Fundamental Mormons & Plural Marriage

[Tony63]

I have Just been watching the PBS documentary "The Mormon" and in it a clip of G. B. Hinckley states that there is no such thing as a "Fundamentalist Mormon" my question is do the people who practice plural marriage still follow the LDS church leadership & are they still considered members of the church or are they with all the children excommunicated members?

[Melissa]

You cannot live polygamy in our church, you will be excommunicated. This has been stated quite clearly. There are other groups who call themselves mormon and probably do very similar things but they do not follow the gospel we do, they follow their own version of it. This is pretty much all I know.

[skmo]

I remember that, I believed he was talking about mainstream LDS people. He was making the point that there are no people in the LDS Church who are allowed to be "fundamentalist" and be a part of the church, that if they espoused ideas like polygamy they were a different religion.

[sbsion]

You cannot live polygamy in our church, you will be excommunicated. This has been stated quite clearly. There are other groups who call themselves mormon and probably do very similar things but they do not follow the gospel we do, they follow their own version of it. This is pretty much all I know.

wrong..................thousands are sealed in the temple yearly as multiple wives

[Benjamin_LK]

You cannot live polygamy in our church, you will be excommunicated. This has been stated quite clearly. There are other groups who call themselves mormon and probably do very similar things but they do not follow the gospel we do, they follow their own version of it. This is pretty much all I know.

wrong..................thousands are sealed in the temple yearly as multiple wives

Plural concurrent, living wives are not allowed. I can, say, have a first wife who dies, and then marry and get sealed to a second wife, as is Dallin H. Oaks. If you're trying to say plural sealings happen, sure, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't going to allow me to be married by temple ordinance to multiple, concurrent, living wives, by their priesthood authority. I could fraudulently pretend to be single, but that's not a reflection on Church policy so much as it is a wicked idea of me being blatantly dishonest toward God.

[Fiannan]

There is no copyright on the name "Mormon." If the LDS Church were to take a group of fundamentalist Mormons to court for using the Mormon name I fear our church would lose the right to use the term as the polygamists could make a good point that they are more like Joseph and Brigham in practice and, since the name Mormon was used on those days, then they have the right to the name first.

Personally I have no problem calling the polygamists Fundamentalist Mormons and our church just plain Mormons.

[Gad]

There is no copyright on the name "Mormon." If the LDS Church were to take a group of fundamentalist Mormons to court for using the Mormon name I fear our church would lose the right to use the term as the polygamists could make a good point that they are more like Joseph and Brigham in practice and, since the name Mormon was used on those days, then they have the right to the name first.

Personally I have no problem calling the polygamists Fundamentalist Mormons and our church just plain Mormons.

The SLC LDS Church attempted to register a federal trademark for the term "Mormon" in 2002 for "religious services, namely, operating places of assembly and gathering for worship by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for others; ministerial services, namely, providing religious worship services".

It was denied as being a generic term.

They did get a federal registration for Mormon for "Educational services, namely, providing classes, conferences, and institutes in the fields of history and religion."

[skmo]

It's really just semantics. One of the difficult yet praisworthy things of our language is its complexity. I believe President Hinckley was just trying to establish the position of OUR church and verifying that fundamentalist behavior is not permitted. What others want to do or call themselvs is, of course, their business, but they do not belong in our church regardless of their apostate beliefs unless they repent and forsake practices not in harmony with our revealed standards of behavior.

[Benjamin_LK]

It's really just semantics. One of the difficult yet praiseworthy things of our language is its complexity. I believe President Hinckley was just trying to establish the position of OUR church and verifying that fundamentalist behavior is not permitted. What others want to do or call themselves is, of course, their business, but they do not belong in our church regardless of their apostate beliefs unless they repent and forsake practices not in harmony with our revealed standards of behavior.

That I certainly agree with. I would also add getting baptized back into our church too.

