1882 Oracle received by John Taylor about Celestial Marriage

[jwharton]

It feels awful to be "trammelled" by other people who think they have the right to do such to each other in a one-way manner.
It feels wonderful to be "trammelled" by the Word of God because when all is said and done only that which is true remains.

[Finrock]

Finrock,

It feels so good not to be confined, hampered, or shackled in my beliefs and views!

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! I guess there is nothing stopping you from coming out here into PA, and killing me to shut me up. Well maybe economics, or convenience, ....

But certainly NOT you your beliefs and views!

Regards,

George Clay

It makes perfect sense. I'm agreeing 100% with Joseph Smith. I just said exactly what Joseph Smith said. I don't understand why you think that what Joseph Smith said makes absolutely no sense to you, but, whatever. I believe Joseph Smith and agree with what he said.

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Finrock

The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we have the right to embrace all, and every item of the truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds and superstitious notions of men.” Joseph Smith in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 420.

You may be able to cut and paste the words of Joseph Smith, but you haven't learned to actually comprehend them.

Joseph Smith wasn't saying that he wasn't shackled by his beliefs and and views. He was saying that he wasn't shackled by certain beliefs and views of MEN! He was probably making reference to things like the Nicene creed, or the Apostles creed. This isn't any mysterious gospel insight, it is simple English comprehension!

One of the main purposes of having beliefs is to self govern yourself based upon those beliefs. We don't follow the Word of Wisdom, because of some government law, but because of our beliefs and views. In fact a society that doesn't have and follow generally righteous beliefs, must be governed by a dictator, because if people don't govern themselves, they must be governed by a strong dictatorial government!

REgards,

George Clay

[Lizzy60]

Finrock

The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we have the right to embrace all, and every item of the truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds and superstitious notions of men.” Joseph Smith in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 420.

You may be able to cut and paste the words of Joseph Smith, but you haven't learned to actually comprehend them.

Joseph Smith wasn't saying that he wasn't shackled by his beliefs and and views. He was saying that he wasn't shackled by certain beliefs and views of MEN! He was probably making reference to things like the Nicene creed, or the Apostles creed. This isn't any mysterious gospel insight, it is simple English comprehension!

One of the main purposes of having beliefs is to self govern yourself based upon those beliefs. We don't follow the Word of Wisdom, because of some government law, but because of our beliefs and views. In fact a society that doesn't have and follow generally righteous beliefs, must be governed by a dictator, because if people don't govern themselves, they must be governed by a strong dictatorial government!

REgards,

George Clay

We don't actually follow the Word of Wisdom as it is given in the Doctrine and Covenants. Rather than being allowed to govern ourselves as to what we believe was counseled in this "not by commandment" given by the Lord, we have been dictated to by the topmost leaders of the church on how we are to live it, or we forfeit temple recommends, and many callings.

On the other side of the coin, all temple-endowed members have covenanted to the Law of Consecration. How are we doing with that? Is there any program in the church that supports our living that law? Sure, we can each do our best, but if any significant number of members, especially those most wealthy, are sharing ALL their surplus with the poor, I've not known them, and I don't hear Conference talks encouraging this practice. But, we all raised our arm to the square.......

So perhaps keeping "pure doctrine" pure, is not what you and FFA think it is.

[jwharton]

One cannot live or accept polygamy and be a member of the LDS church.

I recognize the Church excommunicates those who actually implement it,
but what do you mean by saying they cannot accept it either?

I do not know where to find the original story but there was a girl who wanted to be baptized but she was not allowed to because she didn't denounce her parents "practice" of polygamy.

Maybe someone else knows?

Ah, there is yet another level of distinction to be drawn here. This is great.
Thus, I have to further clarify what I am trying to say.

The "abide" aspect I brought up is acceptance of the general principle, not necessarily requiring endorsement of what some are actually doing.

I have serious objections to what many are doing in the name of "Celestial Plural Marriage" but I do abide the pure principle of it that God was endeavoring to establish by way of it in the early times. This is what makes it a difficult issue to sort out for so many people.

