think opens the door to some resentment and negative feelings.

I'm not talking about retaining young men or serving the needs of only one group of people. I'm talking about not forgetting that members sometimes need to be uplifted and focused on too to stay strong and connected, instead of always doing everything for non-members.

Makes sense right?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

I have no idea where your view or ideas spin from. I made a very incredibly simple statement about not neglecting the core members of the church (active, worthy) members. They are the ones who everyone leans on to do all the work of the church. If you take them for granted or forget about them simply because you assume they go to church so they are fine, they will struggle.
I never said we should neglect anyone, but if I am driving down the freeway, and my heat gauge is going into red, then it matters not that my gas tank is full and I just topped out the oil, something is wrong with my radiator and if I do not stop and find out what the car will cease to run at all.

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

TrueIntent wrote: Well tell the brethren it is an OLD POLICY...because that happened less than 6 months ago. Sorry about the loss of your brother-in-law, but do you actually believe that the piece of paper from the first presidency is what validates the sealing???? In order to be sealed, we must live worthy to receive that sealing. The piece of paper is comfort or discomfort.....for my family members that experienced all the drama....they believed in the piece of paper...which is why they were willing to fight for it. I personally saw the ridiculousness of the policy, but was willing to support them. For people who believe in the paperwork...they make the brethren their God instead of God their God. It's who we end up worshiping. Basically, we turn our agency over to a bunch of church policies and handbooks, and then we beg God to fix the paperwork instead of our belief in it. We really need to fix ourselves. Paperwork only has power when you give it power...I have been guilty of this. Im not criticizing you or your brother-in-law, just the culture.

Btw, Im not as shallow as you think I may be. I believe in agency. So if people want to practice plural marriage....go for it. My problem is that we used "gods name in vain" to justify a practice as a universal doctrine. People were compelled to practice it because "God commanded it." I was compelled to believe it was a true practice because I believed the church was "true." What does that really mean?? looking back through records and scriptures...culture is always mingled with scripture. Truth is lost in translation. Truth is also contained in a path, but the experience in ones life is individual. Your brother-in-law did what the spirit told him to....good for him. The spirit told me not to believe in every "doctrine" that has ever been taught, as it harms my relationship with God and my husband...I was told to believe in agency..and many are afraid to choose that because it goes against what others has taught as "god's commandments". It's not all righteous.....some of it is evil....and since many are called but few are chosen....the many called to practice polygamy were not chosen...hence the reason all the stories coming out in historical records that are unflattering.
I see. I'm serious that it is very recent, even more recent than six months ago, so I understand. So, you believe in agency for people to live polygamy in eternity who choose it. So in that way you seem libertarian. Yet, you find fault with the brethren for a policy that in your eyes enables the possibility of plural marriage, a possibility that you say people ought to be able to participate in, if they choose. Yet your whole thread is about the evil secret desire of the brethren in trying to enable that possibility. And then you find fault with them for enabling that possibility. You don't see that as logically contradictory? I do.

Then you go off on them here saying that we make them our Gods. I don't. I know better than that, but I also know who holds the keys, and I know that any blessing I can hope to have at all that God himself is approving of, either here, or in eternity, is tied to those keys, and dependent on my reverence to those keys, not my worship of those keys or of those who hold them. And I'm not even talking about plural marriage necessarily, but just basic blessings in eternity.

You pass these things off as mere pieces of paper, and you find fault with the use of the keys of the priesthood on this side of the veil, but I urge you to hold your tongue and reconsider. That which is done on earth is bound in heaven. When it is something that is done in righteousness, and there are no problems or complications with it, then the Holy Spirit of Promise honors those pronouncements done by keys of the priesthood. You are way too caught up in mortal problems with these arrangements that exist to not see the bigger picture here, and your fault finding is the wrong spirit.

Then you say that a doctrine of plural marriage that enables agency for people to choose to live as they please is something you don't want to believe in because it harms your relationship with God and your husband, and you call it evil. Ok. Uh, sorry.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a principle that is good by enabling agency, and evil by the fact that you believe its damaging. That makes no sense. That is contradictory. You believe in agency, but you don't believe in plural marriage because you personally see it as damaging, yet you acknowledge that it enables agency, and you want to stick it to the brethren by making an accusation of a hidden agenda. You can't have it both ways.

Rather, I submit to you that the existence of the possibility of plural marriage for those who choose it is not damaging to you, because you won't be forced into it, because agency is the very thing that keeps you from being forced into it. So I suggest that you leave plural marriage alone for those that will choose it, and live your own life, and leave the brethren out of it, who are just there to administer the ordinances and lead, and have no ulterior motives, and who just have an interest in the well-being and eternal happiness of everyone, including those who may eventually choose plural marriage in eternity. It is only those people who have to worry about that principle. Not you, since agency will guard you from being threatened by it.