[sbsion]

You cannot live polygamy in our church, you will be excommunicated. This has been stated quite clearly. There are other groups who call themselves mormon and probably do very similar things but they do not follow the gospel we do, they follow their own version of it. This is pretty much all I know.

wrong..................thousands are sealed in the temple yearly as multiple wives

Plural concurrent, living wives are not allowed. I can, say, have a first wife who dies, and then marry and get sealed to a second wife, as is Dallin H. Oaks. If you're trying to say plural sealings happen, sure, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't going to allow me to be married by temple ordinance to multiple, concurrent, living wives, by their priesthood authority. I could fraudulently pretend to be single, but that's not a reflection on Church policy so much as it is a wicked idea of me being blatantly dishonest toward God.

so.....what does that have to do with Eloheim ONLY has polygmist in the reproduction cycle of eternity

[Silas]

Sbsion you don't always do the best job explaining where you are coming from like with providing evidence for your claims or explaining when your thought process takes us far from where we started in the conversation. I don't even know how to respond when you say stuff like this.

[Fiannan]

You cannot live polygamy in our church, you will be excommunicated. This has been stated quite clearly. There are other groups who call themselves mormon and probably do very similar things but they do not follow the gospel we do, they follow their own version of it. This is pretty much all I know.

wrong..................thousands are sealed in the temple yearly as multiple wives

Plural concurrent, living wives are not allowed. I can, say, have a first wife who dies, and then marry and get sealed to a second wife, as is Dallin H. Oaks. If you're trying to say plural sealings happen, sure, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't going to allow me to be married by temple ordinance to multiple, concurrent, living wives, by their priesthood authority. I could fraudulently pretend to be single, but that's not a reflection on Church policy so much as it is a wicked idea of me being blatantly dishonest toward God.

Sort of. There are lots of people who have received a civil divorce but not a temple cancellation. Technically if a woman gets a civil divorce but is still sealed to her ex-husband she is still, in the eternal perspective, married to her husband still. And if she marries another man and has children with the new husband her children are sealed to the original husband.

[Melissa]

Do people ever think about the fact that people just need to be sealed and that is why it is ok for a man to be sealed to his second wife? If he married again and she was unsealed then it is his duty to get her sealed to someone (him) just so that she can be sealed. We cannot get to our destination without the sealing and our marriages are not necessarily guaranteed to the person or all the people we are sealed to -we just need to do it and have it.

This is just something that allows me to make sense of the plan.

Also, if God has proclaimed himself to be a God of monogamy, then why do we automatically think he is living any other way? What if polygamy is more for this earth (few limited purposes) than it is for eternity? A man and a woman are whole and complete, a man and two women is a mess.

Did you know that way back when, amongst the Jews, they were allowed to live polygamy and didnt receive flack for doing it but most people lived monogomy? Polygamy is not what many in this church think it is or think it will be. I would dare say that anyone man who desires to live it is not being the husband his wife needs now and he will not get the chance to live polygamy later. Anyone who is looking forward to polygamy is foolish - it would turn out to be a hellish nightmare with which he cannot escape. Why do you think so many apostles and church leaders had their wives divorcing them? Its not because polygamy was great! It is a downgrade from the higher order of marriage.

I actually feel sorry for women who live in a polygamist family. They will never be completed as a person and never appreciated and validated as a woman. But, it is all they know so it is ok, i guess. Its hard for me to understand a woman who would vouch for that life.

[Fiannan]

Also, if God has proclaimed himself to be a God of monogamy...

Call for references here. The same God that the prophet Nathan told David blessed him with six wives? The same God set up regulations for polygamy in the Mosaic Law? The same God that commanded Joseph to take more wives?

[firend]

Do people ever think about the fact that people just need to be sealed and that is why it is ok for a man to be sealed to his second wife? If he married again and she was unsealed then it is his duty to get her sealed to someone (him) just so that she can be sealed. We cannot get to our destination without the sealing and our marriages are not necessarily guaranteed to the person or all the people we are sealed to -we just need to do it and have it.

This is just something that allows me to make sense of the plan.

Also, if God has proclaimed himself to be a God of monogamy, then why do we automatically think he is living any other way? What if polygamy is more for this earth (few limited purposes) than it is for eternity? A man and a woman are whole and complete, a man and two women is a mess.

Did you know that way back when, amongst the Jews, they were allowed to live polygamy and didnt receive flack for doing it but most people lived monogomy? Polygamy is not what many in this church think it is or think it will be. I would dare say that anyone man who desires to live it is not being the husband his wife needs now and he will not get the chance to live polygamy later. Anyone who is looking forward to polygamy is foolish - it would turn out to be a hellish nightmare with which he cannot escape. Why do you think so many apostles and church leaders had their wives divorcing them? Its not because polygamy was great! It is a downgrade from the higher order of marriage.

