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

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 66

Hi JB,
I have looked though all of the posts, but wanted to put my own perceptions of Plural Marriage. These perceptions may mirror other posts that have occurred before.

I do not disagree with statements one through five.
But I do not think that one would or at least should be "called in" for stating that plural marriage is a necessary ordinance, any more then if someone said it was necessary to follow the law of consecration or the Ordinance of Resurrection. It is completely appropriate to "call someone in" if they were advocating the practice of this ordinance in the Temples with living spouses, without the sanction of the Lord. It would constitute adultery because it was outside of the proscribed direction of the Lord.

Brigham Young said

I quote this to make a point.

I believe it is may be futile to talk about the necessity of Plural Marriage as a necessary ordinance now, as it would be to try to determine and discuss the necessity of all of the other ordinances that we must aquire to receive exaltation. Sure, we can discuss its importance, but why advocate its practice now?

I had read a statement by Nighthawk about the church not discussing plural marriage publicly. I agree. The world, in regards to this subject unfortunately are no more then swine, with the pearls hid from their view . They do not understand it and ridicule it. Why would we cast anything before them that will be trampled?

Nighthawk

Then they also must leave the Church because they haven't lived all of the named and unnamed ordinances that must occur after we are dead. We are all under condemnation if we are damned eternally for not following this particular law.

I agree with you (as pertaining to the higher level of the Celestial Kingdom), but there are so many higher laws that we cannot abide currently, that it may be a little unhealthy spiritually to insist this is one of those myriad of laws that we must follow now, while not following and ignoring the others. I think there is something that can be said for patience.

It seems that the majority of us agree that Plural Marriage is necessary for exaltation. But will we be denied exaltation because we do not have Plural marriage now? Not any more then not participating in the Law of Consecration or the higher laws pertaining to signs and symbols that are found in the Temple when one passes the Angels to become Kings and Queens.

But I will look at your point JB and try to determine my own thoughts on the subject

1. I do not believe the Church was ready for the ordinance and could not abide by its precepts. Thus it was taken away. Is the Church Damned because it could not follow this particular ordinance? Not permanently, but it is living a lesser law. This does not however allow certain members of the church to follow the higher law on their own accord. I believe Polygamy only can be followed if sanctioned by the Lord. It is as if a man who did not have the priesthood tried to baptize or confirm. Without authority and the Keys the ordinance is null and void. God has allowed a man to be married to more then one wife if one has passed away, so polygamy must be sanctioned by the Church in some form, but why should it discuss this publicly when the Church as a whole is wholly unprepared to accept the full precept. We are also like the proverbial swine, that the lord is unwilling to cast his pearls before. When we are ready, Polygamy will be discussed more and will be revealed to the Church as a whole through the Prophet. I do not believe he will give revelation to a select few members of the Church to follow this ordinance, as it is typically not the Lord's way. If it will return to the Earth, it will be return through one who can hold the Key to administer it to all who are worthy, not a select few
2. I do not know. It is still scripture and has never been condemned as an ordinance and principle as pertaining to the eternities. It just has been stated, that at this time polygamy will not be practiced.

I am not sure many prophets condemn the practice as a principle, but rather as a practice.
Thank You LDS for Elder Hollands words.
I believe this is what many of the Apostle and Prophets believe

3. I do not know
4. I believe it will not return until after Christ comes back, and after during the Millennium, as it is highly unlikely that the Church will be ready for it before then.

I am sorry that I have not added anything more deep then
"We are not ready for Polygamy" and "the world is not ready for Polygamy" but I do not think the conversation can go much more deeper then that until we have received further information from God.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Is anyone really doing that?

The point is whether they're doing it because of what you said or simply want to put it behind them as Pres. Hinckley has mentioned so many times?

Hmmm but wasn't Plural Marriage at the time of Joseph Smith a practice that only few, selected brethren practiced?

Elder Holland's words are very interesting. He actually admits the Church pulling away or not wanting to talk about it which is the sense most people have when Plural Marriage is mentioned, almost like a curse word.

