Why debate polygamy?

[bbsion]

The church and its official doctrine. So what is established as doctrine?

1) The words of the living prophet, given to us on earth today for us today to be what God wants us to know today.

Moroni was a prophet of God, one of the most influential for our time. Should we use his record of the Sacrament Prayer to bless wine to represent the Blood of Christ? We have a living prophet to give us Gods words for us as we need them now.

2) The scriptures, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible, understanding that some part of the Bible lost "plain and precious" truths needed, which is why we focus more on the Book of Mormon.

3) Official church publications - Sunday School manuals, Priesthood and Relief Society manuals, and I would offer my opinion that Ensign manuals are, though I do not know if that is considered official doctrine by the church.

4) Information printed by the church or put on their website that establishes what official positions of the church are. They could not be put in place without receiving approval of current church leadership, thus I believe it applies to our world and its needs today.

Are you saying that only what is spoken by current apostles becomes actual church doctrine? Whereas anything said in past sermons from God's own servants can be disavowed or chalked up to being "transcribed, sometimes inaccurately".

In the early 90's, then Elder Monson gave a talk to bishops and stake presidents. One of the first things he did was address comments he'd heard that some bishops were having it taught in their wards that drinking Coke or Pepsi was a sin. He pulled a can of Mtn. Dew out, popped it open and took a sip, then set it down. He said nothing more but continued on with his talk. Was he issuing doctrine that members should drink Mt. Dew? No, certainly not. What he did do, however, was to instruct bishops and SP's to NOT teach as doctrine, things which were clearly personal belief and not doctrine.

How did we get the Book of Mormon and the D&C? They were words of God given directly to His prophet and recorded as God wanted them to be. We know them to be doctrine because we are told they are God's words to us. How do we get Sunday School manuals and the like? They are written and approved by church officials under the direction of the Apostles and Prophets, and they are reviewed and approved by unanimous consent of all 15 members of the Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, a total of fifteen men who are called and ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

How were sermons recorded in 1875 in a regional conference in Manti, Utah? During the talk, people would record with shorthand what was said, to be transcribed later presumably by the same person who tried their best to remember exactly what was said. I'm sure some talks were prepared before hand and were saved, but in the 19th Century, how many apostles were excommunicated for their teaching and/or beliefs? Some later repented and were re-baptized, but which of their words can be completely accepted?

We know what we need to be exalted. The basic commandments are clear. The directions we receive about our teachings and our behaviors change as the need for our society's habits and needs change. I remember a letter being read in the late 80s in my ward in Ogden addressing concerns from the Prophet about the actions and behaviors of people in Utah toward non and inactive members needing to be Christ-like and not judgmental or haughty. How much would you be willing to bet me that my home ward in Colorado didn't hear that letter? How about a ward in New Zealand? I would say that letter might be considered doctrine because it was an exhortation by the prophet himself directing members to follow Christ and more fully represent Him in their actions with people not of our faith. There was doctrine that was probably not given to all members.

It looks like you got that quote from LDS.org. Who said it? What makes that statement so accurate and doctrinal that you would so willingly disregard the Journal of Discourses as just including some practical teachings.

Because it was a plain statement officially made by the church about a specific item. They clearly state what it is and why it was historically important, but that because of inaccuracies it cannot be considered complete correct.

...wouldn't those in the JOD be considered "the church" as well?

We are told directly that there are MISTAKES and INACCURACIES in it, so no, they did not speak for the whole church as the leaders in SLC today do.

So the Journal of Discourses is a collection of sermons from past prophets and apostles. Couldn't the same be said of the Ensign and other conference talks nowadays?

Yes, and as I noted above, I generally consider the Ensign to contain doctrine. If there are mistakes made in it I'm quite sure we'll get a report about it. So what, you may ask, is the difference? We have means and methods of communication which can be used to verify exactly what is said today. That was largely not available in 1890. In addition, I believe leaders are more careful now to verify what they teach or print is correct, having learned lessons from the past mistakes like Elder Hyde's sermon regarding sex or the mistakes researchers have found in the JoD.

