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

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 45

Here are some more quotes:
John Taylor: "Concerning the Patriarchal order of marriage, President (John) Taylor said: `If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we cannot go with Him.'" (Wilford Woodruff, History of His Life and Labors, Matthias F. Cowley, p. 542)

GEORGE Q. CANNON (1827-1901)
(Apostle & First Counselor in three First Presidencies)

A violent and vicious attack is being made upon the doctrine and practice of Patriarchal marriage. Those who have practiced this principle are assailed with a ferocity never before known. Those who make the attack perhaps hope to drive the people of God to renounce the doctrine and promise not to obey the revelation. Vain and delusive hope! Unless the Saints apostatize, such an action on their part is impossible. By doing so, they would deliberately shut the door of the Celestial glory to their faces. They would say by that action, "We do not have the valor necessary to sustain us in our striving for the celestial glory, and we, therefore, are content to enter a terrestrial or telestial glory." To comply with the request of our enemies would be to give up all hope of entering into the glory of God, the Father, and Jesus Christ the Son. This is the price which the Saints are asked to give for the world to cease their attacks upon them! Is it not a costly bargain which they are asked to make? To barter off all hope of eternal felicity with wives and children in the celestial presence of God and the Lamb for the miserable favor of the world! So intimately interwoven is this precious doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory. (Juvenile Instructor 20:136, May 1, 1885)

HEBER C. KIMBALL (1801-1868)
(Apostle and First Counselor to Brigham Young)

(Oct. 1856) You might as well deny "Mormonism," and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed, he designs to have carried out by His people. (JD 5:203-204)

HYRUM SMITH (1800-1844)
(Second Counselor to Joseph Smith, Church Patriarch)

Brother Hyrum was called upon to read the revelation {Sec. 132]. He did so, and after the reading said, "Now you that believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same, shall be saved, and you that reject it shall be damned." (Hist. Record 6:227, by Thomas Grover, 1843)

JOSEPH SMITH (1805-1844)
(First Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the Church)

(Quoted by William Clayton) From him [Joseph Smith] I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth and that without obedience to that principle, no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory. (Historical Record 6:226)

(Quoted by Samuel Woolley) It was there (at my house in Nauvoo), one afternoon when the Prophet and Patriarch Hyrum Smith called in, and the latter read a revelation on eternal marriage and plurality of wives, told me . . . that that revelation was of God and that no man could or would receive a fulness of the Celestial Glory and eternal life except he obeyed that law and had more than one living wife at the same time. (Historical Record 6:231-232, 1843)

(Quoted by Wilford Woodruff) The Saints may be divided, broken up and scattered before we accomplish the work now in view. There are so many fools in the world for the devil to act upon that it oftimes gives him the advantage. Any person who is exalted to the highest mansion must abide the celestial law and the whole law, too, but there has been much difficulty in getting understanding into the hearts of this generation. Even the Saints are slow to understand. How many will be able to abide the celestial law, endure the trials, and receive their exaltation I am unable to say. "Many are called, but few are chosen." (Wilford Woodruff, History of His Life and Labors, Matthias F. Cowley, p. 198)

---

There are many, many more quotes. I took these from a compilation available here:
https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showforum=120/FG_AnEssentialForExaltation.txt

Edited: Nighthawk on 19th Aug, 2005 - 8:42pm

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

I've stated before in this thread that I absolutely would enter into Celestial Plural Marriage. Of course, not with just "any guy" but within a family headed by a true Patriarch, and not with just "any women." I've heard too much about the so-called Fundamentalist groups to know that it wouldn't be within that framework, either.

As Nighthawk stated, it would have to be in direct response to specific revelation; I'm not out seeking for this type of an arrangement on my own. However, with the great abundance of worthy single women and the dearth of worthy brethren, the eternities will, in my view, be overpopulated with women. The very quote from Isaiah that heads this thread tells me that the Latter Days will be seeing the same issues before eternity comes around.

If this Earth is where we are supposed to learn to live Celestial Principles, we had better get busy.

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

LDS_forever read my post and showed me the quote she found earlier today (I did not have time to post after that) and so I am satisfied that the Brethren are clear on it. Nighthawk's quotes also secure his position and reenforces all his rants. I can also see why some may have risked the 'standing order' if you will and still became involved in Plural Marriage.

But at some point there was a cut off... where persecution against this practise began.

