Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

[creator]

I just wanted to make some clarifications regarding the rules of this forum. It is a violation of the rules to promote ideas that are anti-Mormon and not inline with the doctrine and scriptures of the LDS Church. This more recently includes some discussions on polygamy / plural marriage.

"Latter-day Saints believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some to practice plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman. By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s. For more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints under the direction of the Church President."
Source: Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The LDS Church accepts D&C section 132 as a revelation from the Lord to the prophet Joseph Smith. That revelation includes instructions on plural marriage. Nearly half of the presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were polygamists. While the LDS Church does not currently allow the practice of plural marriage, it is still a part of the doctrine/scriptures and a big part of our history. Also, see Official Declaration 1

Official LDS Church articles on plural marriage:

Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

[rewcox]

I think Rachel and Fiannan should resolve their differences. By the way, how do you pronounce Fiannan?

It is interesting the amount of conversation about polygamy since the church hasn't practiced it over 100 years.

Now SSM has kicked the conversation in high gear. I wonder if they considered that...

[Ezra]

Might be why they were inspired to have the reasont polygamy essays.

[shadow]

Polygamy is still somewhat practiced today. Elder Oaks is sealed to his second wife for time and eternity. Personally, I prefer Elder Scott's situation. After his wife died, he remains alone. Of course, we don't know how the spirit moved upon him to stay alone vs. how the spirit moves upon others to marry a second wife not only for time (such as President Hunter) but for eternity. I hope to not ever be in that situation. But as I've mentioned before, I know two men who were SEALED to their second wives via request from their first wives before they passed away, both of cancer. Some here like skybird, Rachael and speed racer would call this an abomination and not virtuous. They misapply scripture to justify their belief. The first wives arranged these marriages before they passed away. They were not ignorant of the doctrine. They requested eternal marriages, not for time only. After pondering these two situations, I've concluded that it's love and charity.

This is church doctrine. I appreciate Brian pointing this out. Anything to the contrary is anti LDS doctrine and as per site rules, shouldn't be allowed to keep festering. Take it elsewhere.

[EmmaLee]

Elder Oaks is sealed to his second wife for time and eternity.

As is Elder Nelson (who is now next in line after Pres. Monson, I believe).

[rewcox]

Polygamy is still somewhat practiced today. Elder Oaks is sealed to his second wife for time and eternity. Personally, I prefer Elder Scott's situation. After his wife died, he remains alone. Of course, we don't know how the spirit moved upon him to stay alone vs. how the spirit moves upon others to marry a second wife not only for time (such as President Hunter) but for eternity. I hope to not ever be in that situation. But as I've mentioned before, I know two men who were SEALED to their second wives via request from their first wives before they passed away, both of cancer. Some here like skybird, Rachael and speed racer would call this an abomination and not virtuous. They misapply scripture to justify their belief. The first wives arranged these marriages before they passed away. They were not ignorant of the doctrine. They requested eternal marriages, not for time only. After pondering these two situations, I've concluded that it's love and charity.

This is church doctrine. I appreciate Brian pointing this out. Anything to the contrary is anti LDS doctrine and as per site rules, shouldn't be allowed to keep festering. Take it elsewhere.

I don't agree with the viewpoint that it is practiced today, or that if a widower is sealed again that it is an abomination.

If you are trying to say the church went bad, that might be how you justify it, as we see on this forum.

If Elder Nelson or Oaks do become President, what will you do with your heartburn?

[Lizzy60]

Elder Perry was/is also sealed to two wives. His widow is still living. They were married longer than he was married to his first wife. (Virginia, 27 years, and Barbara, 39 years)

[SkyBird]

Polygamy is still somewhat practiced today. Elder Oaks is sealed to his second wife for time and eternity. Personally, I prefer Elder Scott's situation. After his wife died, he remains alone. Of course, we don't know how the spirit moved upon him to stay alone vs. how the spirit moves upon others to marry a second wife not only for time (such as President Hunter) but for eternity. I hope to not ever be in that situation. But as I've mentioned before, I know two men who were SEALED to their second wives via request from their first wives before they passed away, both of cancer. Some here like skybird, Rachael and speed racer would call this an abomination and not virtuous. They misapply scripture to justify their belief. The first wives arranged these marriages before they passed away. They were not ignorant of the doctrine. They requested eternal marriages, not for time only. After pondering these two situations, I've concluded that it's love and charity.

This is church doctrine. I appreciate Brian pointing this out. Anything to the contrary is anti LDS doctrine and as per site rules, shouldn't be allowed to keep festering. Take it elsewhere.

