Add Reply
Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 51 of 79
Earlier you said that you do recognize it - Page 51 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 6th Sep, 2006 - 6:21pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 628 - Views: 35930
Mormon Doctrine on Plural Marriage - This Thread goes deep into all the angles of Mormon Polygamy, the requirement of Celestial Marriage which once encompassed Plural Marriage and the current standing of it with the modern Church. Also deeply analyzed is Joseph Smith's secret practise of it that latter lead to his death. Controversial Mormon Issue. Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...
Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 51
One thing I must address here. Your positions are generally the same, but lack any positive action behind it. You have gone through many Threads saying the same thing about Plural Marriage, yet claim to see the Prophets as leading the Church under God's direction. Really, I am not sure what you want to accomplish - it is either the Church is headed by God and following his directive OR we are simply in an Apostate state and NOT under direction. There is not a gray area when it comes to authority - it is either you have the keys or you do not.
| QUOTE |
| What you are saying, it appear to me, is that since the majority of the Saints aren't/weren't willing to live the Celestial Laws, that those who WERE willing were penalized - not ALLOWED to live those Laws. |
Well that is what is now known as the Manifesto and by the laws of this Church they were hindered from continuing (up to this day) from living this law and remaining a member of this Church to which you and I belong.
With regards to Heber J Grant it seems to me that you are disputing his position as Prophet. If he is the Lord's Prophet then we again dive into all the messages of "The Prophet Said So Is It Enough...".
| QUOTE |
| It appeared, in your previous message, that you were saying that if the Church had insisted on abiding by these Celestial Laws, that the Church would have become like the FLDS. |
Well, according to the manifesto it would have been A LOT worst! The FLDS trying to make this work after many years only has a congregation of 10,000 of which most come from procreation. If the Saints then were strong enough to abide such a law then they could do all things through the Lord, but the point is they were not, and today people like you and I discuss in a Hidden Message Board why all is so, but there really is no need to question - they could not handle it - the practise was stopped.
Offtopic but,
A law without any enforcement is still a law, but does no good for the population - that is basic in any story. Where do you see the Church encouraging us to live a United Order? This is another Thread really. |
Sponsored Links:
Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
Good points. I don't really know about the Prophet. I don't think it is an "all or nothing" proposition. According to Isaiah 28, the leaders of the Ephraim (the Church?) will not be completely faithful in their callings, leaving out many special and important things (teaching only regurgitated, watered down doctrines). God condemns this.
As I have said elsewhere, the modern "Infallibility Doctrine" of the LDS church is not supported in scripture, in any way. The idea of "following the Prophet to Hell" is condemned by God, because it means that we are putting our faith in the arm of flesh, not in the Spirit.
I believe that Heber J. Grant was influenced by true apostates in the Quorum of the Twelve, who gained power and influence at the time of Joseph F. Smith. I believe that Heber J. Grant was a true, good leader, who made some very bad decisions, in contradiction to clear scriptural doctrine. I believe that all Apostles since the time of Joseph F. Smith have been chosen with a litmus test that they are opposed to Plural Marriage, thus making sure that no Prophet could possibly support this Principle. This includes Heber J. Grant.
Now we have come to the point where any member who publicly declares the slightest support for the Principle is excommunicated, thus assuring that there will be no support for the Principle anywhere in the Church.
If this Principle is ever brought up in any sort of Chuch discussion, there are two wonderful arguments that will be brought up, guaranteed.
1. "Follow the Prophet. Follow the Prophet. Follow the Prophet."
2. "God has removed it for now, and maybe we will be called (forced) to live it during the Millenium. (Thank you, God, that we don't have to deal with it now.)"
Both of these are poor logic, and both contradict clear scripture. The first one is an example of circular logic. Wilford Woodruff, a year AFTER the Manifesto was published, made a statement that he could never lead us astray, that God wouldn't allow it. Thus the Infallibility Doctrine was born. Of course, he said this in response to the criticisms that he received for posting the Manifesto. Thus, he, the man being criticisized, is justifying his actions by stating that he couldn't be led astray, so that those who criticised him would stop. He justified his unscriptural action, using an unscriptural argument, in direct contradiction not only to scripture and logic, but in contradiction to the very clear teachings of Joseph Smith, as well as Brigham Young and John Taylor.
