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

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 43

RESEARCH FOCUSES ON SMITH FAMILY

While LDS Church founder Joseph Smith has been scrutinized intensely by both scholars and scoffers since he launched the faith in 1830, several new avenues of research are focused on his family relationships and whether he fathered children by his polygamist wives.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...37517%2C00.html

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Answering something that was said in this post.

I have discussed this statement, and others exactly like it, to a very large extent within this topic.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Heber C. Kimball, and many other Apostles all claimed that plural marriage is an absolute requirement for exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom. Not only that, but the Lord made it extremely clear that it was also acceptable in a temporal manner, outside of Celestial Plural Marriage.

It was right for a time and a purpose, that is correct. That time was for the Restoration, and the purpose was for the Exaltation of the Saints. Any other interpretation denies not only the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles, but also diminishes the very real sacrifices that they and a great many members of the Church made to attempt to live this principle.

So, if these Prophets taught that Celestial Plural Marriage (CPM) was/is a true and eternal principle, that would never be taken from the earth, are they to be considered false prophets? Or is there some misunderstanding that the members of the Church are holding considering these subjects?

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

Once again, I am bringing the discussion from another topic back into this one.

I should have specified that those who practice polygamy in our day are perverting a true doctrine of the gospel, using the history of the Church in vain attempts to justify their willful disobedience. They want the world to believe that they are the cultural and doctrinal mainstream of Mormonism. They claim to believe in the historical and doctrinal foundations of the Church, yet refuse to recognize the commandments of living prophets of God, who hold the same authority of Joseph and Brigham. Thus, they disproportionately focus on one point of the gospel, and discard the rest.

I must ask where you get this information. Have you read any of the writings of the actual people involved? Do you personally know any of them? Have you discussed their beliefs at all?

None of them, that I know, claim to be the cultural and doctrinal mainstream of Mormonism. They know that they are on the fringe, and are happy to accept that. They don't want to be part of the mainstream of Mormonism, because they believe that the mainstream of Mormonism has rejected a host of very special doctrines and ordinances.

With very good reason. No prophet since 1889 has claimed a "thus saith the Lord" prophecy or revelation. Not even ONE! Not even Wilford Woodruff, when he signed the Manifesto, made that claim, nor did he ever after that time. According to the various fundamentalists, whether organized or independent, there is very good reason to doubt that the prophets since the early 1900s DO hold the same authority that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did.

Most of the fundamentalists have no problem at all with President Hinckley being the President of the Church. They feel that the Church is necessary, that it serves a purpose, and that it is, generally, good and righteous. However, there is no doubt in their minds that the Church, as a whole, has rejected the most wonderful doctrines, principles, and ordinances that Joseph Smith restored.

This is where I began to wonder where you are getting your information. I must assume that you get it from the general attitudes and biases around you. This statement is completely false.

Plural marriage is only one aspect of what fundamentalists believe. It is also only one aspect of the wide variety of offenses for which a member of the church may be excommunicated. Many, if not most, fundamentalists believe and seek to practice, the full law of consecration. They also believe in the Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young. They perform the True Order of Prayer on a regular basis - for themselves. They wear their garments as was commanded by the Lord through Brigham Young. They do everything in their power to live the Gospel, as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff taught them!.

They have the endowment as it was presented in the 1800s, before it was changed for political correctness. They understand, and use, the endowment, for the purpose that it was given.

The ones with whom I have had contact have very deep, powerful testimonies of the Lord, of Joseph Smith, and of the principles of the Gospel.

I know that the common assumption among Mormons is that the polygamists only practice their "perversion" of the Gospel in order to have a "harem". But I personally know people who DO have harems of willing women, and these people are not willing to sacrifice anything for their women. Polygamists are willing to sacrifice everything for their families.

Now, to get off the rant.

Personally, I have been thinking a bit more about plural marriage lately. As I have considered some of the women that I know in the Church, I can really see a need for plural marriage, whether Celestial or not. At the moment, I can think of 6 women who I know personally (besides those who are active here) who are without husbands and likely to remain that way. A couple of them are happy with that situation, but a couple of them certainly aren't.

Now, personally, I don't find some of these women physically attractive. However, I do find their personalities and spirits attractive. I am at least friendly with them. I could imagine loving them quite easily. But, as I said before, it certainly isn't a physical thing, and there is no lust involved in my feelings.

But, at least 5 of these women are unlikely to ever get married. One is a single mother. One is a bit slow, mentally. Four are divorced or separated. These aren't even all of the single women in our ward, let alone in our stake!

Anyway, I guess that this is a good place to end this rant. Did I make my position any clearer?

Page 43 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Nighthawk, is that 'thinking about' taking fruit to the point that you may end up being in the Fundamentalist movement? I am curious as to wether you have discussed these things with your wife and how she feels about it.