I don't agree with the viewpoint that it is practiced today, or that if a widower is sealed again that it is an abomination.

If you are trying to say the church went bad, that might be how you justify it, as we see on this forum.

If Elder Nelson or Oaks do become President, what will you do with your heartburn?

Shadow... the tentacles of polygamy, be it good or bad are surely part of the Church today. You don't represent me at all in thinking I misapply the scriptures. Every interpretation on this forum is just that... an interpretation. What level are you speaking on, because there are many levels to interpret the scriptures... and “hells” interpretation isn’t even mentioned in this scripture.

Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:29 - 31)

And it is sad that BrianM and others can't see beyond their own interpretation and opinions. I am happy to represent myself, thank you. If you want to create a forum BrianM that follows the "letter of the law," continue what you are doing and don't give any respect to other interpretations of the "letter of the law" or the “spirit of the law.” I am sure your "forum kingdom" will attract its own kind. The "spirit of the law" creates open discussion and other insights to understanding "truth." All "truth" is not couched within the Church; it has only a piece of it.
I think BrianM and other like mined souls just have an agenda to pick and choose what fits their fancy on this forum.

One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.
Joseph Smith, Jr.

[shadow]

Polygamy is still somewhat practiced today. Elder Oaks is sealed to his second wife for time and eternity. Personally, I prefer Elder Scott's situation. After his wife died, he remains alone. Of course, we don't know how the spirit moved upon him to stay alone vs. how the spirit moves upon others to marry a second wife not only for time (such as President Hunter) but for eternity. I hope to not ever be in that situation. But as I've mentioned before, I know two men who were SEALED to their second wives via request from their first wives before they passed away, both of cancer. Some here like skybird, Rachael and speed racer would call this an abomination and not virtuous. They misapply scripture to justify their belief. The first wives arranged these marriages before they passed away. They were not ignorant of the doctrine. They requested eternal marriages, not for time only. After pondering these two situations, I've concluded that it's love and charity.

This is church doctrine. I appreciate Brian pointing this out. Anything to the contrary is anti LDS doctrine and as per site rules, shouldn't be allowed to keep festering. Take it elsewhere.

I don't agree with the viewpoint that it is practiced today, or that if a widower is sealed again that it is an abomination.

If you are trying to say the church went bad, that might be how you justify it, as we see on this forum.

If Elder Nelson or Oaks do become President, what will you do with your heartburn?

I have no heartburn. I have no issues with polygamy. It's doctrine, plain and simple. It's not something we practice today, in the shallow definition, so it's not a doctrine that pertains to us, but that could all change. It's no big deal to me, I'm not the one trying to change history. I'm not the one denying polygamy. How one can even deny that the Father of Jesus isn't a polygamist must have to shut their eyes. Mary and the Father were married, they had to be.

I wouldn't want to live polygamy, but it's a true principle of the Gospel.

[shadow]

Polygamy is still somewhat practiced today. Elder Oaks is sealed to his second wife for time and eternity. Personally, I prefer Elder Scott's situation. After his wife died, he remains alone. Of course, we don't know how the spirit moved upon him to stay alone vs. how the spirit moves upon others to marry a second wife not only for time (such as President Hunter) but for eternity. I hope to not ever be in that situation. But as I've mentioned before, I know two men who were SEALED to their second wives via request from their first wives before they passed away, both of cancer. Some here like skybird, Rachael and speed racer would call this an abomination and not virtuous. They misapply scripture to justify their belief. The first wives arranged these marriages before they passed away. They were not ignorant of the doctrine. They requested eternal marriages, not for time only. After pondering these two situations, I've concluded that it's love and charity.

This is church doctrine. I appreciate Brian pointing this out. Anything to the contrary is anti LDS doctrine and as per site rules, shouldn't be allowed to keep festering. Take it elsewhere.

I don't agree with the viewpoint that it is practiced today, or that if a widower is sealed again that it is an abomination.

If you are trying to say the church went bad, that might be how you justify it, as we see on this forum.

If Elder Nelson or Oaks do become President, what will you do with your heartburn?

Shadow... the tentacles of polygamy, be it good or bad are surely part of the Church today. You don't represent me at all in thinking I misapply the scriptures. Every interpretation on this forum is just that... an interpretation. What level are you speaking on, because there are many levels to interpret the scriptures... and “hells” interpretation isn’t even mentioned in this scripture.

Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:29 - 31)

And it is sad that BrianM and others can't see beyond their own interpretation and opinions. I am happy to represent myself, thank you. If you want to create a forum BrianM that follows the "letter of the law," continue what you are doing and don't give any respect to other interpretations of the "letter of the law" or the “spirit of the law.” I am sure your "forum kingdom" will attract its own kind. The "spirit of the law" creates open discussion and other insights to understanding "truth." All "truth" is not couched within the Church; it has only a piece of it.
I think BrianM and other like mined souls just have an agenda to pick and choose what fits their fancy on this forum.