The second argument (with the parenthetical relief clause) is an example of people hoping and praying that they never have to attempt to live a Celestial Law.
| QUOTE |
| Well that is what is now known as the Manifesto and by the laws of this Church they were hindered from continuing (up to this day) from living this law and remaining a member of this Church to which you and I belong. |
And that is what I think is so wrong. The CHURCH persecutes those who attempt to live a higher law. The Manifesto was meant to ONLY be a political dodge, to relieve the pressure on the Saints. This is proven by sworn testimony in the Reed Smoot hearings. It wasn't until Heber J. Grant, who was only lukewarm concerning plural marriage (at best) that the Manifesto became LAW.
Now, if Wilford Woodruff never intended for the Manifesto to be binding upon the Saints, where does that leave us?
| QUOTE |
| A law without any enforcement is still a law, but does no good for the population - that is basic in any story. |
I realize that you intended for this to be an offtopic, and that you were using it in regards to the Law of Consecration, but it applies completely to both subjects.
Mortal, political laws require enforcement. However, remember that D&C 130:20-21 teaches the following:
| QUOTE |
| 20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated- 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. |
These two Laws that we are talking about do NOT require enforcement. They require obedience. Eternal Laws don't do good for the population. They do good for the individual who obeys them. Tithing is a good example. Many people who have been excommunicated, and are getting their lives in order, "pay" their tithing by either paying through a relative or by strictly saving that money until they are able to pay it themselves. Yet they all report receiving blessings despite the fact that the Church has stopped them from paying the tithing!
What I see is that, despite the fact that Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith allowing and providing for additional plural marriages, subsequent administrations have persecuted those who did. This is a higher law than Heber J. Grant was willing to live, and he drove people out of the Church who had entered into this law under former administrations, insisting that men who had plural marriages discard them. This is what Francis M. Lyman accomplished.
The Lord didn't reject the Church, the Church rejected His law. He still gives inspiration to the Prophets, but none of them have claimed actual revelation, of Lorenzo Snow's kind, since President Snow. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still the only church where the Priesthood truly resides. However, I believe that the Priesthood does exist outside of the Church. I think that with the forced "retirement" of the Patriarch of the Church, the last remnant of the Patriarchal Priesthood is being wiped out of the Church. When he dies, it will be gone. I fully expect that at that time we will see the prophesied destructions and tribulations. We will also see the "one mighty and strong" spoken of in the D&C and in Isaiah 28 come to the modern Ephraim and set it in order, including the Patriarchal Priesthood, Plural Marriage, and Consecration.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of people out there doing their absolute best to live the higher Laws. They are persecuted and beaten down. They are denied jobs, hounded out of their jobs, and hounded out of their communities. A few of them abuse their power, but then D&C 121 points out that this happens all the time.
The Lord only relaxes laws due to disobedience. If we, in 2006, are not able to obey the Eternal Laws, then we are in REAL trouble, because we, the Church, must be more unworthy than our great grandparents. We are supposed to be working towards GREATER righteousness, not less, but we see more and more higher teachings and laws and ordinances being taken away as time goes by. We see ever more emphasis on basics, less on learning anything about the higher laws.
Therefore, I will continue to hold my belief that the Lord did not want us to go without Plural Marriage. He allowed it, because we wanted that. But that doesn't condemn (in my mind) those who approach Him and seek to be obedient where the rest of us are disobedient.
(I am going to do something that I very rarely do. I am going to post a couple of historical tidbits relating to this subject in a separate post to the same topic.)
Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... Studies Doctrine Mormon
(Continued from previous post)
Here are two short historical tidbits that deal directly with my previous post.
| QUOTE |
| Lorenzo Snow was deeply saddened when the church membership unanimously adopted the Manifesto, but he accepted it, as most other church officials did, as being a necessary evil, designed to beat the devil at his own game. Upon being sustained as the fifth president of the Church at its October, 1898 conference, he felt the weight of his responsibility, particularly concerning keeping the law of celestial marriage alive. "Donning his temple clothes, he went into the holy room of the temple to receive advise and counsel from God on the subject. For hours, he pled with the Lord for an answer. No answer came. Finally he left the room and went out into the foyer. He sadly looked at a large painting on the wall, of the Savior Jesus Christ. Then to his joy, the Savior appeared. At this time, Jesus explained to him that He could not come to him while in the Holy of Holies, because the Church was not worthy of such a revelation. They had given up that most holy principle which leads to eternal lives - Celestial Marriage, or in other words, Plural Marriage. Jesus then explained to Lorenzo Snow that He was not coming to him as President of the Church, but due to Lorenzo's own personal righteousness that He had come to answer his questions." The Savior reaffirmed to Snow that the law of Celestial Marriage was essential to man's salvation and that none of God's laws had or would change. God's people would always have their free agency and could choose to accept or reject his laws, but the blueprint for salvation would always be the same. After this incident, President Snow's resolve to keep plural marriage alive was strengthened and he encouraged those worthy of living the higher law to do so, cautioning them that they must live the law in absolute secrecy, without any church involvement or sanction. |
I always wondered why the Lord wouldn't appear to President Snow in the Holy of Holies. Now I understand it.
| QUOTE |
| The two members of the Quorum of twelve who were most strongly supportive of Joseph F. Smith and who were most active in keeping the practice of celestial marriage alive, were John W. Taylor, the son of former President John Taylor, and Mathias Cowley. Lyman knew that these men had not only counseled others to go to Mexico and Canada to be married in the plural relationship, but that each of these men had himself taken a plural wife after the Manifesto and had sealed others in the relationship after 1890. Lyman let this information leak to the Senators in Washington, and they demanded that President Smith send Taylor and Cowley to Washington to give testimony before the committee investigating whether Smoot should be seated as a Senator. The two Apostles refused to appear and left the country to avoid being served with subpoenas compelling their attendance. This angered the senators conducting the Smoot investigation and they threatened to refuse to seat Smoot unless the Church cooperated. Lyman now saw his opportunity to get rid of Taylor and Cowley. The Quorum of Twelve met and Lyman recommended that for the good of the Church and in order to help Senator Smoot in his bid to be seated, Apostles Taylor and Cowley. Should be asked to resign their positions, for being "out of harmony" with official church policy. Lyman explained that after the Smoot investigation ended and animosity towards the Church died down, then perhaps the two would be reinstated. There was some opposition to this suggestion, so nothing was decided at that time. Then, Lyman prepared letters to Apostles Taylor and Cowley, requesting that they resign from the Quorum, for the good of the Church, suggesting that they would be reinstated as members of the Quorum, later. Instead of signing his own names to the letters, Lyman had access to a stamp bearing the signature of President Smith, which Lyman used, knowing that the Apostles would believe that the letters had been authored by President Smith. When Taylor received his letter, he showed it to his plural wife, Nellie, and asked her what she thought. She told him that he shouldn't resign. Taylor told her that he had no choice. His file leader, the President of the Church had asked for his resignation, and he would obey. He and Cowley both tendered their resignations from the Quorum in 1905, based upon the forged letters. A few days after the resignations had been accepted by the Quorum, Taylor met President Smith in Downtown Salt Lake City, and President Smith asked Taylor why he had resigned. Taylor pulled the letter with President Smith's signature out of his pocket, showed it to Smith and told him that he had just done what Smith had asked him to do. President Smith told Taylor that he had never seen the letter before and knew nothing about it being sent. Taylor then realized that Lyman had been its author. When Taylor next met Lyman, Lyman asked Taylor how it felt to be out of the Quorum. Taylor replied, "It feels fine. I didn't want to be associated with a bunch of cowards any longer anyway." Lyman at once called a meeting of the Quorum, and Taylor was excommunicated from the Church. |
As a sidenote, here is another tidbit.
| QUOTE |
| Around that same time, John W. Taylor was dying from cancer. He met Francis Lyman on the street one day, and told him, "Francis, I am not going to be here on earth much longer, and when I go, I am going to send for you to stand before the Great Judge and account for the things you have done to me." Francis M. Lyman was seemingly in good health at this time. A few weeks later, on October 10, 1916, John W. Taylor died. Francis M. Lyman died one month later, on November 18, 1916. |
Elder Francis M. Lyman is recorded to have lied to several other people, forcing them to destroy their Celestial Plural Marriages. He claimed to be bringing specific messages from the President of the Church, when he knew that the President had not said those things.
