Plural Families

[_harmony]

Marriage in the temple between one man and one woman is considered a celestial marriage.

When the priesthood ban was lifted, McKonkie said something along the lines that members were to disregard everything that had been said previously, because our leaders had seen through a glass darkly. In other words, they didn't get it quite right. I think the doctrine of Celestial Marriage is another example of that type of 'seeing', and I'd think a lot higher of our leaders if they'd just own up to the fact that our leaders in the past saw Celestial Marriage through a dark glass at least as poorly. If they'd just admit the early leaders were wrong, and that Celestial Marriage isn't polygamous, I think this whole problem would go away.

This is pride, folks. Nothing but pride on the part of our leaders. They're too danged proud to admit they and our early leaders were wrong all these years. Were our leaders truly humble men, in tune with the spirit, we'd see a similiar revelation to the lifting of the priesthood ban presented to the members to be codified into our scriptures. But since this involves Joseph Smith and our leaders cannot admit Joseph ever made a mistake big enough to significantly impact the church today, they will never bend their knee and seek counsel from God on this one. They seem to be able to second-guess Brigham, but Joseph is untouchable.

[_Runtu]

If they'd just admit the early leaders were wrong, and that Celestial Marriage isn't polygamous, I think this whole problem would go away.

This is pride, folks. Nothing but pride on the part of our leaders. They're too danged proud to admit they and our early leaders were wrong all these years. Were our leaders truly humble men, in tune with the spirit, we'd see a similiar revelation to the lifting of the priesthood ban presented to the members to be codified into our scriptures. But since this involves Joseph Smith and our leaders cannot admit Joseph ever made a mistake big enough to significantly impact the church today, they will never bend their knee and seek counsel from God on this one. They seem to be able to second-guess Brigham, but Joseph is untouchable.

The alternative, of course, is that they don't believe the early leaders were wrong. Just a thought.

[_Inconceivable]

If they'd just admit the early leaders were wrong, and that Celestial Marriage isn't polygamous, I think this whole problem would go away.

This is pride, folks. Nothing but pride on the part of our leaders. They're too danged proud to admit they and our early leaders were wrong all these years. Were our leaders truly humble men, in tune with the spirit, we'd see a similiar revelation to the lifting of the priesthood ban presented to the members to be codified into our scriptures. But since this involves Joseph Smith and our leaders cannot admit Joseph ever made a mistake big enough to significantly impact the church today, they will never bend their knee and seek counsel from God on this one. They seem to be able to second-guess Brigham, but Joseph is untouchable.

The alternative, of course, is that they don't believe the early leaders were wrong. Just a thought.

It's hard to say. However, they know that I am wrong and am "fallen" (apostitised). They know exactly what my problem is and they are sure of the solution. If I would just repent of ? well, remembering what I've read of the history and "abandon the internet and information you found on it" and return to attending church, paying tithing, accepting callings, my testimony of Joseph et el. will return.

Everything I've posted here is found in the church's history recorded by Mormon leaders.

something is broken.

[_harmony]

If they'd just admit the early leaders were wrong, and that Celestial Marriage isn't polygamous, I think this whole problem would go away.

This is pride, folks. Nothing but pride on the part of our leaders. They're too danged proud to admit they and our early leaders were wrong all these years. Were our leaders truly humble men, in tune with the spirit, we'd see a similiar revelation to the lifting of the priesthood ban presented to the members to be codified into our scriptures. But since this involves Joseph Smith and our leaders cannot admit Joseph ever made a mistake big enough to significantly impact the church today, they will never bend their knee and seek counsel from God on this one. They seem to be able to second-guess Brigham, but Joseph is untouchable.

The alternative, of course, is that they don't believe the early leaders were wrong. Just a thought.

Of course they don't believe the early leaders were wrong. If they admit that the early leaders were wrong, they admit that the early leaders didn't always have the spirit. If they admit that the early leaders didn't always have the spirit, someone might extrapolate that to the present day. And if the idea that our leaders don't always have the spirit gets extrapolated to the present day, someone might get the idea that our leaders themselves could be wrong. They can't have that. It's pride, plain and simple, the single-most deadly sin. And our leaders have it in spades.

[_Seven]

that's what they thought they were doing. The world at large wondered. If the issue is "but was it not intended by men who were seeking their own gratification", the answer has to be obvious to anyone who thinks for 30 seconds, if that is the issue, if it is libertineism, if it is indulgence, there are other, and easier, and less costly ways to achieve it.