[gclayjr]

Lizzy60,

We don't actually follow the Word of Wisdom as it is given in the Doctrine and Covenants. Rather than being allowed to govern ourselves as to what we believe was counseled in this "not by commandment" given by the Lord, we have been dictated to by the topmost leaders of the church on how we are to live it, or we forfeit temple recommends, and many callings.

On the other side of the coin, all temple-endowed members have covenanted to the Law of Consecration. How are we doing with that? Is there any program in the church that supports our living that law? Sure, we can each do our best, but if any significant number of members, especially those most wealthy, are sharing ALL their surplus with the poor, I've not known them, and I don't hear Conference talks encouraging this practice. But, we all raised our arm to the square.......

So perhaps keeping "pure doctrine" pure, is not what you and FFA think it is.

You are missing the point also. It doesn't matter if we each have a completely different interpretation of the Word of Wisdom. My point is that we all confine or limit our actions based upon our beliefs and views. That is one of the main purposes of HAVING beliefs and views. And if you don't believe in the Word of Wisdom or any other health code at all, then the only limit as to what you may ingest is the law and how much you may fear it.


Regards,

George Clay

[jwharton]

Melissa,

jwharton, and those like him are trying to slice a line where they won't say that Thomas S. Monson, is NOT Prophet Seer and Revelator, but somehow, once Wilford Woodruff and the Presidency of the Church issued Official Declaration 1, they lost some subtle OTHER gift other than Prophesying and revealing and seeing, as condemnation. They call that a gift or being an Oracle, as if it is something distinctly different. This is so that they can pretend that they are not heretics who go against the LDS Church.

Regards,

George Clay

That's interesting, thanks for explaining it. Seems kinda weird to me.

I see an oracle as something bizarre and mystical, almost evil actually. Ah, maybe it's more like the tarot card readers where people can come one by one and receive their future prophecies.

I agree, his use of the term 'oracles' seemed out of place, but it is a term used in the Doctrine and Covenants a couple of times. You might look in the D&C Index under 'Oracle' and read the references listed. I view it is another term for revelations.

The scriptures refer to the person who receives oracles from God as the oracle.
It can describe both the person who receives such and what they receive.

I agree you can say an oracle is a revelation from God, in general, but I don't think this is the precise distinction God intended.
The distinction I use, which I believe is an appropriate distinction to make, is an oracle is God's Words spoken by Him in first-person format.
It doesn't matter that God spoke His Words through a person, who is the oracle, they are to be treated the same as if God spoke them.
This gives us clarity that the Words delivered to us by an oracle, acting in his gift and capacity as an oracle, are the Words of God.

Another way to look at this is how each Kingdom of Glory has a certain level of ministration that it qualifies for.
If you are living Celestial Law this qualifies you to enjoy the direct presence of the Father.
This means there will be a Lord's Anointed Oracle who can receive direct first-person oracles.
Enjoying the direct presence of the Father is manifested by being spoken to directly in first-person.

I'd consider saying more, but I'll refrain.

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

The distinction I use, which I believe is an appropriate distinction to make, is an oracle is God's Words spoken by Him in first-person format

And that distinction allows you to play the game of pretending to support Thomas S. Monson as Prophet Seer and Revelator, while heretically claiming that the church is under condemnation, until they knuckle under to your heretical beliefs.

Regards,

George Clay

[jwharton]

jwharton,

The distinction I use, which I believe is an appropriate distinction to make, is an oracle is God's Words spoken by Him in first-person format

And that distinction allows you to play the game of pretending to support Thomas S. Monson as Prophet Seer and Revelator, while heretically claiming that the church is under condemnation, until they knuckle under to your heretical beliefs.

Regards,

George Clay

The President of the Church has the DUTY to be a prophet, seer and revelator in his responsibilities over the Church.

This is a separate question as to whether or not the President is in fact also the Lord's Anointed Prophet and always shall be in perpetuity.

Some see only one mantle that was never separate and never will be separate. I see two mantles of authority joined together.

The office of Church President is "chosen by the body", accountable to the body and can be removed by the body for transgression.
The mantle of Lord's Anointed Prophet is not chosen by any persons, is not accountable to any persons and cannot be removed by any persons.

