New Church Survey on Polygamy and FLDS

[Anonymous]

Seven: It remains a current LDS doctrine (required for exaltation)

Jason Bourne: Not under current LDS doctrine.

"Celestial marriage" and exaltation are not the same. I haven't seen one statement by the First Presidency stating that plural marriage is not required for exaltation. Until a new "revelation" removes section 132, it remains current doctrine.

Jason Bourne: I have seem comments about one wife being enough to meet the requirements of celestial marriage for exaltation. This is pretty clear that it is the church's position. And on its own 132 really does not require many wives but allows for it. We do have comments by BY and others that plural marriage was required for exaltation but many will argue that was when polygamy was commanded. Since it is not now no need for it.

Are you thinking of the one comment by Bruce R. McKonkie from "Mormon Doctrine?" He is also the man who said of polygamy "Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium."

There has been no First Presidency statement of which I am aware that removed the requirement of plural marriage for exaltation. Celestial marriage includes one man and one wife (it has to) but does not meet the requirements for exaltation.
Your interpretation of 132 is ignoring the context of why that covenant was revealed. (and it wasn't for monogamy)

If you understand and study the revelation along with teachings of the Prophets from that time (and the history surrounding the practice) you can't come away believing polygamy was a side note of 132.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

Polygamy in for living persons is not practiced at all by the Church.

As I write this, there are faithful believing LDS men who are plurally married to multiple women. Women alive on this earth.

We all know this.

If a man and woman (sealed in the temple) divorce, and the man remarries in the temple, he is sealed to BOTH WOMEN AT THE SAME TIME... WOMEN WHO ARE ALIVE AND WELL.

This is LDS polygamy.

One could say that technically the man doesn't live with both women, but in the FLDS church the men don't live with all their "wives" either. They are legally married to only one, spiritually sealed to others. JUST LIKE IN THE LDS CHURCH. No the LDS folk don't dress up and do those fancy hair-dos but the LDS church is indeed practicing spiritual polygamy just like the FLDS.

The LDS church is flat out lying to suggest there are not some LDS men are not plurally married to multiple women RIGHT HERE ON THIS EARTH.

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Jason,

Polygamy in for living persons is not practiced at all by the Church.

As I write this, there are faithful believing LDS men who are plurally married to multiple women. Women alive on this earth.

We all know this.

If a man and woman (sealed in the temple) divorce, and the man remarries in the temple, he is sealed to BOTH WOMEN AT THE SAME TIME... WOMEN WHO ARE ALIVE AND WELL.

This is LDS polygamy.

One could say that technically the man doesn't live with both women, but in the FLDS church the men don't live with all their "wives" either. They are legally married to only one, spiritually sealed to others. JUST LIKE IN THE LDS CHURCH. No the LDS folk don't dress up and do those fancy hair-dos but the LDS church is indeed practicing spiritual polygamy just like the FLDS.

The LDS church is flat out lying to suggest there are not some LDS men are not plurally married to multiple women RIGHT HERE ON THIS EARTH.

~dancer~

yes yes I know this of course. But let's look at a real life example. A friend of mine was married to wife number one. She cheated on him. They divorced. She we ex'd. He re-married in the temple. Technically he is still sealed to his first wife. But he does not have any real life relations. Not only do they not live together they do not consider themselves married. The same is true in EVERY case where a LDS man is divorced from a prior spouse, still sealed technically but there is no here and now marriage at all in any way period. So they really are not plurally married in the sense of what people think marriage is. Not one whit. Are they plurally sealed for the eternities. Yep. Unless the woman gets married again and has her sealing canceled.

[_Brackite]

How much tithing money goes to this kind of crap? And still Jesus is begging to 2 Billion $$$ for shopping centers.

Jesus begs for nothing. Those are men at the helm, in case you haven't noticed.

Amen, Harmony! Way to go Girl!.

[_truth dancer]

yes yes I know this of course. But let's look at a real life example. A friend of mine was married to wife number one. She cheated on him. They divorced. She we ex'd. He re-married in the temple. Technically he is still sealed to his first wife. But he does not have any real life relations. Not only do they not live together they do not consider themselves married. The same is true in EVERY case where a LDS man is divorced from a prior spouse, still sealed technically but there is no here and now marriage at all in any way period. So they really are not plurally married in the sense of what people think marriage is. Not one whit. Are they plurally sealed for the eternities. Yep. Unless the woman gets married again and has her sealing canceled.

None of this matters Jason.. the fact remains, the LDS church does indeed allow men to be married/sealed to multiple women, who are alive and well. Some LDS men have two or more "wives" sealed to them for eternity. These men may not be civilly married to all their wives but neither were they in the days of Joseph Smith and BY, nor are they today in the case of the FLDS.

To claim that the church has nothing to do with polygamy, has discontinued the practice, or using any other such tricky, misleading wording to deny the truth is a clear falsehood, spoken to deceive the unknowing to think the LDS church no longer believes in this disgusting practice.


~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

None of this matters Jason.. the fact remains, the LDS church does indeed allow men to be married/sealed to multiple women, who are alive and well.

It does matter. They are not married by and standard of what it means to be married. They are sealed by a quirk of theological ideas and policy. When you compare it to the marriages of the FLDS that is a misapplication. Are they living with the woman, having sex with them, dating them, supporting them, spending time with them, building any sort of a relationship with them? Clearly not. They are thus not married to them at all.

Some LDS men have two or more "wives" sealed to them for eternity.

Yes sealed. And that had application and meaning in the here and now exactly how? You think reporters should discuss this? It will just leave their heads spinning and zip right past the public that consumes their news.


These men may not be civilly married to all their wives but neither were they in the days of Joseph Smith and BY, nor are they today in the case of the FLDS.