I submit to you that all problems with polygamy are mortal problems. I submit to you that all will be made right in the end, as far as those problems go. So if I were you, I would trust that an eternal principle (that is IF plural marriage is an eternal principle), brings nothing but happiness to those who choose it in eternity, because if it is in the celestial glory its practice is a perfect practice, and nothing that would exist there would bring unhappiness to those who have chosen it. If the prospect to you of the idea that you are going to be forced into it is threatening, I think you are thinking too much about mortal problems with its practice, and you aren't focusing on what it will be in eternity for those who choose it. And I also think you need to remember that nobody can force you into it in particular.

I also do not believe every doctrine that there ever was, but I know better than to speak evil of the Lord's anointed.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

EdGoble wrote:
TrueIntent wrote: Well tell the brethren it is an OLD POLICY...because that happened less than 6 months ago. Sorry about the loss of your brother-in-law, but do you actually believe that the piece of paper from the first presidency is what validates the sealing???? In order to be sealed, we must live worthy to receive that sealing. The piece of paper is comfort or discomfort.....for my family members that experienced all the drama....they believed in the piece of paper...which is why they were willing to fight for it. I personally saw the ridiculousness of the policy, but was willing to support them. For people who believe in the paperwork...they make the brethren their God instead of God their God. It's who we end up worshiping. Basically, we turn our agency over to a bunch of church policies and handbooks, and then we beg God to fix the paperwork instead of our belief in it. We really need to fix ourselves. Paperwork only has power when you give it power...I have been guilty of this. Im not criticizing you or your brother-in-law, just the culture.

Btw, Im not as shallow as you think I may be. I believe in agency. So if people want to practice plural marriage....go for it. My problem is that we used "gods name in vain" to justify a practice as a universal doctrine. People were compelled to practice it because "God commanded it." I was compelled to believe it was a true practice because I believed the church was "true." What does that really mean?? looking back through records and scriptures...culture is always mingled with scripture. Truth is lost in translation. Truth is also contained in a path, but the experience in ones life is individual. Your brother-in-law did what the spirit told him to....good for him. The spirit told me not to believe in every "doctrine" that has ever been taught, as it harms my relationship with God and my husband...I was told to believe in agency..and many are afraid to choose that because it goes against what others has taught as "god's commandments". It's not all righteous.....some of it is evil....and since many are called but few are chosen....the many called to practice polygamy were not chosen...hence the reason all the stories coming out in historical records that are unflattering.
I see. I'm serious that it is very recent, even more recent than six months ago, so I understand. So, you believe in agency for people to live polygamy in eternity who choose it. So in that way you seem libertarian. Yet, you find fault with the brethren for a policy that in your eyes enables the possibility of plural marriage, a possibility that you say people ought to be able to participate in, if they choose. Yet your whole thread is about the evil secret desire of the brethren in trying to enable that possibility. And then you find fault with them for enabling that possibility. You don't see that as logically contradictory? I do.

Then you go off on them here saying that we make them our Gods. I don't. I know better than that, but I also know who holds the keys, and I know that any blessing I can hope to have at all that God himself is approving of, either here, or in eternity, is tied to those keys, and dependent on my reverence to those keys, not my worship of those keys or of those who hold them. And I'm not even talking about plural marriage necessarily, but just basic blessings in eternity.

You pass these things off as mere pieces of paper, and you find fault with the use of the keys of the priesthood on this side of the veil, but I urge you to hold your tongue and reconsider. That which is done on earth is bound in heaven. When it is something that is done in righteousness, and there are no problems or complications with it, then the Holy Spirit of Promise honors those pronouncements done by keys of the priesthood. You are way too caught up in mortal problems with these arrangements that exist to not see the bigger picture here, and your fault finding is the wrong spirit.

Then you say that a doctrine of plural marriage that enables agency for people to choose to live as they please is something you don't want to believe in because it harms your relationship with God and your husband, and you call it evil. Ok. Uh, sorry.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a principle that is good by enabling agency, and evil by the fact that you believe its damaging. That makes no sense. That is contradictory. You believe in agency, but you don't believe in plural marriage because you personally see it as damaging, yet you acknowledge that it enables agency, and you want to stick it to the brethren by making an accusation of a hidden agenda. You can't have it both ways.

Rather, I submit to you that the existence of the possibility of plural marriage for those who choose it is not damaging to you, because you won't be forced into it, because agency is the very thing that keeps you from being forced into it. So I suggest that you leave plural marriage alone for those that will choose it, and live your own life, and leave the brethren out of it, who are just there to administer the ordinances and lead, and have no ulterior motives, and who just have an interest in the well-being and eternal happiness of everyone, including those who may eventually choose plural marriage in eternity. It is only those people who have to worry about that principle. Not you, since agency will guard you from being threatened by it.

I submit to you that all problems with polygamy are mortal problems. I submit to you that all will be made right in the end, as far as those problems go. So if I were you, I would trust that an eternal principle (that is IF plural marriage is an eternal principle), brings nothing but happiness to those who choose it in eternity, because if it is in the celestial glory its practice is a perfect practice, and nothing that would exist there would bring unhappiness to those who have chosen it. If the prospect to you of the idea that you are going to be forced into it is threatening, I think you are thinking too much about mortal problems with its practice, and you aren't focusing on what it will be in eternity for those who choose it. And I also think you need to remember that nobody can force you into it in particular.