These two distinct offices or mantles of authority were joined when Joseph Smith Jr. was appointed by the body to be the Church President.
They were to continue in like manner because in D&C 90 the Lord said the successor of the gift to receive oracles would go to the Church.

Therefore, the Church collectively as a body became the Oracle and so its President is the medium through which such would be confirmed.
This is why after Joseph Smith Jr. it became necessary for the top quorums of authority in the Church to ratify any oracles received.
This is also why Wilford Woodruff, while only an apostle, received a "Thus saith the Lord" oracle that was submitted to and ratified the same as if the Church President had received it. This is because the Church collectively became the oracle, so long as it functions in an orderly manner and is One, as we are commanded to be, and worthy to continue in that gift.

Everyone is 100% free to agree or disagree.

If you feel to disagree, please do so respectfully.

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

Oh, I disagree. I am simply pointing out that these are convenient jwharton definitions, not definitions defined in scripture or any another source that I or perhaps some others on this board find more authoritative than jwharton.

Regards,

George Clay

[jwharton]

jwharton,

Oh, I disagree. I am simply pointing out that these are convenient jwharton definitions, not definitions defined in scripture or any another source that I or perhaps some others on this board find more authoritative than jwharton.

Regards,

George Clay

This is actually a fairly simple matter to address I believe.
Shall we take out our magnifying glass and examine this closely?
Would you like to start a new thread or shall I start it?

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

I don't plan to start a thread. I don't plan on reading reams of copy and pasted crap, and commentary that means nothing. If you start a thread, I may or not respond to it, or I may just spend the day tutoring my grand children..

I find that deeper the BS, the longer and more convoluted the justification. Often with a hint of superiority and arrogance.

The more I study the gospel, the simpler and plainer I find it to be.

I guess it's up to you.

Regards,

George Clay

[jwharton]

jwharton,

I don't plan to start a thread. I don't plan on reading reams of copy and pasted crap, and commentary that means nothing. If you start a thread, I may or not respond to it, or I may just spend the day tutoring my grand children..

I find that deeper the BS, the longer and more convoluted the justification. Often with a hint of superiority and arrogance.

The more I study the gospel, the simpler and plainer I find it to be.

I guess it's up to you.

Regards,

George Clay

I'll pass. Thanks anyway.

[rewcox]

Please respect the wolves. And the fire ants. Not!

24 And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works.

Good works, not those that oppose the Church and leaders. Not those promoting polygamy.

[jwharton]

I think you have an extreme desire for multiple wives.

Incidentally, I am perfectly happy with my wife of 20+ years and she is, so far as I can tell, perfectly happy with me.
She studies the Gospel right along with me and we always try to see both sides of everything, including plural marriage.
She has helped me tremendously to have the female perspective on things and I wouldn't understand it without her input.
One thing I learned from my discussions with her, which I took to the Lord and got confirmation on, is a man is not to seek.
So, while I wouldn't treat women as if they have cooties, I also believe in being totally passive and let the Lord orchestrate.

One of the things my wife and I strongly dislike about the FLDS offshoots is the ones where men overtly seek it out.
We feel like the only ones who should live this arrangement are those who the Lord orchestrates to do so based on actual needs.
We don't feel it is appropriate to seek it out as a personally desired lifestyle just for the sake of doing it.

My extreme desire with regard to plural marriage is to get the sword of vengeance to no longer be hanging over us for neglecting widows.
This is talked about by Moroni in Mormon chapter 8. He saw our day and the awful spiritual and temporal plight of widows.
When the Lord talks about a sword of vengeance hanging over our heads because we are giving widows the shaft, I do get very unsettled.

[Melissa]

I think you have an extreme desire for multiple wives.

Incidentally, I am perfectly happy with my wife of 20+ years and she is, so far as I can tell, perfectly happy with me.
She studies the Gospel right along with me and we always try to see both sides of everything, including plural marriage.
She has helped me tremendously to have the female perspective on things and I wouldn't understand it without her input.
One thing I learned from my discussions with her, which I took to the Lord and got confirmation on, is a man is not to seek.
So, while I wouldn't treat women as if they have cooties, I also believe in being totally passive and let the Lord orchestrate.

