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

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 12

QUOTE

I don't know if 'denying' it but I see a strong conviction of just 'leave it in the past' and 'move on' kind of thing which I don't understand.

I absolutely mean 'deny'!  A couple of years ago, the Priesthood / Relief Society theme was Brigham Young.  I never read or heard a single word about polygamy in that course of study, yet that was his major theme, throughout his presidency.  The same with John Taylor.  The same with Joseph F. Smith.

Last year, when we were studying the OT, and reached Isaiah, did you notice even a hint about Isaiah 4:1?  No.  Any discussion about polygamy is discouraged within the church.

QUOTE

Any proof of that? anywhere where I can read about it? (Joseph F. Smith practising plural marriage after the manifesto).

All of my references are contained on www.kingdomofzion.org, but it seems to be down.  The Reed Smoot hearings (for his Senate confirmation) contain affadavits about this.  Joseph F. Smith's biography also discusses it.  Apparently, Pres. Smith contracted a plural marriage aboard a ship about 13 miles out of San Francisco, after 1900.  I think he admitted it in the Senate hearings.

QUOTE

Every LDS doctrine that I have read including some Prophets said that Plural Marriage is NOT escential for salvation or becoming celestial beings. In what basis do you stand in that belief?

Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff (pre-Manifesto), Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow.  All of these men stated, with absolutely NO reservations, that Celestial Plural Marriage was/is ABSOLUTELY necessary to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom.

Nowdays, we (including myself) have twisted this to say that when the Lord commands any particular principle, disobedience stops us from entering exaltation.

However, when you read the statements of the above men - in context -  you will see that they meant exactly what they said.

QUOTE

May I ask the name of the book and author?

More than One: Plural Marriage — A Sacred Pioneer Heritage, by Shane LeGrande Whelan (it is available on Amazon.com)

QUOTE

but maybe just maybe the book doesn't talk only about Plural Marriage but his personal views on it that may contradict LDS doctrine.

As I stated before, I haven't read it.  People who I know, who have read it say that it is very balanced, very historical, and not at all an advocate of those who go against Church practice.

QUOTE

I read the succesful ones a lil but I also read the ones who were not all nice and love  but sadness and jealousy.

Absolutely.  The same things happen in monogamous marriages, as well.  I freely admit that I am nowhere near the level where I think I could live a polygamous life.  I think it takes people who really are already living a Terrestial life, as well as revelation in order live it.

QUOTE

A personal revelation or a Church revelation?

Just as Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner had to recieve a personal revelation in order to enter into the practice, as did Joseph Smith, so would I.

I frequently ask myself this same question.  If I prepare myself to that level, and truly seek personal revelation to that level, would I be willing to give up EVERYTHING to live according to the Lord's will?  Including my wife, my children, my Church membership?

I don't really know the answer to that question.  Of course, I am a long way from that level of spirituality, as well.

However, I think that if I want to survive the Last Days, I had better reach that level - and soon.  But that is a subject for a different thread.

[offtopic]CP/M was the operating system for computers that MS DOS was based upon.  OS stands for 'Operating System'.  Windows is the latest and worst of all functional operating systems.[/offtopic]

NightHawk

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

QUOTE

I absolutely mean 'deny'!  A couple of years ago, the Priesthood / Relief Society theme was Brigham Young.  I never read or heard a single word about polygamy in that course of study, yet that was his major theme, throughout his presidency.

Well, I was talking about this today with my husband and I was telling him that that book you're refering too did in fact made mention of Brigham Young wives but the number they put was wrong...I don't have it handy now but you may want to check it out but I do think that the book was more intented to make Brigham Young look like he had only one wife but there are parts that speak about him having several wives.

QUOTE

Last year, when we were studying the OT, and reached Isaiah, did you notice even a hint about Isaiah 4:1?  No.  Any discussion about polygamy is discouraged within the church.

True but have you attend Institute classes before or read the manuals?. I did and there is a pretty big chapter in one of the Institute manuals that deals with polygamy and I learnt that in Institute.

QUOTE

All of my references are contained on www.kingdomofzion.org, but it seems to be down.  The Reed Smoot hearings (for his Senate confirmation) contain affadavits about this.  Joseph F. Smith's biography also discusses it.  Apparently, Pres. Smith contracted a plural marriage aboard a ship about 13 miles out of San Francisco, after 1900.  I think he admitted it in the Senate hearings.

I went to the site but it was down. Maybe I will research more about it to see what I can find out more.