I also do not believe every doctrine that there ever was, but I know better than to speak evil of the Lord's anointed.
Ed Goble...my dear ed Goble...

I just had cake...and I ate it. The reason you find my reasoning as contradictory...is because you view all people as the same as you. Believe it or not, people and individuals have completely different desires and intentions from one another. Which is why one man can practice polygamy with willing women, and another can do it under the guise of lust, and claim it's religious. Thats what the true definition of "taking the name of the Lord thy God in Vain means"....its one of the most wicked sins....to do things in the name of God for our own lusts. The vast majority of people are carnal...this is why we need God...but because we are carnal...the vast majority will justify their vain sins in his name. Especially a teaching around polygamy....and if Im being honest...the same goes for marriage.

Do you claim that the ordinances teach plural marriage????? Specifically what part of the ordinance? I find it no where. I find policy about men being sealed to more than one women....but no where in the wording of any ordinance OR in ordinances found in the scripture to I find the teaching of plural marriage.

By the way, are you sure you can identify who the Lord's anointed are??

If these are mortal problems....then lets blanket statement that claim to everything else. Eat, drink, and be merry.....whats the point of this life and trying to figure it out...if we can't learn it here, and it must be learned on the other side. Slippery slope in your belief system. There is not point in trying hard....ill just understand when I die.

And yes....women were forced into this practice. They were lied to. It is true that missionaries went over to Europe, married women, brought them home to Utah, and then introduced them to their other wives...They had no idea they married a polygamist. I have that story in my own family history...Also, fanny Steinhouse, she lived in the united states...was told they were not practicing polygamy, and then when she got to Utah....they easily converted her husband to the practice. She and the women had no place to go. Ed Goble....you don't know your history. You should study outside of your "polygamy is awesome" box. Im not saying it was always bad....but there was plenty of bad....But women were culturally considered property then. I understand why it happened. Its reflective of an entire culture of beliefs that many people felt about women. The thing is....we are no longer property...laws have changed...and yet the church still carries this as a religious idea. It is reflective of the men who uphold it. Supposedly we are equal with our husbands....but we still allow sealing to multiple women...Who is having cake and eating it too.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

It is true that missionaries went over to Europe, married women, brought them home to Utah, and then introduced them to their other wives...They had no idea they married a polygamist.
I will note that many members believe a man had to be called to be a polygamist. Never found any evidence of that and your statement pretty much shows that if a guy was married and met a woman he liked, he did not need any higher Church leader to bless the union any more than acknowledge his entry into polygamy.


However, most marriages were not coercion and any belief that women were seen merely as property in the 1800s sound like third-wave feminist propaganda to me. I have studied that era and women were not seen as property in the USA and Britain. Of course female sexuality was discounted and ignored, which explains why some polygamist families contained sister-wives who were a bit more than co-wives, if you know what I mean, and nobody made a big deal of it.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

Fiannan wrote:
It is true that missionaries went over to Europe, married women, brought them home to Utah, and then introduced them to their other wives...They had no idea they married a polygamist.
I will note that many members believe a man had to be called to be a polygamist. Never found any evidence of that and your statement pretty much shows that if a guy was married and met a woman he liked, he did not need any higher Church leader to bless the union any more than acknowledge his entry into polygamy.


However, most marriages were not coercion and any belief that women were seen merely as property in the 1800s sound like third-wave feminist propaganda to me. I have studied that era and women were not seen as property in the USA and Britain. Of course female sexuality was discounted and ignored, which explains why some polygamist families contained sister-wives who were a bit more than co-wives, if you know what I mean, and nobody made a big deal of it.
Do you seriously believe that is okay in the Lord's eyes, the whole sister-wives intimacy thing?

capctr
captain of 100
Posts: 424

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by capctr »

I consider polygamy very much a non-issue, for me personally. Why? Because, as the cliche Mormon men use, when trying to sound convincingly appalled at the notion:"It would take God, Himself calling upon me to live that law, before I'd even consider it"...I call bs on most guys that say that, including myself. Besides, I'm not righteous enough.
I've struggled with trying (and often failing) to be a good husband for one woman-but two or more? Fuggeddaboutit!
But I DO love the idea of MORE babies, and dread the time that my one year old is not so little anymore.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Sarah wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
It is true that missionaries went over to Europe, married women, brought them home to Utah, and then introduced them to their other wives...They had no idea they married a polygamist.
I will note that many members believe a man had to be called to be a polygamist. Never found any evidence of that and your statement pretty much shows that if a guy was married and met a woman he liked, he did not need any higher Church leader to bless the union any more than acknowledge his entry into polygamy.