One of the things my wife and I strongly dislike about the FLDS offshoots is the ones where men overtly seek it out.
We feel like the only ones who should live this arrangement are those who the Lord orchestrates to do so based on actual needs.
We don't feel it is appropriate to seek it out as a personally desired lifestyle just for the sake of doing it.

My extreme desire with regard to plural marriage is to get the sword of vengeance to no longer be hanging over us for neglecting widows.
This is talked about by Moroni in Mormon chapter 8. He saw our day and the awful spiritual and temporal plight of widows.
When the Lord talks about a sword of vengeance hanging over our heads because we are giving widows the shaft, I do get very unsettled.

I do hope that you are doing service for as many widows as you are able and getting other men to do the same.

If she already had a husband and a sealing then she doesn't need to marry a man unless she really wants to. You can serve and support without marrying her. In fact if service as a widow meant having to marry the help, I would feel very offended. Service is service not expecting in return.

[shadow]

My extreme desire with regard to plural marriage is to get the sword of vengeance to no longer be hanging over us for neglecting widows.
This is talked about by Moroni in Mormon chapter 8. He saw our day and the awful spiritual and temporal plight of widows.
When the Lord talks about a sword of vengeance hanging over our heads because we are giving widows the shaft, I do get very unsettled.

The interesting thing about widows is that many of them already remarry. Some to widowers and some to divorced men and some to men who've never been married. There's no shortage of single men.
Plus there are those widows who have no desire whatsoever to remarry.

[jwharton]

I do hope that you are doing service for as many widows as you are able and getting other men to do the same.

Yes, I do what I am able, but there are some things nobody can do adequately in some circumstances.

If she already had a husband and a sealing then she doesn't need to marry a man unless she really wants to.

It's easy to say this in a society that has all kinds of government welfare.
All of this centralized government goes away under the Father's Kingdom.
In God's Kingdom there isn't property tax, sales tax, income tax, etc.
Most all taxes will go away.
That's the whole point of a kingdom of liberty and sovereignty.

It's the Father's minimalist government with maximum individual liberty
vs.
the adversary's totalitarian government with minimal individual liberty.

You can serve and support without marrying her.
In fact if service as a widow meant having to marry the help, I would feel very offended.
Service is service not expecting in return.

The thought comes to mind:
God's ways are not man's ways.

Also, you have overlooked the spiritual dilemma of widows and their deceased sealed husbands.
What if they want more children? What happens then?

Really think it through and you should see how this is a miserable plight to be in.

[jwharton]

My extreme desire with regard to plural marriage is to get the sword of vengeance to no longer be hanging over us for neglecting widows.
This is talked about by Moroni in Mormon chapter 8. He saw our day and the awful spiritual and temporal plight of widows.
When the Lord talks about a sword of vengeance hanging over our heads because we are giving widows the shaft, I do get very unsettled.

The interesting thing about widows is that many of them already remarry. Some to widowers and some to divorced men and some to men who've never been married. There's no shortage of single men.
Plus there are those widows who have no desire whatsoever to remarry.

There does tend to be a shortage of honorable men.
Just ask single women, they will tell you.
And, whatever man she marries, her children won't be his in the hereafter.
Whatever children a sealed woman bears become the children of the man she is sealed to.
So, whoever she marries, he will need to be willing to forego his own eternal posterity if he cannot also be married to a woman he can be sealed to while he is also married to the other deceased man's widow.

The point I am making is there are SOME people who need plural marriage and it is a great disservice to deny them when God's Law allows for it.

[Melissa]

I do hope that you are doing service for as many widows as you are able and getting other men to do the same.

Yes, I do what I am able, but there are some things nobody can do adequately in some circumstances.

If she already had a husband and a sealing then she doesn't need to marry a man unless she really wants to.

It's easy to say this in a society that has all kinds of government welfare.

A man these days likely can't afford another wife and kids. Plus, women can work too these days.