Page 51 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
I only just had a chance to read your long posts, here is my reply:
1. As before, I understand what you are saying, because I have read it before, but you must realize that if you were ever to make this public you would be most definitely facing excommunication from the Church. This leads me to wonder why you stay? If the Prophets have been so misguided then how is it possible that we exist as a Church and Gordon B. Hinckley can at some points claim that the Lord is happy with this Church?
2. Those quotes above, where are the original sources?
3. Careful reading of the manifesto which is now located in our Standard Works (considered scripture) and for which you and I have sustained basically says that if anyone prays about the discontinuation of Plural Marriage (for the purpose of "we cannot fight the US government) and does so by the Spirit then they will be agreed with why Wilford Woodruff brought this up in the first place.
Here have a look:
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
So basically, Pres. Woodruff is saying he literally was told by the Lord to ask this... it was not a 'proposal' from him, but the Lord. What I believe is in dispute in your mind, Nighthawk, is the validity of if this came from the Lord?
As a reference this is what the Church says about it: https://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/m/10
Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
While this is slightly off topic, it does apply.
In answer to #1.
There is no other Church which contains the Priesthood, at least as much as there is in the LDS church. We have all of the Melchizedek Priesthood that has been available, at least since Brigham Young. I believe that there is a Patriarchal Priesthood, which includes Plural Marriage, but that the Church has pretty much fully rejected it. I believe that it was inherent in the Second Anointing, and that the information about it came within that Second Anointing, not in written scripture. However, with the final rejection of the Patriarch of the Church, I believe that this priesthood will finally fully leave the Church, and that will bring the One Mighty and Strong. This fullness of the rejection will happen when Patriarch Smith dies.
2. Unfortunately, I don't have the original sources for those quotes. I really wish I did.
3. I agree that the Manifesto, itself, is to be considered scripture. I am not at all sure that the supporting notes that are attached to it are meant to be scripture, any more than the supporting notes throughout the scriptures are meant to be.
Will I ever be excommunicated? Probably. Having been through it once for my actions, being excommunicated for my sincere beliefs does not frighten me, but I do want to avoid it, if possible. I still believe in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. I have sincere reservations about the Manifesto, as Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith clearly only considered it a political move.
I believe fully in the Priesthood. I believe in Jesus Christ, and the teachings of the Church. What I disagree with is the removal of doctrines, along with the removal of parts of the ordinances. Isaiah very clearly condemned that church that would change the everlasting ordinances. I fully support President Hinckley as the President of the Church. My support, or lack of it, has no bearing on whether or not he is a Prophet. Only God has anything to say about that. I fully support his, and other leaders' authority to make decisions concerning ALL of the things we talk about here. I just dislike the hypocrisy of claiming that plural marriage was a revealed, true doctrine, while turning around and claiming that those who attempt to live the higher law are worse than adulterers, when there is NO written, or otherwise recorded, revelation on the subject!
Plural Marriage. Consecration (United Order). Adam-God doctrine. True Order of Prayer for personal revelation. Changes to the Endowment. All of these higher Laws and Principles have been removed or forbidden.
I don't believe that any of the existing "fundamentalist" organizations have the full authority to deal with these things. I do believe that some of them once did, that John Taylor made arrangements for the Patriarchal Priesthood to continue. However, it appears to me that all of the organizations have apostatized. John Taylor told John W. Woolley, when he gave him the authority to continue plural marriages, that there should not be any "groups" form concerning this authority. However, after John W. Woolley's death, there was dissension in the "ranks", and groups did form. Eventually, some of them became very strange, with the FLDS, the Church of the Firstborn, the Kingston Clan, and other groups forming, many of them becoming very jealous of others, even leading to horrible violence.
So, I sit in the Church, accepting what it has to offer, especially the basic ordinances that haven't been changed (Sacrament, Baptism, etc.) I exercise my Priesthood when and where I can.
