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

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 25

I don't think I am challenging the leadership in any way. In fact, my thoughts on this subject have changed drastically recently.

I have read countless statements by General Authorities stating unambiguously that plural marriage is an absolute requirement for exaltation. Joseph F. Smith stated that if we think that because we are sealed in the Temple, in a monogamous marriage, and don't even attempt to practice plural marriage, we are damned. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. We are damned.

Brigham Young did say (as I have quoted earlier) that if we are prevented from practicing it, then we are free of guilt on this subject.

So, I say that we need to know about it. We need to study it, as almost all the deep understanding of the doctrines of eternity is tied up in it. We need to go to the Lord, and ask Him if it is correct, and if so, what we (each of us) are to do about it. Then we must be obedient.

The Church currently prevents anyone from practicing it. In fact, I am getting more and more information that shows that the "Church" has gone from a persecuted church to a persecuting church on this and other doctrines. I don't believe that this attitude comes from the Brethren (or at least not most of them). However, it most certainly is a predominant idea within the Mormon culture of the intermountain West.

So, this is just my opinion. Disregard it if you like. I believe that since we KNOW that plural marriage is a revealed principle of the Gospel, that to refuse to study it out and ask the Lord is one of the biggest mistakes that a saint can make. It is right there with a refusal to be baptized.

However, I don't suggest to anyone that they enter into the practice without the Lord's express command - however you view that command coming.

---

I would like to point out that although there weren't all that many men who practiced plural marriage (estimates are at about 10%), it did NOT require a calling or commandment from the First Presidency, an Apostle, or any other General Authority. Similar to today's desire to go to the temple or go on a mission, if a man desired to enter into a plural marriage, he went to his Stake President, and got authorization from him. I have even had indications that if both parties in the relationship were endowed, that the sealing was frequently performed by a Stake President or Stake Patriarch within a building in the Stake. So, apparently they weren't even done in the Endowment House or a temple.

NightHawk

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Tenaheff

That is just it, no one is asking you to live it. have you been ever asked in any interview if you will live this law? I would think not. It is not a requirement. There are lots of other things that we are however asked that we can work on and live now.

Nighthawk, you are walking shady ground. I agress that we should study it, but you emphasize too much the point that we actually need to live it... now.

Nighthawk

... And that command will come through the Prophet and not personal revelation since on person cannot get an answer to practise it and another not. Lastly, I repeat this again...

"... I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Page 324)

Let us not be surprised... lets even look at the Book of Mormon:

Jacob 2:27
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of
the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be
one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

I firmly believe that Tenaheff and Nighthawk are mixing the difference between accepting the principle and somehow living it. Example: I understand that if I live righteously I will one day be a king, but right now I am not to be a king, but a servant.

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

I really don't think I am confusing the two. I believe we need to accept the principal. I don't believe yet, we are expected to live it. I am just saying, that I think if we don't accept it now, when we are asked to live it, many will not be willing to even consider it. We are expected to live it in the sense that if a man's spouse dies and he remarries in the Temple, then the previous spouse (on the other side of the veil) will be asked to accept that marriage. In addition, the second wife needs to realize she is entering into a polygamous marriage at that point even if the other spouse is on the other side of the veil. This is all I am trying to say. I think often, we don't think about it that way. We think of it a lot like members of other faiths do, which is the "death do us part" version of marriage. We say we believe in it as an eternal marriage, but we don't really consider that there is another eternal wife as well.

I am not suggesting we spend a ton of time worrying about this issue when there are more pressing ones to consider and work on while on this earth. I am just saying we shouldn't totally dismiss it as something we no longer practice or need to worry about because that isn't exactly accurate. I think if this practice were ever reinstituted on this side of the veil (and we can't say for sure it won't, can we?) many people would say, "when I joined you told me this was something that was done in the old days that didn't apply any longer," or "I was always taught this was something the Saints did way back then to help women make the journey west, No way I am going to accept this now, I am not prepared to even consider it." I just think it isn't right to pretend this was just something necessary long ago for temporal reasons that is no longer necessary so we don't need to worry about it now.