All of this centralized government goes away under the Father's Kingdom.
In God's Kingdom there isn't property tax, sales tax, income tax, etc.
Most all taxes will go away.
That's the whole point of a kingdom of liberty and sovereignty.

It's the Father's minimalist government with maximum individual liberty
vs.
the adversary's totalitarian government with minimal individual liberty.

You can serve and support without marrying her.
In fact if service as a widow meant having to marry the help, I would feel very offended.
Service is service not expecting in return.

The thought comes to mind:
God's ways are not man's ways.

Also, you have overlooked the spiritual dilemma of widows and their deceased sealed husbands.
What if they want more children? What happens then?

Really think it through and you should see how this is a miserable plight to be in.

who said she couldn't get married? I said she can marry again if she wants to.

Alot of widows are older...would a young man marry her and take care of her? And might I ask, why does he need to marry her? A mother-in-law can live on the property and benefit from you and your family....so could a widow.

What if a woman loses her husband and has kids to support but couldn't bring herself to lay with and love another man? Should she receive no support and be outcast because of her devotion to her eternal companion?

Just pointing out that marriage isint always the answer and neither is plural marriage. Men should be careful in masking plural marriage as a service to poor helpless widows. A woman shouldn't be forced to be with men to be helped by service. If she wants more kids and everyone is alright with him being the seed bearer, then I personally don't care but if there is a widower...she would be best to pair with him.

[jwharton]

who said she couldn't get married? I said she can marry again if she wants to.

Perhaps you are not understanding me?
She cannot be sealed to a second man without getting her existing sealing cancelled.
This poses serious complications when she is out courting to get married again, if that is her desire.

Alot of widows are older...would a young man marry her and take care of her?

It certainly is a possibility. As I said, the Lord helps to orchestrate things via revelation, signs and witnesses, etc.

And might I ask, why does he need to marry her?

As I alluded to earlier, when everything is set in order per the Father's Patriarchal Order, the paradigm will be much different.
Marriage isn't just a love and romance thing. There is also the aspect of headship or governance.
The Father's Kingdom uses the Patriarchal Order to shoulder pretty much the full weight of governance.

A mother-in-law can live on the property and benefit from you and your family....so could a widow.

Sure, for her temporal needs. But, who will be her life companion and who will she rely upon for priesthood, etc?
If she is raising a number of children, they need to have a father involved in their lives.
And, if she yet desires to have more children for her and her deceased husband to have in the eternities, she definitely needs a new husband.

What if a woman loses her husband and has kids to support but couldn't bring herself to lay with and love another man?

Plural marriage is the solution to this problem.
When a widow is received as a plural wife she can apply the purity doctrine.
This means that she can refuse sexual contact unless she desires to conceive a child.
This won't be a big deal to her husband because he has his other wife to satisfy that part of his needs.

Should she receive no support and be outcast because of her devotion to her eternal companion?

Absolutely not!
Plural marriage is so that she can remain chaste to her eternal companion if that is her desire.

Just pointing out that marriage isint always the answer and neither is plural marriage. Men should be careful in masking plural marriage as a service to poor helpless widows. A woman shouldn't be forced to be with men to be helped by service. If she wants more kids and everyone is alright with him being the seed bearer, then I personally don't care but if there is a widower...she would be best to pair with him.

When we are living in Zion, which will be a minimalist government, which has the Patriarchal Order as the backbone of that society, things will be viewed much differently.

People's mindsets are so influenced by our current norms that it is very difficult to conceive of how things will be when the entire society has adjusted to an entirely different paradigm.

[mirkwood]

What I have an extreme desire for is the Father's Celestial Order to obtain victory, which will be Zion's redemption.
I desire for anything and everything Celestial we are currently falling short on to be redeemed so we can be empowered.
My strongest area of interest of Celestial bygones is actually on the economic side of things but plural marriage is important to.

Your posts make it clear that you want to see polygamy returned. Are you a part of the remnant movement too?