That line of thinking would also allow us to disregard the standard works since they are a collection of teachings from past prophets.

We have had consistent assurance that the scriptures received in our day are scriptures as God wanted them revealed to His people. It is worth noting that even Joseph Smith made mention that we have an issue with possible transcription mistakes in the Holy Bible.

So what's an easy way to justify that thinking? By saying that the current prophet is the most important prophet...

No, by saying the prophet we have today gives us the words God has for us today which may be important for us to hear for our current situation. Nephi had already been given words that he should not kill. He was also given contradictory information in a situation he found himself in later in his life. He was willing to listen to what God had to say at that particular time.

Seems like an airtight excuse to me.

Sounds like words aimed at giving people a reason to disregard a living prophet.

I am going to respectfully disagree with nearly everything you said as I regard it as your opinion.

[skmo]

I am going to respectfully disagree with nearly everything you said as I regard it as your opinion.

Respectfully or not, that's wise for you. (very polite to be respectful, though) I share my beliefs because they make sense for me, I hope to either help others see what I do or learn from others why I'm wrong. (I'll admit, ;) it's theoretically possible for me to be wrong) One of the reasons I'm not hesitant to share my mistakes is that I have suffered horribly from stupidity on my part, I hope my shared experiences can help people avoid my stupidity.

Take from my words what benefits you, leave what doesn't. The only thing I stress everyone should learn from me is faith in God and hope to find happiness no matter how long and dirty the road is.

[Fiannan]

This whole debate on polygamy and such is going to get really interesting in regards to the coming age of robots. If you want a preview catch the first season of Westworld and ask yourself how many men are going to leave the marriage pool when they can have synthetic perfection. Women will buy these devices like they do substitutes today -- not as a replacement for a man but something on the side. Men are entirely wired differently.

If you have kids today their daughters will probably be spinsters or will have to visit the fertility clinic on occasion.

So will technology make polygamy absolutely necessary?

[skmo]

This whole debate on polygamy and such is going to get really interesting in regards to the coming age of robots. If you want a preview catch the first season of Westworld and ask yourself how many men are going to leave the marriage pool when they can have synthetic perfection.

I watched Serenity with friends once. We were teachers from all over the country with wildly different backgrounds and beliefs. We were teased about being LDS, and when Mr. Universe talks about his relationship with his "Love-bot" and shows the marriage scene, somebody asked if I could have multiple wives if they were love-bots like this. It was a joke, but I know another man through a different connection who spent about $10,000 on a top of the line synthetic silicone doll because he said it would be cheaper than buying another house. He was crazy bitter on the idea of marriage ever again, and I'm quite certain he was teaching his boy to be the same. I never knew his ex, and I don't know what input she might have had on their kid, but in many schools I've seen a good many kids clearly have a terrible idea of marriage.

[Fiannan]

I was speaking with a young lesbian yesterday. She said the only real purpose of a man was to have babies with. I noted that I once heard of a rabbi who said that perhaps if polygamy existed then a man could take two additional wives who were in a relationship to each other and just be the donor, which would give the children a father they would know growing up. She thought that idea was logical.

The future actually will be made up of polyamorous, female-centered, family units. It is all part of the plan and robots will help make this possible. Of course some of these units will have a husband and it will look a lot like polygamy except in a generation or so the idea of "sexual orientation" will be considered ancient. Pan sexuality is going to be the norm.

[skmo]

Pan sexuality is going to be the norm.

I hate to agree with you, especially as one who has the past sexual history I do. However, I'm quite certain you are correct.

We know that things in the last days for LDS people is going to be terrible. One of the things that will do it will be the pressure LDS people will get from simply being LDS, knowing that they will have a slim at best chance to get a job if they are known to be LDS. It will get to the point that people who simply believe in the gospel will be considered terrible because they believe in heterosexual monogamy. You won't be able to be a teacher, you won't be able to work for the government, you won't be able to work for a lot of the major corporations....

Being old doesn't seem so bad tot me in a lot of ways.

