Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 15

QUOTE

1.  I believe that the Lord didn't actually command that the practice of Celestial Plural Marriage be discontinued.  I believe that He showed President Woodruff what would happen in the future because of the lack of faith of the saints.  Yes, the future was bleak, but the saints, or at least a large majority of them, were already rejecting or had rejected the principle.

So, do you believe that we as a body of saints were lied to by President Woodruff, or do you just think that subsequent prophets misinterpreted his revelation?

As I read the Manifesto, it came to me that maybe you mean that you think President Woodruff got the question right, and that the Lord truly was willing to allow us to make the choice, but that we, including the Prophet of the day, made the wrong choice?  

Or, do you mean that President Woodruff got the question right, but the answer wrong and the Lord doesn't approve of us getting the answer wrong, didn't really mean it to be a choice, but has forgiven us our inability to live this principal?   Like maybe the question was meant to be rhetorical and President Woodruff just didn't get it?

Nighthawk, don't take this wrong, I am not trying to argue with you.  I really am trying to fully understand what it is you believe and why?

QUOTE

2.  I believe that the attack, by Babylon, on the principle (or The Principle) was not actually against plural marriage, but rather against the political Kingdom of God, and plural marriage was just a handy "cause" to rally the people of the United States.

This I agree with you on completely.  I don't think it mattered what the reason was, this just happened to be a good excuse.  The saints were severly persecuted long before plural marriage was practiced within it's confines.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

QUOTE

For all I know, this could be happening now.  There are people who claim it does happen, with the knowledge and tacit support of the Brethren.  I don't know for myself, just reporting what others claim.

huh? wow, I want to know more about this! where did you get this from?

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... Studies Doctrine Mormon

QUOTE

That is deep. Also it would then be a 'lie'?

Yep.  Just like the lies that Joseph Smith told, when he first started the practice.  Just like the lie that Nephi lived while getting the brass plates.

Again - I am reporting what I have been told.  I don't know whether it is true or not.

I do believe that there are a lot of people who very quietly live the principle.  Whether their church authorities know or not, that is a completely different matter.

QUOTE

So, do you believe that we as a body of saints were lied to by President Woodruff, or do you just think that subsequent prophets misinterpreted his revelation?

No, I don't think that President Woodruff lied.  In actuality, it is a well established historical fact that he sanctioned plural marriage, many times, after the publication of the Manifesto.  The colonies in Mexico and Canada were the main places people were sent to solemnize these marriages.

President Woodruff never claimed to receive a revelation commanding that plural marriage be stopped.  He claimed a revelation where he saw what the results would be if the saints didn't stop it.  There is a huge difference.

I believe that the Lord allowed the practice to be stopped, because of the rejection by the saints.  Just as Israel rejected the higher Priesthood, the saints rejected the higher Law.  And, in accordance with prophecies by several Prophets and Apostles, the culture and lifestyles of the saints have devolved, until there is very little difference between us and Babylon.  We are further from Zion now than ever in our history.

Did anyone get the answer wrong?  Yes.  Those who reject(ed) the principle and the Law.  As for the Church, I think we took the lesser path.  Now the culture has antipathy for The Principle so deeply entrenched that it would cause a huge rift, possibly a schism, if it was introduced once again.  Perhaps this will be one of the major causes of the terrible apostacy within the church during the final days.

BTW, President Smith personally performed, and entered into, plural marriages after the publication of the Manifesto, with the full knowledge and consent of President Woodruff.

NightHawk

Page 15 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Just one more quick note -

While I believe that the principle of Celestial Plural Marriage is true, and is truly the Law of God, I know that I am not ready to practice it.  I also don't know who holds the keys to it, if anyone.

NightHawk

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

QUOTE

No, I don't think that President Woodruff lied.  In actuality, it is a well established historical fact that he sanctioned plural marriage, many times, after the publication of the Manifesto.  The colonies in Mexico and Canada were the main places people were sent to solemnize these marriages.

But he did indicate pretty strongly the need to follow the law as deemed constitutional in the United States or to be more precise to follow "the law of the land."

QUOTE

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.     There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. WILFORD WOODRUFF President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  (Taken From D&C Declaration #1)

QUOTE

Article of Faith #12: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

So to me this would mean that if it were to be practiced again (or still today), with Church approval it would need to be in a location where it was legal.  

QUOTE

Did anyone get the answer wrong?  Yes.  Those who reject(ed) the principle and the Law.  As for the Church, I think we took the lesser path.

QUOTE

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . . The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter. The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue-to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?  Taken From D&C Declaration #1

Little can be gained (IMO) by insisting upon following a principal that will cause the Church to basically stop functioning in a large capacity.  No Temples.  No future redeeming work for the dead or even living ordinances for that matter.

It looks to me from reading Declaration #1, that President Woodruff maintained that the Lord was, in fact, telling him to end the practice.  At least in the U.S. for the time period during which the revelation was received.  Looks to me like the question was levied in a manner just to explain why the Lord was removing this law from our doctrine then, but not changing the gospel truth from whence this principal came.  I think the Lord was trying to explain to President Woodruff that it was a valid principal, but one which the country wasn't ready to allow; not necessarily one the saints weren't ready or willing to live.

Which would then suggest that it would be o.k. to live it in countries that have no laws against it, and also it might be something re-established in the States at a later date when people were more tolerant of religious freedom.  

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...

I don't blame President Woodruff.  I blame the saints who rejected the principle, and begged the Lord and His servants to halt the practice.  If the saints had had the faith to ask the Lord, I am sure He would have fought their battles for them.

I believe that the US and state governments will soon fall.  This will, of course, open up the way for the Church to reinstate this practice.  But I don't think it will.  The saints still reject the very idea that plural marriage is a good thing.

As I said before, I think that when people practice it, it will be through direct, personal revelation to those who are approaching Zion.  The rest of us who are languishing in Babylon will not even notice.

NightHawk

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 15

I think I get what you are saying.  Is what you're saying that the Lord gave President Woodruff the revelation as a result of all the saints prayers and petitions to him (the Lord) asking that the requirement to live this command be lifted?

FYI-I too, am no where near ready to live this principal.  I am way too insecure to share something this intimate with another woman.  I would always be wondering who my husband preferred.   :-/

If you think about it, that problem even existed in Old Testament Days.  Leah and Rachel had this issue between them.  In Genesis Chapter 30, Rachel asks Leah to give her some of the mandrakes her son picked for her.  Mandrakes are apparently some herb or plant believed to aid in fertility for women.  Leah's reply to Rachel was:  "Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also?" (Gen 30:15)

So, it would seem that this principal has always been difficult to live, at any rate.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 15

QUOTE

So, it would seem that this principal has always been difficult to live, at any rate.

Oh, absolutely.

However, do any of us expect that it will be easy to live the Celestial Laws?

I think that it is necessary for us to overcome our prejudices concerning this, and attempt to live it, which will teach us how to live cooperatively.

I really do believe that it is a necessary law in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom.  This is based on teachings by Joseph F. Smith, in particular.  I have also read Mosiah Hancock's history, wherein he was given a vision of the pre-mortal existence, and gained some excellent insights into some of the reasons for plural marriage.

Plural marriage isn't about the man.  Just as Isaiah described, it is about the women.  It may have some benefits for the man, but the women will benefit far more, in many different ways.

NightHawk