And, once in a while, I talk or write about some of the things that I believe are missing.
As a postscript, I leave these two dreams. One from Joseph Smith, and one from Joseph F. Smith. I do not, at this time, have an original source for Joseph F. Smith's dream.
| QUOTE (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 393) |
| The Prophet's Dream Joseph related the following dream which he had last night: I was back in Kirtland, Ohio, and thought I would take a walk out by myself, and view my old farm, which I found grown up with weeds and brambles, and altogether bearing evidence of neglect and want of culture. I went into the barn, which I found without floor or doors, with the weather-boarding off, and was altogether in keeping with the farm. "While I viewed the desolation around me, and was contemplating how it might be recovered from the curse upon it, there came rushing into the barn a company of furious men, who commenced to pick a quarrel with me. "The leader of the party ordered me to leave the barn and farm, stating it was none of mine, and that I must give up all hope of ever possessing it. "I told him the farm was given me by the Church, and although I had not had any use of it for some time back, still I had not sold it, and according to righteous principles it belonged to me or the Church. "He then grew furious and began to rail upon me, and threaten me, and said it never did belong to me nor to the Church. "I then told him that I did not think it worth contending about, that I had no desire to live upon it in its present state, and if he thought he had a better right I would not quarrel with him about it but leave; but my assurance that I would not trouble him at present did not seem to satisfy him, as he seemed determined to quarrel with me, and threatened me with the destruction of my body. "While he was thus engaged, pouring out his bitter words upon me, a rabble rushed in and nearly filled the barn, drew out their knives, and began to quarrel among themselves for the premises, and for a moment forgot me, at which time I took the opportunity to walk out of the barn about up to my ankles in mud. "When I was a little distance from the barn, I heard them screeching and screaming in a very distressed manner, as it appeared they had engaged in a general fight with their knives. While they were thus engaged, the dream or vision ended." |
| QUOTE |
| To close friends, Joseph F. Smith related that in the dream, while he was in a beautiful mansion Joseph Smith took a small baby, rocking it some, and then handing it to Brigham Young. Brigham Young in turn, rocked it a while and passed it on to John Taylor. In the same manner, the baby was passed on from John Taylor to Wilford Woodruff, then to Lorenzo Snow, and finally to Joseph F. Smith, who gave the baby back to the Prophet Joseph. As the baby was passed along, it became sick, growing worse each step of the way. When it reached Wilford Woodruff, it became terribly ill. But instead of improving, it worsened. When Joseph F. Smith received it, it was on the brink of death, where upon he gave it back to Joseph Smith. Just as the baby became sick and grew worse as it was passed from one man to the next, so likewise, did the conditions in the Church progressively grow worse as the leadership of the Church was passed from one president to the next till it reached Joseph F. Smith. |
Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...
No sources or references for your quotes? Come on Nighthawk, you know better than to back-up something Doctrinal with just a hearsay quote. People's journals and notes, although interesting, lack validity simply because it is taken on perspective. If you read my enemy's journal you may learn that I am the devil's son, whereas my friend's journal make paint me as a knight in shining armor.
I do understand your concerns about changes, and I guess one day the whole truth will be revealed to us, but I still believe you need to make a decision on the manifesto. It is obviously bothering you, maybe you should address it with the Brethren or based on how things are playing out these days you might find that many will address it.
Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 51
I guess that I have taken a stand on the Manifesto. It was a political document, that later opponents of Celestial Plural Marriage got canonized. It is very clear, from their own statements, that Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith did not consider it binding, in any way, upon the Saints. They all did whatever they could to get around it, including authorizing Matthias Cowley and John W. Taylor to perform additional plural marriages in Mexico and Canada. That is, until the two were forced to resign by the use of a forged document.
There is more light being shown upon the Manifesto. But you won't hear anything about it in the Church, until the Church is set in order.
Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 51
Earlier you said that you do recognize it as scripture, now you are saying that it is a political document that has merely been canonized. Which is it? If you insist that it is political then you are right only on what brought it about, but then if it is the Lord proposing the question it is not solely politics.
The mighty and strong one I believe we cover in another Thread and it is separate to this Topic.
TOPIC: Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...