[Ashleyyyy]

I don't come here regularly. Was just browsing the thread on sealings and reading the debate on polygamy.

In 1997, I had the same question - is polygamy required for exaltation?

Different members and leaders had different opinions. It made no sense for me to determine for myself what the requirements were for heaven. That is like a player making the rules to the game as you go along.

I determined that I would have to appeal to those with a direct line to God. So I called church headquarters and asked if polygamy was required for exaltation.

I was passed around and finally a guy told me the church has no position on the matter and I was to pray and find out for myself.

So......back to square one - a player deciding the rules of the game. How does that work? What if all the players make different rules?

My wife got different answers to prayer than I did, so now what?

We tell investigators we get special revelation through our prophets, yet they let us argue endlessly over basic doctrine.

So just know that you can argue forever, and have whatever opinions or answers to prayer you want, but IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

You can't decide the rules.

And you also can't get the prophet to decide the rules.

So you probably don't want to invest much time or money in the deal if you don't know where you are headed.

It depends on whatever president/prophet is in charge. BY, JT, HCK said that plural marriage is very necessary for exaltation. JS never publically said it was, but the leaders afterwards said he did privately and he started it. Who knows. WW said it was necessary too, but then he changed his mind and wrote the Manifesto, but not really in sincerity, since he sanctioned some more polygamous unions after that. Fast forward to GBH, who told Larry King on TV that he didn't think it was doctrinal. So trusting in the arm of flesh, is trusting you can nail Jello to a wall. Even the green kind won't stick. Jesus said dont try to exalt yourself. I think that is what sticks.

[MMbelieve]

This whole debate on polygamy and such is going to get really interesting in regards to the coming age of robots. If you want a preview catch the first season of Westworld and ask yourself how many men are going to leave the marriage pool when they can have synthetic perfection. Women will buy these devices like they do substitutes today -- not as a replacement for a man but something on the side. Men are entirely wired differently.

If you have kids today their daughters will probably be spinsters or will have to visit the fertility clinic on occasion.

So will technology make polygamy absolutely necessary?

Perhaps but it will be wicked. It's the last days and nothing will be as it should be. If men want robots instead of a wife, then it's only fulfilling more of the last days prophecies of men will become lovers of themselves and their hearts will fail them.

God won't institute polygamy (I assume) because the world has become so wicked in the last days...he will instead send His Son to destroy the wicked and re-establish correct principals and a zion city.

The world is going down the drain, they can do what they please but the church will do its best to stand unmovable but no doubt will suffer many persecutions and disadvantages in a wicked world. We must endure and stop trying to follow the world down. Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.

[Fiannan]

Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.

Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.

[MMbelieve]

Pan sexuality is going to be the norm.

I hate to agree with you, especially as one who has the past sexual history I do. However, I'm quite certain you are correct.

We know that things in the last days for LDS people is going to be terrible. One of the things that will do it will be the pressure LDS people will get from simply being LDS, knowing that they will have a slim at best chance to get a job if they are known to be LDS. It will get to the point that people who simply believe in the gospel will be considered terrible because they believe in heterosexual monogamy. You won't be able to be a teacher, you won't be able to work for the government, you won't be able to work for a lot of the major corporations....

Being old doesn't seem so bad tot me in a lot of ways.

Another variable...

It is hard to find reliable and honest workers/help/employees these days. People have had to shut their small businesses down because they just can't find anyone who won't steal from them. Businesses can't seem to find quality help anymore, the whole world is becoming cheap and junky with not much reliable quality or decent substance.

Everywhere I look, people have help wanted signs. And then you go places and it looks like the employees are brought in off the street and really suck at their jobs and don't help you. Granted, there are still some good places and workers, there's just more and more slothfullness (sp) and disrespect these days.

I heard this and had the exact opposite impression about LDS and jobs. I thought that LDS would be the ones with the jobs because they are honest (should be).

I guess we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

[MMbelieve]

Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.

Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.

Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?

[Fiannan]

Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.

Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.

Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?

Biology is destiny. If a people do not want to wind up like the Shakers then they need to come to terms with it.

[Sirocco]

Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.

Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.

Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?

I thought the young men thing was true though.

I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.

[skmo]

I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.

I've been LDS pretty much all my life (adopted at 4 months old into an LDS family) and when I moved to Utah for the first time, there were a good number of sweet young ladies who decided I was not acceptable to date because I had moved to Utah from another state. I was not a "Zion" Mormon all my life, having come from outside the borders of Utah.

[Sirocco]

I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.

I've been LDS pretty much all my life (adopted at 4 months old into an LDS family) and when I moved to Utah for the first time, there were a good number of sweet young ladies who decided I was not acceptable to date because I had moved to Utah from another state. I was not a "Zion" Mormon all my life, having come from outside the borders of Utah.

Yeah I'm Canadian, who knows what its like here :))

I don't need to go to church to get rejected thank you lol

[MMbelieve]

Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.

Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.

Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?

I thought the young men thing was true though.

I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.

It very well may br true that wasn't the point though.

I think converts can be and often are better people overall. I love converts! Way easier for this non-sheltered, non-typical mormon girl to relate too and feel at ease around.

[MMbelieve]

I've heard a lot of not so nice stories from converts and methinks those ladies want a born Mormon not a convert one, such seems the belief in most religions, converts not that liked, even if they actively try and get them.
Which is odd to me.

I've been LDS pretty much all my life (adopted at 4 months old into an LDS family) and when I moved to Utah for the first time, there were a good number of sweet young ladies who decided I was not acceptable to date because I had moved to Utah from another state. I was not a "Zion" Mormon all my life, having come from outside the borders of Utah.

That Utah culture is something else. I don't believe Utah is reflective of the entire church though. You get out of there and the church is a nicer and better place.

Maybe what it was was you weren't utah culture mormon and the girls needed that same thing ingrained in their guy to feel all good about it and not have to change. Deep down they have to know that "utah culture" is wrong on too many levels.

Our church is all about missionary work, we should delight in converts and absorb them as if they had always been there.

[MMbelieve]

Stand firm and stand seperate. If we have an entire generation of spinsters then so be it. It wouldn't be that way for very long before Christ comes. If there seriously are no men then that tells me procreation won't be first on a person's mind, survival will.

Polygamy would solve that and from my understanding Zion cannot and will not be established unless polygamy exists.

Fiannan, you keep speaking from the personal desire to live polygamy. Your reasons and proofs of spinsters and sperm banks and sex robots and even church failing to retain young men is not masking your selfish desire to have more women to yourself.

Do you get your belief from McConkie about polygamy in zion?

Biology is destiny. If a people do not want to wind up like the Shakers then they need to come to terms with it.

Live in the world, not of the world.

Our ways need to be higher Fiannan otherwise what's the point of all this. If we're just going to give into biology then what are we learning? We were given these bodies of a fallen nature full of instincts and desires and hormones and pains. Once we are done here, we won't have a fallen body anymore. Having a fallen body allows us to learn better because it allows us to experience various feelings and emotions by default. Once we are done here we won't be having these instinct biological frailties given to us to help us survive as a creature.

We have a fallen nature but we're supposed to be learning and growing and rising above those base instincts.

Fiannan, it's great that you care about society so much and want to see people live the measure of their creation. God desires this too and He knows what's going on. Trust that He has a plan for us and won't let the good people dwindle to nothing. The human race is currently suffering but it's due to our wickedness. Polygamy will never be a cure for a wicked people, it will be a curse.

[Fiannan]

Live in the world, not of the world.

Our ways need to be higher Fiannan otherwise what's the point of all this. If we're just going to give into biology then what are we learning? We were given these bodies of a fallen nature full of instincts and desires and hormones and pains. Once we are done here, we won't have a fallen body anymore. Having a fallen body allows us to learn better because it allows us to experience various feelings and emotions by default. Once we are done here we won't be having these instinct biological frailties given to us to help us survive as a creature.

We have a fallen nature but we're supposed to be learning and growing and rising above those base instincts.