However, most marriages were not coercion and any belief that women were seen merely as property in the 1800s sound like third-wave feminist propaganda to me. I have studied that era and women were not seen as property in the USA and Britain. Of course female sexuality was discounted and ignored, which explains why some polygamist families contained sister-wives who were a bit more than co-wives, if you know what I mean, and nobody made a big deal of it.
Do you seriously believe that is okay in the Lord's eyes, the whole sister-wives intimacy thing?
I remember listening to a rabbi say that as long as lesbian Jewish women bore children they were at least fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. I thought that a bit shocking at the time but then I read the Old Testament. Men were subject to the death penalty if they had sex with a man, a man and a woman were subject to the death penalty if they had relations with an animal, and as for women who had relations with another woman...nothing. I wanted to make sense of that. It could not be because of not wanting to mention such a thing, or dismissing female sexuality, as bestiality or sex with a man they were not married to carried a death sentence. Then, in research, I found that the incredible priority placed on reproduction. They also practiced polygamy. So if a man were married to six women, and two of them happened to be a bit more into each other than to their husband, there was no reason to believe that they would not be having as many babies as the other wives were. In fact, bisexuality at least could be a positive factor in reproduction as a woman might insist that her husband take additional wives. Whatever the point the only condemnation of lesbianism in practice is found in the New Testament in Romans and that is when it is associated with not having babies. So are same-sex relationships in a polygamist setting a sin if the women are bearing children and following the commandments of God in all other respects? I cannot say for sure. I do know if polygamy were to come back, and it will, the way younger women see sexuality today you would have a lot more of this taking place than it did in the 1800s.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

capctr wrote:I consider polygamy very much a non-issue, for me personally. Why? Because, as the cliche Mormon men use, when trying to sound convincingly appalled at the notion:"It would take God, Himself calling upon me to live that law, before I'd even consider it"...I call bs on most guys that say that, including myself. Besides, I'm not righteous enough.
I've struggled with trying (and often failing) to be a good husband for one woman-but two or more? Fuggeddaboutit!
But I DO love the idea of MORE babies, and dread the time that my one year old is not so little anymore.
One wonders how many men, once their wife, who they may really love, also miss the idea of new babies once the wife hits 40-ish. I have seen a lot of men in the Church leave their wives for younger women and start new families. None would admit, or probably even recognize, that the desire to father more children was the reason for the initial breakup. However, polygamy would solve that. In ancient China, at least among the more affluent, it was considered the duty of a wife, once she was too old to have kids, to help the husband find a younger second wife. I remember visiting an estate in central China that had been converted to a museum. There was the main house and two smaller houses next to it, one for each of the man's wives. In this respect the first wife's children get valuable training as they would have exposure to younger siblings from their father's other wife, and the first wife could assist the second wife with her superior experience. Seems way better than today where families are fractured by divorce and cheating due to monogamy.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:
Sarah wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
It is true that missionaries went over to Europe, married women, brought them home to Utah, and then introduced them to their other wives...They had no idea they married a polygamist.
I will note that many members believe a man had to be called to be a polygamist. Never found any evidence of that and your statement pretty much shows that if a guy was married and met a woman he liked, he did not need any higher Church leader to bless the union any more than acknowledge his entry into polygamy.


However, most marriages were not coercion and any belief that women were seen merely as property in the 1800s sound like third-wave feminist propaganda to me. I have studied that era and women were not seen as property in the USA and Britain. Of course female sexuality was discounted and ignored, which explains why some polygamist families contained sister-wives who were a bit more than co-wives, if you know what I mean, and nobody made a big deal of it.
Do you seriously believe that is okay in the Lord's eyes, the whole sister-wives intimacy thing?
I remember listening to a rabbi say that as long as lesbian Jewish women bore children they were at least fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. I thought that a bit shocking at the time but then I read the Old Testament. Men were subject to the death penalty if they had sex with a man, a man and a woman were subject to the death penalty if they had relations with an animal, and as for women who had relations with another woman...nothing. I wanted to make sense of that. It could not be because of not wanting to mention such a thing, or dismissing female sexuality, as bestiality or sex with a man they were not married to carried a death sentence. Then, in research, I found that the incredible priority placed on reproduction. They also practiced polygamy. So if a man were married to six women, and two of them happened to be a bit more into each other than to their husband, there was no reason to believe that they would not be having as many babies as the other wives were. In fact, bisexuality at least could be a positive factor in reproduction as a woman might insist that her husband take additional wives. Whatever the point the only condemnation of lesbianism in practice is found in the New Testament in Romans and that is when it is associated with not having babies. So are same-sex relationships in a polygamist setting a sin if the women are bearing children and following the commandments of God in all other respects? I cannot say for sure. I do know if polygamy were to come back, and it will, the way younger women see sexuality today you would have a lot more of this taking place than it did in the 1800s.
You mentioned that the only sin mentioned about two women together was that there were no babies...isint that the exact same as two men together, no babies?

I say the law applies to both genders. No same sex relations, it's against the laws of God. God is not okay with sexual exploration, it's meant to produce children and when that is not going to happen or can't happen, it's not ordained of God.