To claim that the church has nothing to do with polygamy, has discontinued the practice, or using any other such tricky, misleading wording to deny the truth is a clear falsehood, spoken to deceive the unknowing to think the LDS church no longer believes in this disgusting practice.

To a certain extent that is true. From a theological and policy perspective eternal polygamy is still there. From a pratical real world application it does not exist at all.

So you are now the public spokesman for the Church. How would you present this for public consumption?

[_truth dancer]

HI Jason,

It does matter. They are not married by and standard of what it means to be married.

Polygamy has nothing to do with traditional marriage either. The term "plural marriage" is a misnomer.

They are sealed by a quirk of theological ideas and policy.

What? Jason, a sealing/marriage is one of the core doctrines in the LDS church. A sealing is necessary for the CK. This isn't a quirk. The church clearly believes polygamy will exist in the CKHL and engages in practices to ensure this right here on earth. The church lies to the media (and its members) by claiming they have nothing to do with polygamy when they absolutely do.

When you compare it to the marriages of the FLDS that is a misapplication. Are they living with the woman, having sex with them, dating them, supporting them, spending time with them, building any sort of a relationship with them? Clearly not. They are thus not married to them at all.

In the LDS church there is no difference between a temple marriage and a sealing. In fact the church disallows a couple to be married then sealed. (unless they wait a year.... sigh). They are one and the same.

But let's be clear. Polygamy is not about marriage in any way. The FLDS men do not live with their "wives" and children. The women and children share a room together. Men don't live with them. They live communally, men in one place, women and children in another. Many "wives" don't even live in the same state. And there is no dating in the FLDS church, not even prior to marriage. The men do not parent the children at all, in fact I bet many men don't even know who their children are let alone where they live. Did you read the "Bishops List"? These men aren't living with or having sex with all their "wives". Again, polygamy is not marriage in any way, shape, or form. And, the church does in fact believe in and practice polygamy.

If I were the PR spokesperson for the church I would be honest about what the church does indeed believe. Might it create some odd feelings toward the church? Probably... most civilized healthy people don't like the idea of the enslavement and degradation of women. But for a church who claims to be led by Jesus Christ, to lie about its teachings/doctrine/practices just seems really wrong.

Christ could take care of whatever problems come from being honest. No? It says something about the church if, to get members they have to lie about what they believe.

Now, if I were the prophetess (smile) I would change some doctrine and teachings. It would take fifteen minutes to get a revelation to take out a few verses in the D&C. The church wouldn't flinch if a prophet said the Lord wanted to return to the original teachings of monogamy as was practiced in the early days of the church. And a one page statement altering the CHI to allow women to be sealed to multiple men as well would take care of the weirdness of requiring women to get permission from her X to have a sealing cancellation.

I mean seriously, the problem could be eliminated (or largely decreased) in an hour or so, but instead the leaders continue to lie and deceive members and non-members alike.

The church believes in polygamy. It is doctrinal, taught, believed and EMBRACED. To claim otherwise is to lie.

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

It does matter. They are not married by and standard of what it means to be married.

Polygamy has nothing to do with traditional marriage either. The term "plural marriage" is a misnomer.

Polygmist marriages in the LDS Church were still marriges like we understand them. Yes the men were spread thinner but they still acted like their wive's were their wives. Not so with the situation you insist is real here and now polygamy.

They are sealed by a quirk of theological ideas and policy.

What? Jason, a sealing/marriage is one of the core doctrines in the LDS church. A sealing is necessary for the CK. This isn't a quirk. The church clearly believes polygamy will exist in the CKHL and engages in practices to ensure this right here on earth. The church lies to the media (and its members) by claiming they have nothing to do with polygamy when they absolutely do.

I was referring to the specific situation we have been discussing-men who are divorced from women they are still sealed to by the quirk I mention above. There is no real marriage there at all.

But I have already said that polygamy is still part of what could occur in heaven and I agree with that so yes when the Church says it has nothing to do with polygamy at all this is disingenuous.

When you compare it to the marriages of the FLDS that is a misapplication. Are they living with the woman, having sex with them, dating them, supporting them, spending time with them, building any sort of a relationship with them? Clearly not. They are thus not married to them at all.

In the LDS church there is no difference between a temple marriage and a sealing. In fact the church disallows a couple to be married then sealed. (unless they wait a year.... sigh). They are one and the same.

So please give me example of men divorced from wive's they may be "technically" sealed to acting like they are married.

If I were the PR spokesperson for the church I would be honest about what the church does indeed believe. Might it create some odd feelings toward the church? Probably... most civilized healthy people don't like the idea of the enslavement and degradation of women. But for a church who claims to be led by Jesus Christ, to lie about its teachings/doctrine/practices just seems really wrong.

Christ could take care of whatever problems come from being honest. No? It says something about the church if, to get members they have to lie about what they believe.

Fair enough.

Now, if I were the prophetess (smile) I would change some doctrine and teachings. It would take fifteen minutes to get a revelation to take out a few verses in the D&C. The church wouldn't flinch if a prophet said the Lord wanted to return to the original teachings of monogamy as was practiced in the early days of the church. And a one page statement altering the CHI to allow women to be sealed to multiple men as well would take care of the weirdness of requiring women to get permission from her X to have a sealing cancellation.

I mean seriously, the problem could be eliminated (or largely decreased) in an hour or so, but instead the leaders continue to lie and deceive members and non-members alike.

I always like to play "what would I do if prophet for a day."

The church believes in polygamy. It is doctrinal, taught, believed and EMBRACED. To claim otherwise is to lie.

Doctrinal yes. Taught? NOt much. Embraced? By whom?