Fiannan, it's great that you care about society so much and want to see people live the measure of their creation. God desires this too and He knows what's going on. Trust that He has a plan for us and won't let the good people dwindle to nothing. The human race is currently suffering but it's due to our wickedness. Polygamy will never be a cure for a wicked people, it will be a curse.

Sounds more like Catholicism than Mormonism.

The Plan of Salvation requires a biological dimension. Of course Pagan Catholicism created a false dicotomy between the spiritual and the temporal - thus rendering the populations they controlled guilt-ridden and always haing to seek out a Catholic higher-up to help them "atone" for the instincts and drives that God gave them. In Judaism there is a sense that control over one's instincts is important to learn to control the powers given by God. Jews are thus more logical in their applicaation of spiritual issues to humanity. Oh, and as for the Catholic leaders one can look to history to see how they used theri positions of power to manipulate and fulfill their base sexual deviations.

Mormonism promotes the morality of the scriptures but like the Jews it is supposed to be seen as healthy, if used properly in the creation of families. Polygamy is therefore not carnal but rather a greater means by which higher evolved individuals can bring about God's purposes.

[skmo]

Polygamy is therefore not carnal but rather a greater means by which higher evolved individuals can bring about God's purposes.

I'm sure the perverted creatures living on the state line tell themselves this, too. It's moot. It no longer exists on earth, and it's not likely it will until the earth and its people are changed, if even then.

[Fiannan]

Polygamy is therefore not carnal but rather a greater means by which higher evolved individuals can bring about God's purposes.

I'm sure the perverted creatures living on the state line tell themselves this, too. It's moot. It no longer exists on earth, and it's not likely it will until the earth and its people are changed, if even then.

Could you please provide when God took polygamy from the Jews?

[freedomforall]

To the OP...1) because a lot of men do their thinking below their belt-line.
2) they think God condones polygamy, and ignore the fact that he says polygamy is an abomination........but, he will call for it when and if he wants an increase of children (seed) to be brought into the world more rapidly.
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.

[djinwa]

To the OP...1) because a lot of men do their thinking below their belt-line.
2) they think God condones polygamy, and ignore the fact that he says polygamy is an abomination........but, he will call for it when and if he wants an increase of children (seed) to be brought into the world more rapidly.
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.

You are one more who is so sure of themselves, yet it is a useless opinion, until the prophet clears things up by speaking for God.

They can't take God's word literally because it is either unclear, or keeps changing.

The prophet doesn't clear things up, or we're told when things change, that the former prophet didn't say what he said, or he was speaking as a man, or whatever. So follow the prophet, even though he isn't leading.

[freedomforall]

To the OP...1) because a lot of men do their thinking below their belt-line.
2) they think God condones polygamy, and ignore the fact that he says polygamy is an abomination........but, he will call for it when and if he wants an increase of children (seed) to be brought into the world more rapidly.
3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.

You are one more who is so sure of themselves, yet it is a useless opinion, until the prophet clears things up by speaking for God. Absolutely. Scripture teaches us these very truths, ie, whoredoms are an abomination, chastity of woman the Lord delights in, polygamy is only justified when God commands it to be implemented and a marriage of one man and one woman is his long standing command. Many, many saints know these facts. BTW, is the word of God my opinion ? Besides, we are to feast upon the word of God until we come to know it, right ? Therefore, it cannot be our opinion.

They can't take God's word literally because it is either unclear, or keeps changing. Rather clear if studied out and pondered.

The prophet doesn't clear things up, or we're told when things change, that the former prophet didn't say what he said, or he was speaking as a man, or whatever. So follow the prophet, even though he isn't leading. Scriptures are very clear, and who wants to rebut that which God says ?

3) men can't take God's word literally; they just have to argue, complain, wish, rant, argue some more and discuss it relentlessly until everyone is totally exhausted.

God speaking:

Jacob 2:23-30
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things

So it is plain to see that polygamy was authorized by God because he wanted increased seed to be raised up. But, note that it was virgins, not just any woman that was required into polygamy as stated in D&C 132.

[Fiannan]

Again, when did God take the authorization to have polygamy away from the Jews?