I highly doubt polygamy will come back to any degree that it was in the early church. That will never work.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:
capctr wrote:I consider polygamy very much a non-issue, for me personally. Why? Because, as the cliche Mormon men use, when trying to sound convincingly appalled at the notion:"It would take God, Himself calling upon me to live that law, before I'd even consider it"...I call bs on most guys that say that, including myself. Besides, I'm not righteous enough.
I've struggled with trying (and often failing) to be a good husband for one woman-but two or more? Fuggeddaboutit!
But I DO love the idea of MORE babies, and dread the time that my one year old is not so little anymore.
One wonders how many men, once their wife, who they may really love, also miss the idea of new babies once the wife hits 40-ish. I have seen a lot of men in the Church leave their wives for younger women and start new families. None would admit, or probably even recognize, that the desire to father more children was the reason for the initial breakup. However, polygamy would solve that. In ancient China, at least among the more affluent, it was considered the duty of a wife, once she was too old to have kids, to help the husband find a younger second wife. I remember visiting an estate in central China that had been converted to a museum. There was the main house and two smaller houses next to it, one for each of the man's wives. In this respect the first wife's children get valuable training as they would have exposure to younger siblings from their father's other wife, and the first wife could assist the second wife with her superior experience. Seems way better than today where families are fractured by divorce and cheating due to monogamy.
Monogamy doesn't produce cheating, the fallen man produces cheating. A man has no needs unfulfilled with one wife. He is complete. If he has a need outside of what one wife can meet, he is selfish and what he thinks are needs are more like wants.

And.cAnd.china isint a great example...they killed millions of babies because of the one child policy and now they have a country full of men without wives. China is no example.

Why do men assume that a young woman these days will want a 50 year old + husband? If he married a younger woman and then another younger woman then when he dies of old age or can no longer support his family, who does? The women? Or does another man step in and inherit the 2 middle aged wife's and the old woman?

When you only think of having children, your views are absolutely correct and make sense. But there are factors you must consider beyond reproduction. Reproduction is only one aspect of what makes a family unit and a sucessful society.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

You mentioned that the only sin mentioned about two women together was that there were no babies...isint that the exact same as two men together, no babies?
I thought so too but then in the Bible if two men were caught together it was a death penalty. Not even mentioned for women. Why?
I say the law applies to both genders. No same sex relations, it's against the laws of God. God is not okay with sexual exploration, it's meant to produce children and when that is not going to happen or can't happen, it's not ordained of God.
That is right. Marriage is first for making babies. Secondary benefits are important, but reproduction is most vital.
I highly doubt polygamy will come back to any degree that it was in the early church. That will never work.
Then the Church will have to become way more accepting of artificial insemination for single LDS women.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Monogamy doesn't produce cheating, the fallen man produces cheating. A man has no needs unfulfilled with one wife. He is complete. If he has a need outside of what one wife can meet, he is selfish and what he thinks are needs are more like wants.
Today's monogamy does. I have heard experts note that the morality of LDS young women has had to be modified in light of the shortage of available men. The men of course learn this and begin to expect it. So Clinton sex is pretty much okay in student populations. Sex and marriage is akin to economics. High supply and low demand...
And.cAnd.china isint a great example...they killed millions of babies because of the one child policy and now they have a country full of men without wives. China is no example.
I was speaking of China hundreds of years ago.
Why do men assume that a young woman these days will want a 50 year old + husband? If he married a younger woman and then another younger woman then when he dies of old age or can no longer support his family, who does? The women? Or does another man step in and inherit the 2 middle aged wife's and the old woman?
And yet plenty of 20-somethings admit to dating, at some point, guys who were in their late 40s or 50s. And polygamy would favor the men who display superior health and intelligence. So it would have eugenic value. Think women in their 20s or 30s want a short, chubby guy? Not unless he is rich, and then what you bring up is not a factor. If he is healthy he will likely look it and live an active life until at least his 80s.
When you only think of having children, your views are absolutely correct and make sense. But there are factors you must consider beyond reproduction. Reproduction is only one aspect of what makes a family unit and a sucessful society.
Actually reproduction is the reason we marry. This provides a safe and enriching life for the offspring. Otherwise we could just live together with all the benefits like a lot of senior couples do.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by JohnnyL »

Fiannan wrote:
Sarah wrote:Do you seriously believe that is okay in the Lord's eyes, the whole sister-wives intimacy thing?
I remember listening to a rabbi say that as long as lesbian Jewish women bore children they were at least fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. I thought that a bit shocking at the time but then I read the Old Testament. Men were subject to the death penalty if they had sex with a man, a man and a woman were subject to the death penalty if they had relations with an animal, and as for women who had relations with another woman...nothing. I wanted to make sense of that. It could not be because of not wanting to mention such a thing, or dismissing female sexuality, as bestiality or sex with a man they were not married to carried a death sentence. Then, in research, I found that the incredible priority placed on reproduction. They also practiced polygamy. So if a man were married to six women, and two of them happened to be a bit more into each other than to their husband, there was no reason to believe that they would not be having as many babies as the other wives were. In fact, bisexuality at least could be a positive factor in reproduction as a woman might insist that her husband take additional wives. Whatever the point the only condemnation of lesbianism in practice is found in the New Testament in Romans and that is when it is associated with not having babies. So are same-sex relationships in a polygamist setting a sin if the women are bearing children and following the commandments of God in all other respects? I cannot say for sure. I do know if polygamy were to come back, and it will, the way younger women see sexuality today you would have a lot more of this taking place than it did in the 1800s.
Of course it's not ok. Lesbianism is the same standard as homosexuality.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by JohnnyL »