Not with God's approval there isn't. Joseph's followers were a very moral people and plural marriage was abominable to most of them. He wanted to change the order of marriage and fought against monogamy.
If he wanted to have sexual freedom (which I believe he did) and felt tied down by one wife, using Old Testament polygamy by the Prophets would be his free pass . It might be hard at first to convince your followers it's of God but throw in a flaming sword story and you will have some obey. Philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

I didn't see the men as being real concerned about meeting the needs of the wives and children. They left that up to the women. Their role as "Patriarch" excused them from the duties we expect from husbands today. Women were reduced by order as servants to the Patriarch, just as in Old Testament times. It was for power and for sexual freedom.

If you settle down and build a second home, and have a wife and family and have to provide for them and love them and support them, that's hard. The other way is easy.

The more famiies you have the harder it is to provide quality care to them. The men relied on the women to take care of eachother. They were the Patriarch, breadwinner, sperm donor, but not husbands. Only the wealthier polygamists were able to provide seperate homes for the wives. Even Brigham had some wives sharing a home.

Polygamy was not intended to be easy. And those who entered it did so aware of the personal sacrifice and the conquering od selfishness that it would require.

The history shows us that there were tragedies and there were setbacks and there were just as many problems with it as with monogamy

By problems, what do you mean? Living in rough territory, yes. Struggling to put food on that table, sure. I think you can imagine there were more problems with plural marriages than the ones between one husband and one wife. Sharing a home with other women who take turns sleeping with the same husband creates a bit of trouble that monogamy doesn't, wouldn't you agree?

but the outcome overall was that in fact a faithfull number of faithfull children came into these families and they remained the anchor families in the kingdom.

More to come.... its late

Gaz

faithful children come from all kinds of families and have nothing to do with polygamy. The Mormon hierarchy or royal blood of the church could have come from monogamy too. I think it's funny when people credit polygamy with bringing them here. We would be here with or without polygamy if we were spirits waiting to come on earth.

There are children born to wicked people everyday-should we credit the wickedness as honorable for bringing them here?

[_Inconceivable]

There is also the non-canonical scripture quoted by Nibley about...

Gaz

Gaz, are you really going to use that? Of course, you are totally justified:

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:38)

Accepted doctrine of the Mormon church states that words spoken by the "prophets, seers and revelators", particularly at General Conference, are "the mind and will of the Lord" and considered as scripture for the general church membership.

This scripture can be accessed from the Semiannual Conference Reports - every Mormon knows these can be found twice a year in the Ensign.

Fact: The Journal of Discourses was the Ensign of the 1800's. It was a compilation of semiannual conference reports (and a few added discourses by these "special witnesses"). Regardless of whether it is milk or meat, it is Mormon scripture (my humble opinion is that it more of a tribute to Warren Jeffs).

Non canonical scripture? What? Where? It's all scripture. Quote away.

[_Gazelam]

If I remember correctly its in the Book Temple and Cosmos, which is on the other end of the house. One of these days I'll start my reading of the boards in the Celestial kingdom instead of the lower kingdoms and I'll copy it for you to read. I believe its found in the Slavinic translation of the Book of Abraham.

[_Inconceivable]

If I remember correctly its in the Book Temple and Cosmos, which is on the other end of the house. One of these days I'll start my reading of the boards in the Celestial kingdom instead of the lower kingdoms and I'll copy it for you to read. I believe its found in the Slavinic translation of the Book of Abraham.

?

The reflection of swamp gas off a weatherballoon obscurred my understanding of the above note. Can you rephrase?

[_Gazelam]

"Behold, this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

This is how God spends his time. If we are to dwell in the Celestial Kingdom, that is how we will spend our time. We, like God, as Gods, will know all things and have all power.

If all are one in this enviorment, working towards the same goal, Is there a great deal of need to have a close intimate relationship in a place where there are no secrets and all are one?

Maybe I'm taking this in a wrong direction, but I don't think we have the ability to separate ourselves from what we know now as a close relationship, and compare it to what we will know there.

[_Gazelam]

If I remember correctly its in the Book Temple and Cosmos, which is on the other end of the house. One of these days I'll start my reading of the boards in the Celestial kingdom instead of the lower kingdoms and I'll copy it for you to read. I believe its found in the Slavinic translation of the Book of Abraham.

?

The reflection of swamp gas off a weatherballoon obscurred my understanding of the above note. Can you rephrase?

Werent you asking me about the Nibley Quote and where I got it from?