Close Topic Options

Pearls To Swine?

Recently we were discussing how many members, especially Sisters know about the doctrine of Plural Marriage (for example). Celestial marriage does include plural marriage and it is a normal thing, it is just that the living do not practise it... but why does it seem that these things are somehow hidden? Is it that members feel that others would not understand or is it that they are unsure themselves? Listening to some of Pres. Hinckley's answers in interviews many get the feeling that there is a direct avoidance of questions that are more 'deep', but yet still very common among the Gentiles with regards to the Mormons. Shouldn't these be addressed, does it seem like we are hiding something - even among the members too? What is your point of view?

Swine Pearls

I think some things are too sacred to discuss publicly. Just as the church discourages putting anything sacred on a bumper sticker on your car, I think we should be careful what sacred things we discuss with nonmembers. Pearls before swine, indeed.

And don't forget that there was a good chunk of the Book of Mormon we were not allowed to have, and will be unsealed only when the Lord decides.

IMO
Roz

Pearls To Swine? Studies Doctrine Mormon

I am not quiet sure about all this, if the reason is the sacredness of those issues, the Prophet could perfectly said 'it is too sacred for us to talk about these things', and in fact, he has said when he is asked about the sacred ordinances performed in the Temples but you notice his responses concerning Plural Marriage most of the time are 'This is part of our past. We do not do it anymore. Let's close that book of the past' and similar answers, when asked about difficult questions such as Brigham Young's theory of Adam-God he openly said ' I don't know what Brigham Young meant by that'.
So in my humble opinion, is not because of the sacredness of these issues but an avoidance and fear to be critized by our beliefs and the possible confusion that can bring to the Church and possible questions the members may have after.

Swine Pearls

You REALLY want me to answer this?

I think that it is a matter of rejection. The Church has rejected some things, to the point that people who have a testimony of these things have learned to avoid discussion of them - probably even the President of the Church.

Yes, such things as Plural Marriage are greatly on the minds of nonmembers, because it is one of the characteristics that made Mormons peculiar, different from the world. Since it was abandoned, we, as a church, have sought to become less peculiar, more like the world. We have sought an image that says, "yes, we have different beliefs, but we really aren't all that different from you."

Of course, the problem is that we are commanded to be different from the world, in every way. We are commanded to live a patriarchal order in our homes, to live a different type of health code, to be a more moral, honest, and upright people.

But in reality, we don't. We are just like everyone else, at least on the average. There are exceptions, many of them. People who have fully embraced the eternal principles.

So, it isn't a matter of keeping doctrines away from unbelievers (IMO), but rather keeping them now only for those who seek them out for themselves.

An anecdote to show what I mean.

A few weeks ago, our Relief Society asked me to come in and give a quick presentation on Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner at the beginning of their meeting. They asked this of me just before the meeting. Good thing I had recently reread parts of her autobiography. (She is my great-great grandfather's little sister)

As I gave the presentation, I told about how Joseph Smith had approached her, and told her that the Lord had commanded him to take her as a plural wife. She had had many dreams about this very thing over the years, but had rejected them as wickedness. She said that she would require a direct revelation on the matter. He promised her that such would be available.

The very next night, she was visited by an angel. It frightened her, and she covered her head with the blanket. This offended the angel, and it left her. When she spoke to Joseph, he chastised her, saying that she had offended the angel. However, he did promise her that if she was humble and prayerful, she would still get a manifestation. Within a day or so, she did, although she didn't say what the second manifestation was.

The point is, her testimony of being sealed to Joseph includes the information that he had children with other plural wives, a concept that is rejected by many. She never indicates whether or not she had a physical relationship with him, but that others certainly did.

Several of the women in that RS meeting were shocked at this idea, that Joseph had been sealed to women who were married to other men. They were even more shocked that he had children among these other marriages. These were women who have been in the church for years, if not all their lives. One of them questioned how such a thing could be possible.

They had rejected these ideas. From what I could see, they still rejected the very idea of plural marriage, although the woman who was most vocal about it was a practicioner of "serial plural marriage" (divorced and remarried).

Another example was given a few days ago, but I can't find right now, by a brother who teaches youth Sunday School. He only has about 4 active students, three of whom are children of ward leaders. BTW, this is somewhere in Utah.

Well, they were covering the first 4 chapters of Jacob. The subject of plural marriage came up because of the scripture in Jacob. One of the young women, the daughter of the Bishop or one of the counselors, kept saying, "Polygamy is false doctrine. It is wrong." Obviously, the families had never taught them that it was a true and eternal doctrine, but rather that it was wicked.

Again, evidence that it is rejected. Thus, any discussion of it is forbidden.

So, in some ways, maybe it IS casting pearls before swine.

Swine Pearls

This is so true!!!!

I can imagine the faces of the sisters when you shared the story! :<!--emo&lol:--><!--endemo--> When I first read it, I start researching and researching more about it, rather than reject it, I wanted to understand it, I wanted to know more!. But it seems that for some people (specially women) are somehow in 'denial', it is better for them to reject it and denied as one of Bro. Nighthawlk's crazy ideas about his great-grandmother rather to research for themselves. I think this is very sad and I think this is one of the reason the Church openly doesn't talk about it, can you imagine the revolution that it will create in the Church! I was thinking yesterday that 90% of the sisters here in Trinidad do not know about Plural Marriage, they know it was part of the past of the Church but they do not know it is part of our doctrine, not to mention they have no clue Joseph Smith was sealed to already married women. So I can imagine how the sisters in your ward react about Mary Lightener's account. But you see? nobody can denied it! it is even kept in the BYU records, but only those who are truly interested in finding the answers, they will find it. God says 'Seek and you will receive'. And for some members 'Seek' is too much of a responsibility and they rather to denied because they are in the comfort zone and new ideas and new revelations for them will indicate a change of certain things in their lifes. Sometimes I wish I could share with my brothers and sisters here talks about Plural Marriage and things we discuss here in the forum, where we can strengh each other and be prepare for teh Second Coming of Our Savior. But it is like a dream, I cannot talk about these things because people just do not understand, they are not in the basic level of the scriptures and most of all, they are not interested either.
This is such a turn-off.

Edited: LDS_forever on 4th Apr, 2004 - 5:10pm

Pearls To Swine?

I agree with you Nighthawk... wow, can't believe I said that Anyway, I believe it must be based on the current general position of the membership that doctrine is disbursed... we must keep in mind that this same thing was done in the early stages of the Church. After all if plural marriage was being practiced secretly for years before being made public, then who knows what else may need to be 'brought forward' that could 'rattle' the membership. It may be possible that the Lord will only impart Truth as far as the people are willing to both learn and obey, but if they are not willing He will not impart nor require anything they cannot handle - thus it somehow seems to be avoided and to the few who are earnest to know the Truth and obey (and I may be so bold to say that we are on the forum are such that seek this kind of Truth) may find it a hinderance to our 'growth' as though we are missing something - we are being kept back by the general membership as it were.