QUOTE

I frequently ask myself this same question.  If I prepare myself to that level, and truly seek personal revelation to that level, would I be willing to give up EVERYTHING to live according to the Lord's will?  Including my wife, my children, my Church membership?

So are you saying you can receive a revelation from God to practise plural marriage even though he has not revealed to the Prophet?

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

QUOTE

So are you saying you can receive a revelation from God to practise plural marriage even though he has not revealed to the Prophet?

I don't know.  I haven't receive such a revelation, but I think it is possible.  God revealed to Abraham that he should sacrifice his son.  He revealed to Lehi that he should leave his home, his religion, and his nation.  He revealed to Joseph Smith that he should take more than one wife.  He revealed to Mary Elizabeth that she should marry Joseph.

I don't pretend to understand God's ways.  If I am not willing to obey Him, no matter the cost, will I be worthy to enter into His Kingdom?

My belief is that the Church will never again practice Plural Marriage.  However, God will bring it back (may have already, for all I know) to specific people, in a specific way.  I do think that this will only happen in the very last of the Last Days, and during the Millenium.  People who have had dreams and visions of the Last Days are unanimous in their visions that very few men survive, but that it is almost all women and children.  Hence, Isaiah 4:1.

NightHawk

Page 12 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

QUOTE

I don't know.  I haven't receive such a revelation, but I think it is possible

I think it would be a mistake, a great mistake if you believe the Lord would give an individual revelation to practise something like Plural Marriage for the living (I say living since a man can be sealed to more than one wife if first is deceased, then the second can also be sealed) now and not do it for the whole world, through a Prophet.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

The thing is, God has already given the revelations!  Do we need new revelations to get on our knees and pray?

Earlier, I noted that various Prophets and Apostles spoke about Plural Marriage being a requirement.  Here is one example.  I freely admit that I haven't looked this reference up for myself, as I am at work and don't have access to my GospeLink, and am not even sure that old Deseret News articles are even on it.

QUOTE

Joseph F. Smith - "The marriage of one woman to a man for time and all eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part - and is good as far as it goes- but this is only the beginning of the law, and not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain a fullness of the blessings pertaining to the celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions has deceived himself." J.D.20:25) - Were the Church to do that as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body. The authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn with its gifts and powers and there would be no more heavenly recognition of the administrations. The heavens would permanently withdraw themselves, and the Lord would raise up another people of greater valor and stability, for his work must, according to his unalterable decrees, go forward. (Deseret News. 23rd April 1885)

NightHawk

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

Okay.  Still part of the topic, but a slight change of direction.

Isaiah 4:1 says

QUOTE

And in that day seven women shall lay hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

In the footnotes of the LDS version, it says "because of scarcity of men due to wars."

What I enjoy most about this verse is that, it seems these seven women got together first and decided the terms of the arrangement.  

....As in, okay, men are in short supply.  Let's pool our resources, grow and make our own food and clothing, support ourselves and each other, and find a man to "protect us" (and to provide us with children).

They would have to agree on the man.  The group would have to choose, vote, and then approach him together.

What kind of men are left after war?  Those who do not fight the war physcially but finance it, manage it, oversee it from behind closed doors.  POWERFUL men.  Men of influence and affluence and respect.  And in those days, holy men!  (verse 3 says he that is left in Zion shall be called holy)

"only let us be called by thy name"   Let us be "under your protection" while we take care of ourselves.  "Yes, that man is my husband!"  What good would it be to declare that if he was nothing or nobody?

Interesting to me to think that women will *out of necessity and for survival* join together and practice a higher law.

In my opinion, of course.

Roz

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 12

Very good thoughts. Can you imagine the pressure on the guy if a group of women came up to him and said, 'Okay, think you can handle the lot of us?' I guess in those days a 'rich' man would have a harem as a matter of fact.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 12

QUOTE

Very good thoughts. Can you imagine the pressure on the guy if a group of women came up to him and said, 'Okay, think you can handle the lot of us?' I guess in those days a 'rich' man would have a harem as a matter of fact.

I don't know, I think he might be very intrigued.  Particularly a man of intelligence and means, and if he's one of the few left alive in the latter days, he's probably been through the fire and prepared to live a higher law.

Here is a group of industrious women (who have come together by choice and with a common purpose, so are less likely to be a problem with jealousy etc.) who are basically saying, Look, we won't be a problem for you, we'll take care of our basic needs (eat our own bread and wear our own apparel).  Just take us under your wing, give us your name.  We won't shame you.  (And we'll give you children...(?) it doesn't say that in particular, but in the footnotes...)

Interesting to think about.

In my opinion.

Roz