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

I should have been more specific. I meant that the lord will not start polygamy outside of the knowledge of the Prophet who holds the keys (with a select few individuals). Sure it may start with a limited few, but it would not be outside of the prophets knowledge. If any man outside of the prophet said he received revelation to start polygamy I would not believe it was from God.

Page 66 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

I will disagree with this only in that I am not at all sure that the Prophet has those keys any more. I don't believe those keys are part of the Church, but are rather now independent of the Church. After all, the Church rejected them, as did the Prophets after Joseph F. Smith.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

For clarification, are you indicating that somewhere on earth it is being practiced with the proper keys and under the authority of God. This would indicate a belief that a key can be held independently of the Prophet and the quorum of the twelve, which seems contrary to the information provided to Joseph Smith and information in the Bible.

But I have reason to believe the keys to plural marriage remain within the Church: As we have discussed, people are still practicing Polygamy as it pertains to deceased Spouses. If the key of Polygamy is not found in the Church, would this indicate that these marriages are invalid, and by extension all other Temple ordinances pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant are invalid in your view? The power to seal in my estimation includes one man and one wife in certain circumstances, as well as the power to seal one man to multiple wives in certain circumstances.

Ultimately, I am do not believe that the doctrine of Polygamy and the Doctrine of eternal Marriage utilize different keys (as they both pertain to the power to seal on earth as well as heaven) That would have to be discussed and determined to know if the Key of Plural marriage has been taken from the earth (which I do not believe has).

Rather off topic, but... My assumption is that no one on Earth can hold a key outside and independent of the Prophet or Quorum of the twelve. If these men do not have it, then I believe no one has it on this earth (Christ however holds all keys).

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

To begin with, the keys of plural marriage NEVER dwelt with the Prophet or the Apostles. The whole concept of plural marriage has to do with Patriarchal authority, rather than Apostolic.

John the Beloved is on the earth, somewhere, and he certainly has Priesthood and Keys outside of the Church.

There is a lot of evidence that John Taylor took several men aside and gave them Keys to continue the practice of plural marriage in case the Church eventually rejected the Principle. I am not sure about this one way or another, but the Church does officially deny it. It also denies an 1886 revelation recorded by John Taylor dealing with this. Personal testimonies tell of how Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ came to John Taylor and talked to him all through the night, and shortly thereafter he gave these keys to certain men.

Take a look at what D&C 124 has to say about the sealing authority:

See, the sealing power was never a part of the office of Prophet or Apostle. President Grant, and later Prophets, assumed this authority, eventually deciding that the office of Patriarch was no longer needed in the Church. But during the days of plural marriage, it appears that those plural marriages were overseen by the Patriarch, not the Prophet.

Anyway, that is my point of view on the matter.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 66

I see your point.

Cronologically, it seems that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the sealing power From Elijah in the Kirtland Temple, before it was transferred to Hyrum?

That is where I am having my own issue. I am not differentiating between plural marriage and regular temple marriage. In my mind they are the same things.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 66

Only now got time to answer your Post. Thanks for looking over the Thread, this gives better ground work for Discussion and I do not have to repeat myself.

We have a Thread about this somewhere - all depends on those who are your leaders and what they know. Some people hear "plural marriage" and treat the Topic as though it is Satanic because they are so close minded they do not even know the history of the Church they belong to - this kind of Member I avoid.

That is mainly Nighthawk's interest. My interest is actually why the subject has been treated in the manner it has:

1. Brought about in secrecy
2. Practiced in secrecy
3. Stopped in secrecy
4. Blotted out of history (attempting to do so)

As I said before, besides the claim of fulfilling all it makes me wonder why it was brought about if as the Church claims now - it is not necessary. Is it based on convenience, worthiness or rationalism. This is my interest. I am yet to find anyone who can show me something that clearly defines this. You have the early Brethren and Prophets willing to be jailed for this - going on ships far from the US to continue the practice AFTER the manifesto. Yet now the subject is hushed, like a mistake.

If the topic is one of Truth then it should be treated as such.