Melissa wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
capctr wrote:I consider polygamy very much a non-issue, for me personally. Why? Because, as the cliche Mormon men use, when trying to sound convincingly appalled at the notion:"It would take God, Himself calling upon me to live that law, before I'd even consider it"...I call bs on most guys that say that, including myself. Besides, I'm not righteous enough.
I've struggled with trying (and often failing) to be a good husband for one woman-but two or more? Fuggeddaboutit!
But I DO love the idea of MORE babies, and dread the time that my one year old is not so little anymore.
One wonders how many men, once their wife, who they may really love, also miss the idea of new babies once the wife hits 40-ish. I have seen a lot of men in the Church leave their wives for younger women and start new families. None would admit, or probably even recognize, that the desire to father more children was the reason for the initial breakup. However, polygamy would solve that. In ancient China, at least among the more affluent, it was considered the duty of a wife, once she was too old to have kids, to help the husband find a younger second wife. I remember visiting an estate in central China that had been converted to a museum. There was the main house and two smaller houses next to it, one for each of the man's wives. In this respect the first wife's children get valuable training as they would have exposure to younger siblings from their father's other wife, and the first wife could assist the second wife with her superior experience. Seems way better than today where families are fractured by divorce and cheating due to monogamy.
Monogamy doesn't produce cheating, the fallen man produces cheating. I'd say, often it's the fallen woman.

A man has no needs unfulfilled with one wife. You are correct--if they are in La La Land.

He is complete. If he has a need outside of what one wife can meet, he is selfish and what he thinks are needs are more like wants. Or, she is selfish.

And.cAnd.china isint a great example...they killed millions of babies because of the one child policy and now they have a country full of men without wives. China is no example. Example of what? I don't think this has anything to do with the post...

Why do men assume that a young woman these days will want a 50 year old + husband? Because so many make that choice already?

If he married a younger woman and then another younger woman then when he dies of old age or can no longer support his family, who does? The women? Or does another man step in and inherit the 2 middle aged wife's and the old woman? That's up to them, I'd say, and something to consider when making a decision.

When you only think of having children, your views are absolutely correct and make sense. But there are factors you must consider beyond reproduction. Reproduction is only one aspect of what makes a family unit and a sucessful society. I totally agree here!

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by JohnnyL »

Fiannan wrote:
I say the law applies to both genders. No same sex relations, it's against the laws of God. God is not okay with sexual exploration, it's meant to produce children and when that is not going to happen or can't happen, it's not ordained of God.
That is right. Marriage is first for making babies. Secondary benefits are important, but reproduction is most vital.
Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman first, not for making babies.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman first, not for making babies.
“The Church has always advised against birth control and that is the only position the Church can take in view of our beliefs with respect to the eternity of the marriage covenant and the purpose of this divine relationship.”
Apostle Hugh B. Brown

Companionship is important but reproduction is the primary function of marriage.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by JohnnyL »

Fiannan wrote:
Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman first, not for making babies.
“The Church has always advised against birth control and that is the only position the Church can take in view of our beliefs with respect to the eternity of the marriage covenant and the purpose of this divine relationship.”
Apostle Hugh B. Brown

Companionship is important but reproduction is the primary function of marriage.
“Marriage is the foundry for social order, the fountain of virtue, and the foundation for eternal exaltation. Marriage has been divinely designated as an eternal and everlasting covenant. Marriage is sanctified when it is cherished and honored in holiness. That union is not merely between husband and wife; it embraces a partnership with God.”
—President Russell M. Nelson
“Nurturing Marriage,” Ensign, May 2006, 36

///

Chapter 12: The Divine Purpose of Marriage

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, (2000), 109–18
What can we do to strengthen eternal marriages and prepare young people to marry in the temple?
Introduction

President Harold B. Lee taught the great importance of marrying in the temple and of husbands and wives working together throughout their lives to strengthen their marriage:

“Marriage is a partnership. Someone has observed that in the Bible account of the creation woman was not formed from a part of man’s head, suggesting that she might rule over him, nor from a part of a man’s foot that she was to be trampled under his feet. Woman was taken from man’s side as though to emphasize the fact that she was always to be by his side as a partner and companion. At the marriage altar you are pledged to each other from that day to pull the load together in double harness. The Apostle Paul with reference to marriage counseled: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked.’ (2 Corinthians 6:14.) While his counsel has to do more particularly with matters that pertain to an equality of religious interests and spiritual desires, yet the figure his statement suggests should not be overlooked. Like a yoke of oxen pulling a load along the highway, if one falters, becomes lazy and indolent or mean and stubborn, the load is wrecked and destruction follows. For similar reasons, some marriages fail when either or both who are parties thereto fail in carrying their responsibilities with each other. …

“But even more important than that you be ‘yoked equally’ in physical matters, is that you be yoked equally in spiritual matters. … Certain it is that any home and family established with the object of building them even into eternity and where children are welcomed as ‘a heritage from the Lord’ [see Psalm 127:3] have a much greater chance of survival because of the sacredness that thus attaches to the home and the family.”1
Teachings of Harold B. Lee
Why is eternal marriage essential for our exaltation?