FYI, Nighthawk and I agree on the need to accept this practice, but I think we differ in our belief regarding how we will be told to follow it. I believe any reinstitution of this principal on this side of the veil will come from our Church leaders with confirmation coming to us through the Lord, but not directly to us from the Lord without coming through our leaders.

In summary, I think we need to be willing to accept it, but I don 't think we need to worry about how we will be able to live it. I think it is quite o.k. that I am not ready to live it. I don't think I need to work on getting ready to live it at this time either. I am just acknowledging that I am not ready to live it, but that if the Lord asked me to live it, I would be willing to do my best to do so. I think that is more than many members (especially women) are willing to accept at this point.

Edited: tenaheff on 19th Jan, 2004 - 12:36pm

Page 25 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

I understand you better now Tenaheff, however earlier you said the Church was doing you a disservice, and that is my point... the Church already made a firm declaration about this. It is the lay members who do not know better that most likely does the disservice, but the Church itself (referring to the Brethren) has made it quite clear when, where, why, and how this is to be instituted. Now if members want to come along and invent theories such as the famous one about necessity durning the crossing of the plains then they are in error. We need more teachers such as the one Farseer described that will say the truth because they know the truth rather than someone who has not properly studied, simply because they have not researched rather than just asking and then taking someone's word for it.

Offtopic but, This goes in line with a thread I will start in a couple of minutes called, 'A lay Ministry?'

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

That is my fault, what I meant was the local Church members and leaders, not the Brethren. Sometimes it is difficult to properly express oneself in print because you don't have the back and forth of clarification.

I don't mean they are hurting me either, because I do study on my own. It really does then come down to what you said JB, members don't take the time to study more than what is presented to them in Church and Sunday School and for that they will be accountable.

Also, some suggestions have been made in this thread that members get in trouble for discussing the subject openly in church or in print. If that is true, then I consider that to be a disservice as well because it would appear to be an official statement that this prinicipal is no longer valid.

Edited: tenaheff on 19th Jan, 2004 - 12:59pm

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

Yes I saw Nighthawk emphasizing that. I have seen members become surprised by the doctrine, but I have never had my membership questioned for bringing it up. Actually, most members here respect my knowledge (I am saying this just as an illustration, not to boast) for research into these things and so in a way do not dare to try and question it and then sound ignorant, and that is the fault right there. Suppose I am wrong in something. They do not say to themselves,'Okay, this is very interesting, I will open the scriptures and the manuals and do some reading'. No, they instead go asking and asking and asking other members who may be just as ignorant (see my other thread called, 'A Lay Ministry?') in these things. Yes, I do agree that leaders and teachers who do not inform themselves of the truth rather than fear it indeed do a disservice to members and more especially themselves. Hence there are so many myths about Plural Marriage whereas I believe it can be something that can be expounded.

Now, this brings us back to some questions still unanswered, maybe we may not get an answer to it, you know... Joseph Smith's physical relations, why Emma denied it, if a higher person in authority can marry a woman already sealed, and others that we still have not solved. I have only found historical referrences to this, but no doctrinal basis, at least not yet.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 25

I read the latest threads so far and I think we agree more than we think . Now, I think the other issue here is whether Plural Marriage is escential to obtain Exaltation, now we talked about this before but what is the position of the Church nowdays regards to this?. It seems to me that they think is not necessary for Exaltation (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) but Joseph Smith and other early leaders said the opposite

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 25

I would like to say based on current command that we are under no obligation to live this law at the moment, but at some future point will be either expected to or have the option. I say it that way because we must keep in mind, that compared with the general numbers of Elders very few men lived this law, or should I say, were asked to live this law. In fact to me, this was a 'calling' since one had to be asked to do it or abide by it rather than for one to just decide on their own that they would have more than one wife. However, let us keep in mind that only those who enter the Celestial glory may abide this law (or are we also questioning that those of lesser glories may be given a chance to marry those within the same sphere? Actually, did we cover that?).