Add Reply
Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 58 of 79
Elder Oaks recent interview (extended) in - Page 58 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 21st Jul, 2007 - 8:20pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 628 - Views: 35792
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 58
JB, I had different sources but wanted to look for a good one...what better than the Church official site:
| QUOTE |
| The edition in use today was published in 1981. It was expanded to include Joseph Smith's Vision of the Celestial Kingdom and Joseph F. Smith's Vision of the Redemption of the Dead-transferred from the Pearl of Great Price-becoming sections 137 and 138 [D&C 137; D&C 138], respectively. The statement of the First Presidency regarding the revelation extending the priesthood to "all worthy male members of the Church," released 9 June 1978, was also added as Official Declaration-2 [OD 2]. President Woodruff's 1890 manifesto remained as Official Declaration-l [OD 1], and his explanation for issuing the manifesto has also been added. |
Sponsored Links:
Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
That just says it was added, but it does not say it was done without consent. Keep in mind that we are often asked to sustain the Brethren, so many will take it that this also means we sustain whatever the Brethren do.
Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... Studies Doctrine Mormon
I am not sure if I follow you. It says that it was added in the 1981 edition and as you can see there is NOT a declaration after his comments stating that a vote took place (like in the Manifesto itself and official declaration 2) then is obvious no vote took place but it was added just for the purpose of having Pres. Wilford explaining the whole issue but is NOT part of the Manifesto neither binding.
Page 58 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
What I am saying is that this was done with the Brethren's consent, and the Church handles it like this - you sustain the Brethren and thus you sustain what they do. If you want to be really technical you could question the Bible Dictionary, footnotes and many other things that are also explanations of what took place, but have they been sustained as scripture?
To keep on Topic, such it is with Plural Marriage. The majority of Brethren took a direction and we are expected to accept that direction as good and wholesome since they are chosen of the Lord. The scriptures says that if there is disagreement among the Apostles then we should go with the majority, that is what the Church did. This is how the Church sees it - follow the Prophet (this is Discussed more thoroughly in another Thread).
Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
| QUOTE |
| What I am saying is that this was done with the Brethren's consent, and the Church handles it like this - you sustain the Brethren and thus you sustain what they do. If you want to be really technical you could question the Bible Dictionary, footnotes and many other things that are also explanations of what took place, but have they been sustained as scripture? |
Yes, of course it was done with the Brethren's consent after all they are the ones (The First Presidency) who can make changes to the Doctrine and Covenants. When I said without consent, I meant the general membership. I am not questioning the Bible Dictionary, footnotes or the other aides since they are not considered scripture, I am just merely pointing out that the Manifesto itself is the ONLY statement to be taken as a Scripture but NOT the the statements given by Pres. Woodruff right after.
Now going back to the topic, I heard many members refer to the era of Plural Marriage as a "mistake" in the history of the Church. Can the Lord make mistakes? I don't think so. Also, Elder Talmage wrote a book in the 30's called Latter Day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Guess what? NO mention whatsoever of Doctrine and Covenants 132 (Doctrine of Plural Marriage) which even though has not been practiced for a long time is one of the key doctrines of our Church. Like from that time, anyone wanted to slipped the issue under the carpet.
Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...
Members who say Plural Marriage was a mistake do not understand the Gospel of Restoration and the fulfillment of times with regards to Joseph Smith. Keep in mind that were it not for the US government's hand the practice would still be done today, but possibly the Church would be a lot smaller and limited to friends and family. Maybe all these things came not only because of the unworthy state of the Saints of the time, but the Saints of these days would be highly uncooperative in this thing too.
Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 58
I agree, those who cry "mistake!" haven't read the history. Joseph was *commanded* to begin the practice.
Probably the church would be smaller. But then again, perhaps it would be a different situation all together. Can't really speculate at this point, because the world is so different now.
It really surprises me that Elder Talmage would write a D&C commentary and exclude plural marriage. I wonder if he actually wrote it, but it was deleted before publication? Talmage was such a strong proponent of the church and church doctrine, it doesn't make much sense for him to have ignored that section.
Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 58
Elder Oaks recent interview (extended) in the PBS Special entitled "The Mormons" gave some few statements about Plural Marriage, feel free to comment:
| QUOTE |
| I am too far removed from polygamy to give a credible explanation of the importance of that practice to those who received it from the Prophet Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. I"ve just wondered about this, but I"m too far removed from it to explain it. But I know how important it was. I feel it in my own ancestry. I see it in the decisions made by my ancestors who practiced polygamy and in others whose lives I"ve read about. I have perfect faith in the doctrine and will understand more about it in time to come. My great-grandfather, Charles Harris, was one of the last men imprisoned for polygamy. [b]He was sentenced to three months in prison in 1893, which was very late in the prosecution of people for having more than one wife. He was on the run for a long time before that and finally, probably, surrendered himself just so he could live a more normal life. It disrupted his family; it was a terrible hardship. And that one was close to me because my mother grew up in the household of one of his sons (her father). And the mother lived with them [in] the closing years of her life. So my mother was a firsthand observer of the disruptions that took place as a result of polygamy. My grandfather's sister, the daughter of the man who was imprisoned for polygamy, went to prison - one of the few women who were sent to prison for the practice of polygamy. Her case was this: she was the second or third wife of a man who was being prosecuted for cohabitation. She was summoned, put on the witness stand and ordered to answer whether she had received a plural marriage relationship and was with him. She refused to answer, on the ground that she was protected by the husband-wife privilege. The judge ruled that privilege didn't apply to a subsequent wife, and that case went to the Utah Supreme Court. While I was serving on that court I read that opinion. It was the case of Belle Harris, reported in the official report. She did not have the privilege because she was a plural wife. The judge ordered her to answer. She refused. He sent her to jail for contempt. She went to jail with her baby and served about three or four months in the Utah State Penitentiary. She was something of a cause celebre at the time (it was in the 1880s) because the eastern press couldn't imagine that there was a woman who was not oppressed by polygamy. Here was a woman who went to jail to defend her husband and to defend the practice. She was a heroine and served her time. [When] the time [of] the grand jury was up, they couldn't hold her any longer. There was no more order for her to testify, and she went back to her life. That woman, Belle Harris, then lived in Provo. She was a dear aunt of my mother. When my mother was pregnant with me, she went to her aunt's place, and I was born in that woman's home - a home birth with doctors in attendance, so I feel kind of close to Belle Harris. In fact, Harris is my middle name, the maiden name of my mother. So polygamy is very close to me. The interviewer: Yes, but I would imagine that that challenge at that moment for Joseph F. Smith was, "How will I reach out to the flock and tell them that I might have been up on the stand saying things I didn't quite believe in, or that I"ve abandoned the law of the land, or that I"m not really a revelator and I"m abandoning a central principle "¦" and tell them that the real stuff still is there. You know, how do I reassure? Elder Oaks: Oh, yes. She wrote about that so movingly, and I"d never thought of it. That was something that was new to me, but it rang true. The interviewer: And the "it" being just that dilemma that the Church faced, about reassuring the Saints that abandoning polygamy would not adversely affect the doctrine. Elder Oaks: That's right. And I"m sure my ancestors would have wanted to be reassured. I think when the Manifesto was declared, it was an immense relief to anyone who was not then practicing plural marriage, because it took a load off their backs. To people then practicing plural marriage, it was an immense burden because the Church no longer advocated or permitted what was a central purpose and identity of their marriages. And then there was the practical problem of continuing to provide support for families you"re no longer privileged to live with. And so there was a generation, a very difficult generation, following the Manifesto. I"ve seen some of that in my ancestry. [b]But I guess for every Mormon there was the problem of, "If it was right then, why is it not right now?" That was a burden that fell on President Joseph F. Smith to explain, and that's where the essential Mormon loyalty to a prophet was tested and used. It was tested to see if people would follow it, in a manner that meant "hold onto it." The evidence is there in my ancestry and in the Church as a whole. They got through it, but it must not have been easy. The Interviewer: There still is some confusion that polygamy is definitively and unequivocally disallowed in this world. What will happen in the next? There is a perception that polygamy is part of the afterlife. Could you talk a little about that? Elder Oaks: If I talked about that I"d be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn't say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they"ve ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I don't think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they don't believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they don't make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] they"re right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, "What will life be in the next life, when you"re married to more than one wife for eternity?" I have to say I don't know. But I know that I"ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that's anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don't know. |
TOPIC: Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...