Let us consider the first marriage that was performed after the earth was organized. Adam, the first man, had been created as well as the beasts and fowls and every living thing upon the earth. We then find this recorded: “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” After the Lord had formed Eve, he “brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:18, 22–24.) … With the completion of that marriage the Lord commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28.)

Here was a marriage performed by the Lord between two immortal beings, for until sin entered the world their bodies were not subject to death. He made them one, not merely for time, nor for any definite period; they were to be one throughout the eternal ages. … Death to them was not a divorce; it was only a temporary separation. Resurrection to immortality meant for them a reunion and an eternal bond never again to be severed. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22.)

If you have carefully followed an explanation of this first marriage, you are prepared to understand the revelation given to the Church in our generation in these words:

“If a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood … , it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads.” (Doc. and Cov. D&C 132:19.) …

Marriage for time and for eternity is the strait gate and the narrow way (spoken of in the scriptures) “that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it,” but “broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat.” (Doc. and Cov. D&C 132:22, 25.) If Satan and his hosts can persuade you to take the broad highway of worldly marriage that ends with death, he has defeated you in your opportunity for the highest degree of eternal happiness through marriage and increase throughout eternity. It should now be clear to your reasoning why the Lord declared that in order to obtain the highest degree in the Celestial glory, a person must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. If he does not, he cannot obtain it. (Doc. and Cov. D&C 131:1–3.)2

Those who make themselves worthy and enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in the temple for time and all eternity will be laying the first cornerstone for an eternal family home in the celestial kingdom that will last forever. Their reward is to have “glory added upon their heads forever and forever” (see Abraham 3:26).3
What can husbands and wives do to strengthen their temple marriage throughout their lives?

If [young people] would resolve from the moment of their marriage, that from that time forth they would resolve and do everything in their power to please each other in things that are right, even to the sacrifice of their own pleasures, their own appetites, their own desires, the problem of adjustment in married life would take care of itself, and their home would indeed be a happy home. Great love is built on great sacrifice, and that home where the principle of sacrifice for the welfare of each other is daily expressed is that home where there abides a great love.4

There lie yet ahead greater joys and, yes, greater anxieties than you have yet known, for remember that great love is built on great sacrifice and that a daily determination in each other to please in things that are right will build a sure foundation for a happy home. That determination for the welfare of each other must be mutual and not one-sided or selfish. Husband and wife must feel equal responsibilities and obligations to teach each other. Two of the things that today strike at the security of modern homes is that young husbands have never sensed their full obligation in supporting a family, and young wives have sidestepped the responsibility of settling down to the serious business of raising a family and of making a home.5

Marriage is fraught with the highest bliss and yet attended by the weightiest responsibilities that can devolve upon man and woman here in mortality. The divine impulse within every true man and woman that impels companionship with the opposite sex is intended by our Maker as a holy impulse for a holy purpose—not to be satisfied as a mere biological urge or as a lust of the flesh in promiscuous associations, but to be reserved as an expression of true love in holy wedlock.6

I have said many times to young couples at the marriage altar: Never let the tender intimacies of your married life become unrestrained. Let your thoughts be as radiant as the sunshine. Let your words be wholesome and your association together be inspiring and uplifting, if you would keep alive the spirit of romance throughout your marriage together.7

Sometimes, as we travel throughout the Church, a husband and wife will come to us and ask if, because they are not compatible in their marriage—they having had a temple marriage—it wouldn’t be better if they were to free themselves from each other and then seek more congenial partners. To all such we say, whenever a couple who have been married in the temple say they are tiring of each other, it is an evidence that either one or both are not true to their temple covenants. Any couple married in the temple who are true to their covenants will grow dearer to each other, and love will find a deeper meaning on their golden wedding anniversary than on the day they were married in the house of the Lord. Don’t you mistake that.8

Those who go to the marriage altar with love in their hearts, we might say to them in truth, if they will be true to the covenants that they take in the temple, fifty years after their marriage they can say to each other: “We must have not known what true love was when we were married, because we think so much more of each other today!” And so it will be if they will follow the counsel of their leaders and obey the holy, sacred instructions given in the temple ceremony; they will grow more perfectly in love even to a fulness of love in the presence of the Lord Himself.9

Faults and failings and the superficiality of mere physical attractions are as nothing compared with the genuineness of good character that endures and grows more beautiful with the years. You, too, may live in the enchantment of your happy homes long after the bloom of youth has faded if you but seek to find the pure diamond quality in each other that needs but the polishing of success and failure, adversity and happiness to bring luster and sparkle that will shine with brilliance even through the darkest night.10
What counsel is given to those who do not now have an eternal marriage?

Some of you do not now have a companion in your home. Some of you have lost your wife or husband or you may not yet have found a companion. In your ranks are some of the noblest members of the Church—faithful, valiant, striving to live the Lord’s commandments, to help build the kingdom on earth, and to serve your fellow men.

