Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

[freedomforall]

“Verily,verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery.” -3 Nephi 12:31-32 (Matt. 5:31-32)

After my divorce, I had nothing to do with fornication. Yet, when I attended many singles dances, there were men seeking women so they could. well, you know. However, if the women were willing, then that is on their heads. Promiscuity is a two way proposition. Allowing ones brains to not govern and control below the belt is not wise.

I should have proposed a question with that scripture. What is divorce in the Lord's view but the excuse that two can't get along? Isn't one causing adultery if ANYONE puts away their wife save it be for fornication and that wife then remarries? The sin be on the spouse's head who put her away? Isn't the Lord's point... divorce is always either pride or fornication?

Have we not all somehow in some way, at some point in our lives, divorced the Lord? Yet he still wants us and remains ever faithful to us, patient with our quirks, mishaps, stupidity, ignorance, naiveness, etc.? If two can't get along, and they put one another away (aka divorce) and marry another who was put away, is that not adultery (PERIOD) in the Lord's view, clear and plain? That's my question.

Isn't the Lord stating the only reason one should divorce their first wife is for infidelity on her part, otherwise he causes her to commit adultery if she re marries whatsoever?

Deuteronomy 24
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

Does this clear things up?

Now if a guy wants to divorce his wife so he can chase other women and fornicate, this is where the problem arises.

[onefour1]

How do we know Gordon B. Hinckley was speaking as a prophet or a man?

If he was speaking as a prophet, would it put Elder Turley in awkward position for teaching it is as a belief, contrary to what a Prophet declared on TV?

From the Swedish Rescue

Just last month Elder Turley participated in a fireside about apostasy, yet he has publicly declared that the church believes in polygamy even though Hinckley declared it is not doctrinal. So was Hinckley speaking as a man or prophet?

Is there room on the forum for different views on the matter, and situations like this? Or does Hinckley trump all on the issue, and all debate is settled on the matter?

Although debate can lead to understanding of truth in many cases, we should be careful that we are not speaking evil of the Lord's anointed or making anyone an offender for a word. We should also be careful to not have contention among us regarding the points of our Lord's doctrine.

2 Nephi 27:32
32 And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught.

3 Nephi 11:28-29
28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

[freedomforall]

How do we know Gordon B. Hinckley was speaking as a prophet or a man?

If he was speaking as a prophet, would it put Elder Turley in awkward position for teaching it is as a belief, contrary to what a Prophet declared on TV?

From the Swedish Rescue

Just last month Elder Turley participated in a fireside about apostasy, yet he has publicly declared that the church believes in polygamy even though Hinckley declared it is not doctrinal. So was Hinckley speaking as a man or prophet?
Is there room on the forum for different views on the matter, and situations like this? Or does Hinckley trump all on the issue, and all debate is settled on the matter?

Although debate can lead to understanding of truth in many cases, we should be careful that we are not speaking evil of the Lord's anointed or making anyone an offender for a word. We should also be careful to not have contention among us regarding the points of our Lord's doctrine.

2 Nephi 27:32
32 And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught.

3 Nephi 11:28-29
28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

Right now polygamy is not practiced nor has been practiced for about 120 years. So President Hinckley was correct.

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

So for anyone STILL pushing for polygamy they must be among the rebellious. Who are any of us to keep trying to speak for God? Forget polygamy, it does not effect my salvation, today, one iota.

[BackBlast]

I don't think any sealing is etched in cement. A man and woman may get sealed together, but if the conduct by either one do not meet celestial standards, the sealing for that couple becomes is void, does it not?

Your understanding is more or less generally correct in the final sum but somewhat in error in how it comes about.

Sealings are only an ordinance. Which is to say that it isn't binding in the next life until it has also has been sealed by the Holy Spirit. It can be a little confusing because of the use of the word seal, sealing power, and the eternal view of the ordinance; but a sealing still must be sealed by the Spirit to be valid. Another mortal does not and can not do this for you. The participant(s) must be fully qualified before that will be granted and fundamentally we, as mortals, can't of ourselves see to the hearts of others.

[freedomforall]

I don't think any sealing is etched in cement. A man and woman may get sealed together, but if the conduct by either one do not meet celestial standards, the sealing for that couple becomes is void, does it not?

Your understanding is more or less generally correct in the final sum but somewhat in error in how it comes about.

Sealings are only an ordinance. Which is to say that it isn't binding in the next life until it has also has been sealed by the Holy Spirit. It can be a little confusing because of the use of the word seal, sealing power, and the eternal view of the ordinance; but a sealing still must be sealed by the Spirit to be valid. Another mortal does not and can not do this for you. The participant(s) must be fully qualified before that will be granted and fundamentally we, as mortals, can't of ourselves see to the hearts of others.

You are correct. Your complete point is what I hoped to convey, but did a rather lousy job of it in not mentioning the Holy Spirit of Promise, which is the Holy Ghost.