[jwharton]

What I have an extreme desire for is the Father's Celestial Order to obtain victory, which will be Zion's redemption.
I desire for anything and everything Celestial we are currently falling short on to be redeemed so we can be empowered.
My strongest area of interest of Celestial bygones is actually on the economic side of things but plural marriage is important to.

Your posts make it clear that you want to see polygamy returned. Are you a part of the remnant movement too?

Not really a part of any group right now other than mainstream LDS and a few good friends.
As I have said before, I get rather uncomfortable about people if they have lost respect for the Church.
This doesn't mean I am opposed to hearing criticism, provided it is sincere and respectful.
But, I don't get along especially well with offshoot or remnant people.
As hard as it may be for some here to believe, I get in trouble with my loyalty to the Church.

[gclayjr]

jwharton,

My extreme desire with regard to plural marriage is to get the sword of vengeance to no longer be hanging over us for neglecting widows.
This is talked about by Moroni in Mormon chapter 8. He saw our day and the awful spiritual and temporal plight of widows.

I have been a financial clerk in our ward for decades. I can tell you that the needs of widows is a high priority for both financial assistance, and for sevice, and service projects.

Yes, I do what I am able, but there are some things nobody can do adequately in some circumstances.

Just what is that one cannot do in some circumstances.

Also, you have overlooked the spiritual dilemma of widows and their deceased sealed husbands.
What if they want more children? What happens then?

Or does this give clarity to what you mean by "TEMPORAL PLIGHT". It sure is interesting to what extent, you go to avoid stating the bottom line.

One of the things about this world, is that we Can't always get what we want. It was designed that way/ There are many reasons why a woman... or a man may not be able to have children or more, children. God has provided many opportunities for us to live celestial lives, and fulfill celestial destinies without a need to resort to plural marriage.

And by the way, if you check virtually every society where polygamy is practiced , without God's specific, mandate and direction, they are among the most brutal and unfair societies of all to both men and women. Women go to successful men, unsuccessful men must seek out prostitutes, and women become second class property of those "successful" men.

Regards,

George Clay

[jwharton]

jwharton,

My extreme desire with regard to plural marriage is to get the sword of vengeance to no longer be hanging over us for neglecting widows.
This is talked about by Moroni in Mormon chapter 8. He saw our day and the awful spiritual and temporal plight of widows.

I have been a financial clerk in our ward for decades. I can tell you that the needs of widows is a high priority for both financial assistance, and for sevice, and service projects.

Turning widows over to centralized welfare requires "big government" to administer such.
It also has them feeling like a number and a general burden on society.
And, besides, money and a short visit once a month doesn't solve everything.

Yes, I do what I am able, but there are some things nobody can do adequately in some circumstances.

Just what is that one cannot do in some circumstances.

Raise up seed to her deceased husband.

Also, you have overlooked the spiritual dilemma of widows and their deceased sealed husbands.
What if they want more children? What happens then?

Or does this give clarity to what you mean by "TEMPORAL PLIGHT". It sure is interesting to what extent, you go to avoid stating the bottom line.

One of the things about this world, is that we Can't always get what we want. It was designed that way/ There are many reasons why a woman... or a man may not be able to have children or more, children. God has provided many opportunities for us to live celestial lives, and fulfill celestial destinies without a need to resort to plural marriage.

And by the way, if you check virtually every society where polygamy is practiced , without God's specific, mandate and direction, they are among the most brutal and unfair societies of all to both men and women. Women go to successful men, unsuccessful men must seek out prostitutes, and women become second class property of those "successful" men.

I don't believe one should judge a Celestial principle based upon what the world has done with it.
There aren't other examples of how the Father ordains it to be done that you have to look back on.

If you look at it in terms of liberty, the options of the women are simply increased.
And, insofar as Celestial Marriage is concerned, the Lord orchestrates all of it, even monogamy.

If a woman is a wife to a man who doesn't treat her good, the Lord can and will reassign her.
And, she can be reassigned to a man who is a good and honorable man if she is worthy.
The Lord has high standards for men to meet and if they don't meet it their wives can be reassigned.

As best as I can envision, the end result of this is those women having and raising children are with the best men, as it should be.