Now then, this brings up the question... Why does the Church try to act as though this never happened? I would like to believe because they want to ensure there is no resemblance to the Fundamentalists who call themselves by the same name. Maybe in secret places these things are acknowledged, but not publicly since the world is not ready for the concept and the 'others' will only use that as leverage for their own plans. Maybe it was denied then because the Church wanted to be on good terms with the rest of the Union and if they claimed ties with Polygamist groups that would spell trouble. Maybe the Saints were really too weak and so did not deserve this blessing.

So much food for thought, but one thing is clear in my mind... it would take a great 'motion' for me to acknowledge that I should live this law here, right now, similar to what Nighthawk claimed, but until then, I have to file this away knowing that I have no problems with it when the time comes, I understand the concept, I know the need and see the balance.

Offtopic but, FarSeer: I am sure anyone would be anxious for you to join their family, in all seriousness. Tena: I understand your position and agree that until such revelation is given there is no need to worry about this. I am glad you both took the time to answer, thanks. On a lighter note, LDS_forever is already hooking me up with this old Italian lady that speaks very loud and barely has teeth

Page 45 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

That's exactly why. If you read in the "Official Declaration", it states that Wilford Woodruff saw in a vision the path the Church would take if Plural Marriage continued, and the path that it would follow if the practice was discontinued. He said he saw the Church ordinances come to an end.

(Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

The practice was stopped in order to save the Church from extinction. However, I agree that it seems ridiculous for the Church to now deny that any of it ever happened, and that it was never doctrinal. That's just absurd, in my opinion.

Offtopic but, I know several sisters in my stake in their 80's and 90's who might be interested also, JB...

Edited: FarSeer on 19th Aug, 2005 - 10:19pm

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Another interesting little tidbit. Someone on one of my mailing lists has reported that now the BYU admissions form has a question something like this: "Are you a member of a church or religious group that advocates the current practice of plural marriage?"

So, this brings up a question. Is BYU being overrun by fundamentalists? Or, is the Church just becoming ever more hostile towards the practice?

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

From the Church's perspective they want all coming to BUY to be basically temple recommend holders (unrealistic, but a like question is asked for your recommend) although I cannot see how this would apply to a non-member. It could be that some are learning more about Plural marriage and understanding that it is not something to be shunned and ridiculed, or it could be that fundamentalist groups are infiltrating the university to purposely try and stir up the younger generation, after all, if you have something to cause intellectual havoc what better place than a higher learning institution.

I was just thinking (yes, a few brain cells died while doing it) that the whole reason this was taken away from the living was not because of the US government, but because of the unfaithful Saints. If the Lord, gave an option based on the current faithfulness of the Saints then it was right that this was stopped when it was as it is better for this to not be acted upon rather than have everything removed. In fact, the Saints of these days may be even more faithless and undeserving of such blessings. However, what I am against is the way the Church makes it look as though it never happened. I understand the need to keep a distinction between us and the Fundamentalist, but I do not think we have to erase history to do it. Maybe the Church has a goal to make it so that in many years to come it is totally forgotten, but I doubt that will ever happen.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 45

I do not think so. You make it sound like a conspiracy and I personally do not think the Fundamentalists are trying to do that...yes, they believe they are the only true Church but let's not forget we believe that too (that WE are the only true Church).

The reason it was taken away from the living in my opinion was just merely to please Babylon, to make us feel "accepted" by the world and since then I have seen the Church trying its best to please the world in many things, including other Church denominations. It seems we are more concerned about how we look in the eyes of the world, than how we look in the eyes of the Lord.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 45

I don't know if we discussed this before, but I was reading in Church today the excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff.

"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.

https://scriptures.lds.org/od/1

I want to make emphasis on the part that I wrote in bold. Now:

1) Is he saying then that if the Saints would have the Spirit and power of God they will all agree in the decision of stopping Plural Marriage?

2) Can we say then that it was the will of the Lord to stop it?.

3) Did the members knew beforehandthat they will be ask to vote in General Conference regards to this matter? because if not, it seems kind of shocking for anybody to go to General Conference with their wives and children and suddenly they tell you to vote to stop the practise. Since the vote was unanimous in stopping the practise, I want to believe they knew beforehand that this issue was going to be brought in General Conference.

Edited: LDS_forever on 11th Sep, 2005 - 4:56pm