One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.
Joseph Smith, Jr.

You're the one denying the truth. You're teaching contrary to LDS teachings. This is Brian's site, he set the rules. It'd be nice if you followed them.

[SkyBird]

Polygamy is still somewhat practiced today. Elder Oaks is sealed to his second wife for time and eternity. Personally, I prefer Elder Scott's situation. After his wife died, he remains alone. Of course, we don't know how the spirit moved upon him to stay alone vs. how the spirit moves upon others to marry a second wife not only for time (such as President Hunter) but for eternity. I hope to not ever be in that situation. But as I've mentioned before, I know two men who were SEALED to their second wives via request from their first wives before they passed away, both of cancer. Some here like skybird, Rachael and speed racer would call this an abomination and not virtuous. They misapply scripture to justify their belief. The first wives arranged these marriages before they passed away. They were not ignorant of the doctrine. They requested eternal marriages, not for time only. After pondering these two situations, I've concluded that it's love and charity.

This is church doctrine. I appreciate Brian pointing this out. Anything to the contrary is anti LDS doctrine and as per site rules, shouldn't be allowed to keep festering. Take it elsewhere.

I don't agree with the viewpoint that it is practiced today, or that if a widower is sealed again that it is an abomination.

If you are trying to say the church went bad, that might be how you justify it, as we see on this forum.

If Elder Nelson or Oaks do become President, what will you do with your heartburn?

I have no heartburn. I have no issues with polygamy. It's doctrine, plain and simple. It's not something we practice today, in the shallow definition, so it's not a doctrine that pertains to us, but that could all change. It's no big deal to me, I'm not the one trying to change history. I'm not the one denying polygamy. How one can even deny that the Father of Jesus isn't a polygamist must have to shut their eyes. Mary and the Father were married, they had to be.

I wouldn't want to live polygamy, but it's a true principle of the Gospel.

You assume to much... and you know what the word "assume" means

[shadow]

You're the one who typed it.

[SkyBird]

I know the turth hurts... and it still does not chance the "truth."

Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 49:16 - 17)

I wonder why Brigham Young did not take this section out... he must have missed it! :((

[AI2.0]

I think Rachel and Fiannan should resolve their differences. By the way, how do you pronounce Fiannan?

It is interesting the amount of conversation about polygamy since the church hasn't practiced it over 100 years.

Now SSM has kicked the conversation in high gear. I wonder if they considered that...

It is not just Gay marriage which has brought out more controversy on the forum, it is likely the recent reconstruction of history which is now being promoted by some posters here.

Denver Snuffer spoke out in March about Polygamy; it seems that his fundamentalist approach appealed to some modern polygamists(not surprised by this at all) and so he felt he needed to clarify his views on early church polygamy now, rather than later. By disregarding a lot of eyewitness accounts, he is trying to lessen Joseph's involvement, put the bigamy rumors on John C. Bennet's behavior and blame Brigham Young for the practice being instituted among the saints.

I think some may have embraced his views, including Speed racer's twisting of the term 'raising up seed' to try to insist that it doesn't mean what it clearly means!

That is because those who want to reject polygamy completely will often quote Jacob 2, but leave out Jacob 2:30 because they had no explanation for it. But, I'm wondering if Snuffer has been wresting scriptures again and has given his listeners a new way to interpret 'raise up seed'. Notice speedracer's comments about what 'seed' means;
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39255&start=60

I don't know how they get around D&C 132, though. Unless they completely reject that whole section, it will be impossible to insist that plural marriage was not instituted by Joseph Smith Jr. I haven't finished reading his paper (and the rebuttal by Brian Hales), so maybe I'll find out how he explains that one away.

[AI2.0]

I know the turth hurts... and it still does not chance the "truth."

Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 49:16 - 17)

I wonder why Brigham Young did not take this section out... he must have missed it! :((

There was no reason to take it out and there was no problem with it being there. This was 1831, my understanding is that even though Joseph probably received understanding on plural marriage around this time (when he was translating the Bible), he also understood that though it would be restored, the time was not yet.
Joseph B. Noble said;

The Prophet Joseph told him that the doctrine of celestial marriage was revealed to him while he was engaged on the work of translation of the scriptures [the Joseph Smith Translation or jst], but when the communication was first made the Lord stated that the time for the practice of that principle had not arrived.