Life holds so much for you. Take strength in meeting your challenges. There are so many ways to find fulfillment, in serving those who are dear to you, in doing well the tasks that are before you in your employment or in the home. The Church offers so much opportunity for you to help souls, beginning with your own, to find the joy of eternal life.

Do not let self pity or despair beckon you from the course you know is right. Turn your thoughts to helping others. To you the words of the Master have special meaning: “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matthew 10:39.)11

The Lord judges us not alone by our actions but by the intent of our hearts. … Thus, [women] who have been denied the blessings of wifehood or motherhood in this life—who say in their heart, if I could have done, I would have done, or I would give if I had, but I cannot for I have not—the Lord will bless you as though you had done, and the world to come will compensate for those who desire in their hearts the righteous blessings that they were not able to have because of no fault of their own.12

You wives who are longing to have your husbands active in the Church, wishing that they were here today instead of the bitterness that’s in their hearts, wondering what can be done that one day … you can have them with you in the temple of our God. And you husbands who wish that you had your wives with you. We’re saying to you that if you’ll be faithful to your trust, you’ll love your husbands and love your wives, and you’ll offer a constant prayer night and morning, day and night, there will come a power into you members of the Church by the power of the Holy Ghost, which you who have been baptized and are faithful have a right to enjoy. That power so wielded may bring to you the ability to break down opposition in your companions and lead them closer to the faith.13

Some of you may decide to marry out of the Church with the secret hope of converting your companion to your religious views. Your chances for happiness in your married life are far greater if you make that conversion before marriage.14
What can we do to help young people understand the blessings of temple marriage and prepare for it?

The effectiveness of the Latter-day Saint home rests, of course, on the manner of marriage contracted for that home. A marriage for just the here and now will, naturally, be concerned primarily with this world. A marriage for eternity will have an entirely different perspective and foundation. …

… Of course, we realize that simply going to the temple without proper preparation in every way does not bring the blessings we seek. Eternal marriage rests on a maturity and commitment that—with the endowment and ordinances—can open the gates of heaven for many blessings to flow to us.

… Temple marriage is more than just a place where the ceremony occurs; it is a whole orientation to life and marriage and home. It is a culmination of building attitudes toward the Church, chastity, and our personal relationship with God—and many other things. Thus, simply preaching temple marriage is not enough. Our family home evenings, seminaries, institutes and auxiliaries must build toward this goal—not by exhortation alone—but by showing that the beliefs and attitudes involved in temple marriage are those which can bring the kind of life here and in eternity that most humans really want for themselves. Properly done, we can show the difference between the “holy and the profane” [see Ezekiel 44:23] so that the powerful natural instincts of motherhood are decisive in the young woman who wavers between those holy instincts and the path of pleasure seeking. With real judgment and combined curricular effort, we can show the young man that the way of the world—however much it gets glamorized and regardless of how clever its Casanovas appear—is the way of sadness; it is the way which will finally frustrate those deep inner yearnings he has for hearth and home and the joys of fatherhood.15

While all the problems of life are not solved by a temple marriage, yet, certainly, for all who enter worthily, it becomes a haven of safety and an anchor to that soul when the storms of life beat fiercely. …

Mine has been the rich experience, for nearly twenty years, of being entertained each week end in some of the most successful homes of the Church, and, by contrast, almost weekly I am permitted a glimpse into some of the unhappy homes. From these experiences I have reached in my own mind some definite conclusions: First, our happiest homes are those where parents have been married in the temple. Second, a temple marriage is most successful if husband and wife entered into the sacred ordinances of the temple clean and pure in body, mind, and heart. Third, a temple marriage is most sacred when each in the partnership has been wisely schooled in the purpose of the holy endowment and the obligations thereafter of husband and wife in compliance with instructions received in the temple. Fourth, parents who themselves have lightly regarded their temple covenants, can expect little better from their children because of their bad example.

In this day, the fashions, the sham, the pretenses, and the glamour of the world have badly distorted the holy concepts of home and marriage, and, even the marriage ceremony itself. Blessed is the wise mother who paints a living picture to her daughter of a sacred scene in an exquisite, heavenly sealing room where, shut out from all that is worldly, and in the presence of parents and intimate family friends, a beautiful youthful bride and groom clasp hands across a holy altar. Thank God for that mother who shows her daughter that here, nearest to heaven on earth, heart communes with heart, in a mutuality of love that begins a oneness which defies the ravages of hardship, heartaches, or disappointments to destroy, and supplies the greatest stimulus for life’s highest attainments!16

God grant that the homes of the Latter-day Saints may be blessed and that there shall come into them happiness here and the foundation for exaltation in the celestial kingdom in the world to come.17

///

Of course there are many ideas from different leaders. But if you want to say "the primary purpose of marriage is having children", you would also have to add "and rear them righteously", or it certainly wouldn't count; and you would have to put that all in the context of eternal marriage.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Marriage is important, but like I said, the relationship between a man and woman is to reproduce, or else you start slipping into the idea that relationship is the most vital aspect and then gay people are suddenly going to raise their hand to make a point.

Post Reply