I do agree with what you said that there are women in Church that will remain single and maybe so for the rest of their lives simply because we have too many delinquent Brethren around that prefer Gentile women, and were Plural marriage still in existence I am sure that would be a sure cure. Actually, the current answer to that by the leaders is for the Sisters of the Church to stop waiting and just make life as good as they can, but I am not sure how possible that is since it is engrained in women to be:

1. Loved
2. Have a prosperity

Simply telling them to become educated and 'be happy' while looking for a situation in the next life seems a bit too much. So in my opinion. If you rule out Plural marriage as an option to these Sisters then you need to make the Singles groups more connective, otherwise you may just find some of these Sisters going to the Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Catholic and other organizations to look. And! How do I know that? In Trinidad it happens ALL THE TIME, the Sisters come to Church hoping to find a worthy Brother, and then end up elsewhere because there is NONE to be found. But! On the other hand I wonder if they would be willing to accept the position of 2nd, or 3rd wife in order to have such a husband?

HOT WATER: I would like to know if Farseer and FunBikerChic would be willing to enter a Plural marriage (if it were 'legal' in the Church) for the sake of having a good husband or if they would much prefer the conventional marriage?

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Right now, I wouldn't become part of the fundamentalist movement. If I were to become part of that movement, I would not join any of the groups.

My wife doesn't really discuss this subject with me. She knows how I feel, and we have talked about it before, but she is uncomfortable with it. She depends on the Church to provide guidance on such things.

However, she does agree with me about the changes to the ordinances, and other "fundamentalist" ideas.

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

This brings up something that I am not sure if we have covered already. What is the level of authorization needed from the first wife to have a second, third, etc. Must it be a joint decision or solely for the man to make? Suppose the first wife does not want it? From the scriptures it seemed that the wife had no role in the process, but I understand that in modern times she does.

In addition to this what would be the role of the first wife, is she somehow in charge of the other wives? Will she be able to decide times, work schedules, etc? Is this left up to each wife? It would be good to get some of this insight from someone who practised in the early times of the Church to understand how it all worked out.

I imagine that if someone had enough wives and children he could form a unit, thus become the Patriarch of his some as well as the Branch he is over that happens to be his own family as well. In this way the man both becomes essential spiritual leader for ordinances, tithes as well as his role as father and husband.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 43

Personally, I think that it is essential for the 1st wife to approve and be involved. From what I have seen of independent fundamentalists, they generally will NOT ask any other women to marry into their families, but will only respond if the women ask them to join. So, the general thought is that a woman will approach the current wives, then will, with their permission, approach the man.

I do not believe it is appropriate for the first wife to rule over any other wives in any way. I understand that when Parley P. Pratt (I think it was him) entered into plural marriage (after the death of his first wife), he married two women on the same day, in the same ceremony, so that neither could claim any sort of preference.

It seems to me that if any wife makes any claims of priority or preference, then there is a serious problem in the marriage.

BTW, the concept of Celestial Plural Marriage is tied completely up with the concept of the husband being a Patriarch, in all ways.

I believe that the "roles" of each person should be decided by the Patriarch, with the advice and consent of his mates. So, if one of the wives is a nurse or doctor, perhaps everyone would agree that this wife should continue in their work, while another wife decides to "babysit" or home school the children. This could work for just about any sort of situation, as long as everyone agrees.

The role of the Patriarch is that described in scripture. He leads in righteousness, confirms decisions, etc. He also provides for his family, with the assistance of his wives, and even his children. Most importantly, he receives revelation for his family.

I do have a copy of a fundamentalist's endowment. It is extremely interesting to see how the concept of plural marriage is so tightly integrated into the endowment. I believe that his version is very close to what Brigham Young presented to the Saints.

---

I agree with you that the current teaching of the Church concerning single women is very inadequate. In fact, I believe it is irresponsible and harmful to the women, as it gives the appearance that they are less important.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 43

Essentially then, if you wanted to get involved in such future relationships you would have to make sure that your first wife agrees to this beforehand. I think if this were ever to come back (Plural Marriage) then this would be the first problem. One has to then wonder two things now if Plural Marriage was still practised in the Church by the living:

1. Would this be grounds for divorce
2. Would a man be stagnant in progress if he were not permitted to practise

Now, I had missed to ask you, Nighthawk, something from an earlier post:

I am not sure what you are saying, by using the timeline of 'right now' it means you are thinking about it? And by saying 'movement' you are talking about Plural Marriage as a whole or just those that seek to carry it out despite the Church's disapproval? Are you looking for a sign or to form your own 'group' as it were. Considering that your wife is not in agreement, I wonder how you would handle that, or are you hoping she has the same sign?