I actually feel sorry for women who live in a polygamist family. They will never be completed as a person and never appreciated and validated as a woman. But, it is all they know so it is ok, i guess. Its hard for me to understand a woman who would vouch for that life.

Downgrade? So then the monogamous church today must be an upgrade from Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Christ himself, Joseph smith, etc?

[firend]

This book I read called the blessing wheel of god explains plural marriage in the most amazing way. Wow is all I can say.

[Melissa]

Do people ever think about the fact that people just need to be sealed and that is why it is ok for a man to be sealed to his second wife? If he married again and she was unsealed then it is his duty to get her sealed to someone (him) just so that she can be sealed. We cannot get to our destination without the sealing and our marriages are not necessarily guaranteed to the person or all the people we are sealed to -we just need to do it and have it.

This is just something that allows me to make sense of the plan.

Also, if God has proclaimed himself to be a God of monogamy, then why do we automatically think he is living any other way? What if polygamy is more for this earth (few limited purposes) than it is for eternity? A man and a woman are whole and complete, a man and two women is a mess.

Did you know that way back when, amongst the Jews, they were allowed to live polygamy and didnt receive flack for doing it but most people lived monogomy? Polygamy is not what many in this church think it is or think it will be. I would dare say that anyone man who desires to live it is not being the husband his wife needs now and he will not get the chance to live polygamy later. Anyone who is looking forward to polygamy is foolish - it would turn out to be a hellish nightmare with which he cannot escape. Why do you think so many apostles and church leaders had their wives divorcing them? Its not because polygamy was great! It is a downgrade from the higher order of marriage.

I actually feel sorry for women who live in a polygamist family. They will never be completed as a person and never appreciated and validated as a woman. But, it is all they know so it is ok, i guess. Its hard for me to understand a woman who would vouch for that life.

Downgrade? So then the monogamous church today must be an upgrade from Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Christ himself, Joseph smith, etc?

God is a God of monogamy. Why do you think polygamy is more righteous and higher way of marriage than monogamy? There is absolutely no proof Christ was even married, the bride of the savior is His church.

You tell me how 999 wives is more correct than how we are supposed to live today.

There have been few times that polygamy was used and it has always been the exception for a purpose. JS had to live it because he was the prophet and he had to restore it in this dispensation, it will not be widespread nor will it be the qualifying law of heaven. I will not have to enter into polygamy to gain exaltation!

You tell me why God would say he is a God of monogamy if monogamy was a lower way if living?

[ajax]

Melissa, I agree with much of your sentiment.

However I am curious your opinion on why you think HF would restore polygamy if a lesser law?

[Silas]

I am not aware of the Lord having ever said that he is a God of monogamy. And you can't marry an institution, much less one that is not an eternal institution (the church will no longer serve a purpose once everyone is exalted). The idea that Christ was unmarried/ married to the church is a catholic and false doctrine. The church cannot give him an endless posterity. If the only sinless person had to be baptized just for the purpose of complying with his Father's commandments then how is it that he is somehow exempt from marriage? If our scriptures are true then Christ had to have been married to at least one woman. It is my opinion that he was married to multiple women as well.

[Melissa]

Melissa, I agree with much of your sentiment.

However I am curious your opinion on why you think HF would restore polygamy if a lesser law?

Probably needed to be restored because it was something that occurred in the past, all things needed to be restored in this last and final dispensation- that doesn't mean it is a law for our times but that it occurred and was necessitated because of its prior use in the early church? I don't know all the answers.

[Melissa]

I am not aware of the Lord having ever said that he is a God of monogamy. And you can't marry an institution, much less one that is not an eternal institution (the church will no longer serve a purpose once everyone is exalted). The idea that Christ was unmarried/ married to the church is a catholic and false doctrine. The church cannot give him an endless posterity. If the only sinless person had to be baptized just for the purpose of complying with his Father's commandments then how is it that he is somehow exempt from marriage? If our scriptures are true then Christ had to have been married to at least one woman. It is my opinion that he was married to multiple women as well.

Really?? God has clearly stated he is a God of monogamy. Read the first line of the explanation of the plural marriage declaration included in the newly updated scriptures. The first line states that God is a God of monogamy.

