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

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 54

Not really, considering Joseph did this for years without letting the Church know I do not see how this is much different.

Well, I would like to think that there is a specific reason for this 'front', it may be to protect the Church from something much greater than we can see just by observation.

Again, giving the benefit of the doubt, let us develop a theory... what could be really bad that would cause the Brethren to keep this doctrine at bay? Could it be that there was going to be a removal of sorts? Consider Warren Jeffs and what is happening with him now, notice that many people already think Warren is our Prophet. In other words, what I am saying is... suppose the situation is we can worship as we do now or face disastrous consequences.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

1. Anything is possible although I highly doubt it. They would NOT risk "the good name" of the Church by taking another wife.

2. I am 99.9% sure that the Church will neverpractise Plural Marriage again. If there was only a slim chance they would, they would not be so against the practise but the fact that just teaching it can lead you to excommunication is a HUGE sign that it will never happen again.

JB said:

Well, tell that to Pres. Hinckley who said as I quoted before that Plural Marriage is not only illegal but NOT doctrinal. I think he meant every word of it. It seems like everybody else (with all respect, I include the Prophet here) forgets that the early Saints practise Plural Marriage illegally too.

3. No, they will never do it.


JB said:

I know what you are trying to say but I do not think that's the reason. I strongly feel that they do not teach about it because of the world's reaction to it, just like the Church does not teach anymore about Christ being married and other doctrines. We are EXTREMELY CONCERNED as a Church about "image" and is heading the Church down and its something to be really concerned about. The early Brethren have MUCH MORE opposition than we do nowdays with regards to freedom of religion and they fought with all their souls to defend those doctrines that they considered to be sacred. Now we say that those doctrines were just "opinion" of the early Prophets. We quote from the Journal of Discourses, yet it is not considered "doctrine" even though in the first page there is a letter from Pres. Brigham Young and his counselors approving the recording of such discourses.

So, based on the facts, the Church is more and more focus in making the Church and its doctrine more acceptable for the world, sadly enough, how long the double standards are going to continue?

Can you imagine "The Mormons" with the nightmare of Polygamy? More than a half of members would be gone. MOST members are jus uncomfortable by talking about it, by reading it as part of Church History...Can you imagine as a part of the questions to enter the Temple if you accept the doctrine of Plural Marriage?

Offtopic but, I have to give a talk on Sunday and I am free to choose the topic. Are you thinking what I am thinking? Nah, I am just kidding!

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

So are we saying that the Brethren are running from this Doctrine out of fear or is it that they just do not want to deal with it because there is enough 'trouble' trying to keep the Members they do have let alone adding something like Plural wives.

Offtopic but, On another note that can be linked to this is the Doctrine of Christ being married, I think we have a Thread around here dealing with it? I will look for it and throw in a wrench.

Here is an interesting review of the Brigham Young manual that came out some years ago. There was a newspaper clip on it that has many of the questions / comments we have here:

https://www.ldshistory.net/pc/youngman.htm

It is interesting to note that in Church we do teach about the many killings of people in the Old Testament, but we do not do so on a basic doctrine such as plural marriage?

Page 54 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

I have found it very interesting that the doctrines of Plural Marriage, Adam-God, blood atonement, Marriage of Christ, the true use of the Endowments, etc, were all ignored in the Brigham Young manual. Since several of these items come up in any anti-Mormon attack against the Church, especially Plural Marriage, you would at least think that the Church would have used that opportunity to provide us with some "acceptable" information. Or, maybe there was a fear that if the Saints learned what Brigham Young really taught, there would be some repercussions.

The same is possibly even more interesting concerning the John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and Wilford Woodruff manuals. All three of those men had extremely strong views on a variety of subjects, that were never hinted at in the manual. Instead, the manuals only covered mild platitudes, mostly harmless statements, and only the doctrines that the Church finds "safe" today.

No, I am saying that since the time of Joseph F. Smith, only anti-polygamy men have been called to leading positions, and so we see that now they continue the absolute hatred for this Principle. That hatred is so institutionalized that it will take a true miracle for God to break through to the Saints.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

There is one thing that has to be addressed here... how is it that we on this tiny piece of cyberspace can read and understand these doctrines and yet the Brethren on High cannot? To me there has to be something deeper. I have been in close proximity to some of these Brethren and their tune in closed quarters is always different that what it is in public. If I had such privileges again then I may pursue the topic, in fact, I will attempt to contact some old acquaintances to see if I can find out the hidden answer to all of this.

That is my point, I think the Church Membership hardly follows even the most Basic of Doctrines let alone introduce or teach the ones that require a very big change in lifestyle.

There are two points I think we must not forget:

1. We are living in times that are quite close to or worst than Sodom and Gomorrah. With that said, the number found that are worthy are very few and so it is a case of lowering the 'number' or should I say 'lower the standard' in the hope of rescuing the 'city'. I do not know if I explained that well, but if you got a good summary of what I have been targeting you will know what I mean.

2. The Church has always provided the stance of 'teach simple' and let them discover the deeper things on their own. Members who truly seek this information can find it after all, you will note that there has been no efforts by the Church to stop the printing of the Journal of Discourses.

3. We live in times were touching a person can have a sexual connotation for one person and be just a simple gesture of friendship for the next. Satan is using all his tools (including the very laws of the land) to make it difficult for the Church and as such there are things in place beyond our understanding that must be for now in order to protect the greater things.

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

After 54 pages of deep discussion about this topic, this question remains:

Why did Joseph Smith was sealed to already married women whose husbands were in good Church standing?

Note: This is a general discussion on Plural Marriage, if you want to discuss about Joseph Smith's wives, we have a thread here that I updated recently with some interesting information:

https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index....showtopic=15096

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 54

I have a question to add here, now that we have a couple more people.

Why are so many women so set against plural marriage?

I have some thoughts on it, but will wait for some responses.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 54

1. Because culturally they see Plural Marriage as something forbidden and evil.

2. They are afraid to lose their husbands.

3. It is NOT an easy doctrine to "digest" or accept.