Also, the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2, made it clear that polygamy could be required at some time, but monogamy is and was the norm for marriages; even during the four decades the church practiced it openly. Only a small number of saints actually practiced polygamy, the majority were monogamous. It also should only be practiced when the Lord's living prophet who holds the keys, institutes it. Polygamy may be required, but it certainly is not the ideal form of marriage, monogamy is the ideal.

[SkyBird]

Yes... the reconstruction of history has changed the world thinking more than once. The LDS Chruch has certainly had its fingers in it... it is not a wise virgin who reconstructs historical fact and data. The truth will eventually come out. We live in a "telestial world" where " people and conspiracies exist to "control" the weaker minded. If you really want to know the truth, ask God!

Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—
58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father's kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.
59 For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 84:55 - 59)

[ajax]

"Not doctrinal" - Gordon B.

Gordon B. trumps Smith/Young or whoever your favorite polygamist is.

Brian, AI2.0 keeps bringing "Snuffer" into conversations . Please warn her. Thanks.

[rewcox]

Yes... the reconstruction

Actually SkyBird, you walked off the limb. Brian is right, whether you like it or not, polygamy is part of church history.

Several of you claim you know the truth, yet you are so outrageous it is obvious you make something up for your version of the truth.

If you can make Brigham Young out to be a bad guy, then you can make your version of truth work. Yet you like Approaching Zion, SD too, but Hugh Nibley references BY all the time.

And HN knew way more than we will.

[AI2.0]

"Not doctrinal" - Gordon B.

Gordon B. trumps Smith/Young or whoever your favorite polygamist is.

Brian, AI2.0 keeps bringing "Snuffer" into conversations . Please warn her. Thanks.

:-$ :-ss

[Ezra]

"Not doctrinal" - Gordon B.

Gordon B. trumps Smith/Young or whoever your favorite polygamist is.

Brian, AI2.0 keeps bringing "Snuffer" into conversations . Please warn her. Thanks.

so if one prophet says one thing and another says the opposite. What then? What if the most modern is opposite of all previous prophets? Where do you draw the line? When are they speaking as men? When are they speaking as God?

Do we blindly follow or do we as joseph smith said.

We have heard men who had the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them, if they knew it was wrong. But such obedience as this is worse than folly to us. It is slavery in the extreme, and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turned from his folly. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their presidents they should do it without asking any questions. When the elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves, and wish to pave the way to accomplish that wrong, and wish to use the cloak of their authority to cover it with.

Joseph smith jr.
Millennial star volume 14 section 38 page 594-595

Do we Think for ourselfs and rely on our own spiritual connection? Gain our own salvation.

Or does the prophet gain that salvation for us???

If it's not doctrinal why is it doctorinal? You know what I mean? D&c 132

[Joel]

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?

[ajax]

The modern trumps all dead. So say the moderns. Amen.

[ajax]

Yes... the reconstruction

Actually SkyBird, you walked off the limb. Brian is right, whether you like it or not, polygamy is part of church history.

Several of you claim you know the truth, yet you are so outrageous it is obvious you make something up for your version of the truth.

If you can make Brigham Young out to be a bad guy, then you can make your version of truth work. Yet you like Approaching Zion, SD too, but Hugh Nibley references BY all the time.

And HN knew way more than we will.

This is why you we fail.

[ajax]

Brian, rewcox keeps mentioning Snuffer in a cute subtle way. Please warn him. Thank you.

[dewajack]

Polygamy is still somewhat practiced today. Elder Oaks is sealed to his second wife for time and eternity. Personally, I prefer Elder Scott's situation. After his wife died, he remains alone. Of course, we don't know how the spirit moved upon him to stay alone vs. how the spirit moves upon others to marry a second wife not only for time (such as President Hunter) but for eternity. I hope to not ever be in that situation. But as I've mentioned before, I know two men who were SEALED to their second wives via request from their first wives before they passed away, both of cancer. Some here like skybird, Rachael and speed racer would call this an abomination and not virtuous. They misapply scripture to justify their belief. The first wives arranged these marriages before they passed away. They were not ignorant of the doctrine. They requested eternal marriages, not for time only. After pondering these two situations, I've concluded that it's love and charity.

This is church doctrine. I appreciate Brian pointing this out. Anything to the contrary is anti LDS doctrine and as per site rules, shouldn't be allowed to keep festering. Take it elsewhere.

Speed Racer is a friend of mine and I don't appreciate your accusations toward him. Let him speak for himself, I believe his heart is right before God and he only desires to do good and seek after truth. Whether we want to admit it or not, we all misapply scriptures at points (not implying anyone in particular, it's just a fact). Give the harmful accusations a rest.