It is my belief that the church is the bride and after the marriage supper at the end of this dispensation, Christ will marry. His job and calling was to care for the church when that is complete, then he will enter into marriage. Now, i know this is not a popular belief but it is my belief. If the savior was married than we would talk about it right? It would give us the example of marriage right? It would be helpful to us, but we do not discuss it because the scriptures do not state he was married. If it was so incredibly important then why was nothing documented for us? To say Christ lived polygamy is an assumption with little support. If he had a bride already then why would his people be called his bride? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Fiannan]

God is a God of monogamy. Why do you think polygamy is more righteous and higher way of marriage than monogamy? There is absolutely no proof Christ was even married, the bride of the savior is His church.

That last part is quite figurative, not literal; in other words symbolic. If we were to take that literally then since half the Church should technically be male then wouldn't that be some sort of same-sex marriage justification? No, it is symbolic, just like when the Bible says it rained 40 days and 40 mights (that is not a literal number since in Hebrew it basically means it rained a long time).

As for God saying He is a god of monogamy, where???? Seems the Jews and Muslims have missed that one -- so did the prophets of the Restoration.

[jbalm]

Melissa, I agree with much of your sentiment.

However I am curious your opinion on why you think HF would restore polygamy if a lesser law?

May not have been HF's idea.

[Silas]

I am not aware of the Lord having ever said that he is a God of monogamy. And you can't marry an institution, much less one that is not an eternal institution (the church will no longer serve a purpose once everyone is exalted). The idea that Christ was unmarried/ married to the church is a catholic and false doctrine. The church cannot give him an endless posterity. If the only sinless person had to be baptized just for the purpose of complying with his Father's commandments then how is it that he is somehow exempt from marriage? If our scriptures are true then Christ had to have been married to at least one woman. It is my opinion that he was married to multiple women as well.

Really?? God has clearly stated he is a God of monogamy. Read the first line of the explanation of the plural marriage declaration included in the newly updated scriptures. The first line states that God is a God of monogamy.

It is my belief that the church is the bride and after the marriage supper at the end of this dispensation, Christ will marry. His job and calling was to care for the church when that is complete, then he will enter into marriage. Now, i know this is not a popular belief but it is my belief. If the savior was married than we would talk about it right? It would give us the example of marriage right? It would be helpful to us, but we do not discuss it because the scriptures do not state he was married. If it was so incredibly important then why was nothing documented for us? To say Christ lived polygamy is an assumption with little support. If he had a bride already then why would his people be called his bride? Doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah it doesn't say that. What is says is, "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God's standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise" http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All that means is that in the absences of a command from God to practice plural marriage we are required to live monogamy. That is an explanation from the church to give context to OD 1 it is not the voice of God declaring himself to be a God of monogamy. No matter how much you want it to say that it just doesn't.

As for Christ and marriage, a few things for you to consider.

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

(D&C 131)

This reference alone establishes that in order for Christ to qualify for exaltation he had to have been married, otherwise he could not obtain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom where God dwells, God who is also married, else where would all of his offspring come from?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

(2 Nephi 31)

This is of course, in reference to Baptism, but again I ask you if he were willing to be baptized, even though he had no to sins to be cleansed of, just to be obedient to God why would he neglect the commandment to marry and bear children? For Christ to neglect this commandment would be a serious sin.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

(The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Why would the Savior obey every commandment except for the very first one given to Adam and Eve? You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but your opinion does not fit the facts manifest in revealed truth. The Savior obeyed all of the commandments of God. Including marriage. So the scriptures (which I might add are incomplete) do not mention the Savior being married. What is more likely that the Saviors family was not explicitly identified as such in the gospels, or that they would fail to explain the strange and bizarre circumstances that allow for him to be unmarried? A Jewish man in his thirties who was unmarried, and everyone was OK with that? That would have been extremely unusual in that time and culture, if that were the case the writers of the gospel would have taken the time to explain why it was OK for Jesus to not be married.

[Fiannan]

Melissa, I agree with much of your sentiment.

However I am curious your opinion on why you think HF would restore polygamy if a lesser law?

May not have been HF's idea.

It was all part of a Zionist plot involving Moses and Joseph Smith. )