Eternal Marriage rooted in the polygamist past of Joseph Smith?

[_Yoda]

Something I have been confused about is this:

Is plural marriage still considered an ultimate requirement for the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom? I have heard responses both ways on this one.

This link may be of some help, Liz:

Messenger Magazine

Fascinating reading, Ray! I've bookmarked the link! Thanks! :)

[_Brackite]

It was not until the early 20th Century, when the definition of Celestial Marriage was changed by The 7th LDS Church President Heber J. Grant and his Counselors, to just mean monogamous marriage between a man and a woman for all of eternity.

Brackite, do you have a quote or a link specifying when this was changed and the exact wording of the change?

Did President Grant state that monogamous marriage was considered Celestial Marriage if performed in the temple in addition to plural marriage?

Something I have been confused about is this:

Is plural marriage still considered an ultimate requirement for the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom? I have heard responses both ways on this one.

Hello There Liz3564,

Here are two quotes with links, that I have for you here:

Heber J. Grant, And His Councilors:

"Celestial marriage-that is, marriage for time and eternity-and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages."

(James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:329.).

(Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, And J. Reuben Clark, Jr.).


[ Link: , Link: , And Link: ]

Bruce R. McConkie:

"Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C. 132:7, 29-66.)

All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness."

(Mormon Doctrine, Page 578.).


[ Link: , And Link: ]

Take Care, Liz!

[_Roger Morrison]

TD said:

My point is, even without Christianity I think there is something in many human beings that recognize the harem lifestyle along with its inequality is unhealthy, primitive, animalistic, and completely degrading to women.

To which I totally agree. But unfortunately there are circumstances that often direct both males and females into sad and distructive relationships; although not necessarily "harem-styled."

One of those most animalistic & deserving total removal from society of its perpetrators is, Child Pornography. Recently featured on Oprah. This crime IS true terrorism! deserving
a mini amount of Military funding! Don't/didn't mean to derail...

Roger

[_truth dancer]

TD said:

My point is, even without Christianity I think there is something in many human beings that recognize the harem lifestyle along with its inequality is unhealthy, primitive, animalistic, and completely degrading to women.

To which I totally agree. But unfortunately there are circumstances that often direct both males and females into sad and destructive relationships; although not necessarily "harem-styled."

One of those most animalistic & deserving total removal from society of its perpetrators is, Child Pornography. Recently featured on Oprah. This crime IS true terrorism! deserving
a mini amount of Military funding! Don't/didn't mean to derail...

Roger

Ohh don't even get me started on this! (grrrrrr).

When is our society going to wake up and protect our children? When are these perverts going to be taken out of society?

We could easily end this perverted practice in a week... you know how? Castration. Yep! It would take about ten convictions and it would be over. But so long as these disgusting men get a little slap on the wrist it will continue.

I'm just REALLY sick and tired of men harming/using/abusing children for their sexual desires. I don't care if it is a prophet screwing girls or a man down the street getting off on children in the neighborhood. It is sickening.


~td~

[_Yoda]

Bruce R. McConkie:

"Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C. 132:7, 29-66.)

All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness."

(Mormon Doctrine, Page 578.).


[ Link: , And Link: ]

Take Care, Liz!

Thank you so much, sweetie! :) This is exactly what I was looking for.

I find it interesting that President McConkie's statement here DIRECTLY contradicts not only Brigham Young's comments, but the comments of all of the prior prophets in the early Church era.

I'm curious as to how apologists resolve this? Does this fall under modern revelation trumping prior revelation? Or, is this a case of prior leaders not really understanding what Joseph Smith was trying to set up in the first place? Or, is it the case of Joseph, himself, not really understanding?

My problem with this theory is, if Joseph was inspired and entrusted by God to set up Christ's Church in the modern day, how could he have perceived such a vital part of the gospel so wrong? And why didn't God step in to correct this error, instead of allowing thousands of his innocent children to suffer needlessly because of this misinterpretation?

BC? DCP? Bob? Nehor? Asbestosman? Alter Idem? Just Me? Any other apologist lurkers? Your comments are welcome! :)

[_truth dancer]

Hi Liz...

I'm curious as to how apologists resolve this? Does this fall under modern revelation trumping prior revelation? Or, is this a case of prior leaders not really understanding what Joseph Smith was trying to set up in the first place? Or, is it the case of Joseph, himself, not really understanding?

All of the above! ;-)

Remember that monogamy was doctrinal, in the scriptures, and taught (not that it was lived of course) as ultimate truth until they removed a portion of the scriptures in 1876 and decided polygamy would not be the ultimate form of marriage.

Section 101:4 (until 1876) clearly taught Monogamy was truth and polygamy was wrong... but of course this was all changed.

Lots of contradictions, revisions, additions, remissions, and basically it all means nothing.

I say it means nothing because it is clear that while the official LDS doctrine was CLEARLY monogamy, leaders didn't abide by their doctrine and engaged in all sorts of alternative relationships.

Similarly, even when the official word came down that polygamy had to be stopped, leaders continued on as if nothing had changed.

Ask a dozen LDS members and their opinions are all over the place on this issue... any word from a leader is just opinion, and based on the past, even when leaders come out with an opinion it means pretty much nothing.

Just sayin... ;-)

~td~

[_asbestosman]

When is our society going to wake up and protect our children? When are these perverts going to be taken out of society?

How about when our convictions are beyond the shadow of a doubt.

We could easily end this perverted practice in a week... you know how? Castration. Yep! It would take about ten convictions and it would be over. But so long as these disgusting men get a little slap on the wrist it will continue.

Not that I'm against such drastic measures, I'm just not convinced that castration would work. People are still willing to take huge risks when sex is involved. Would it even help stop the pevps? I don't know. That kind of stuff may be based on more than hormones or lust. Furthermore, I wonder what we'd do to the (significantly rarer but yet dangerous) female predators.

I'm just REALLY sick and tired of men

Or women. Rare as it is, it happens and even one is a disguisting tragedy that must be considered.

harming/using/abusing children for their sexual desires. I don't care if it is a prophet screwing girls or a man down the street getting off on children in the neighborhood. It is sickening.

Tell us how you really feel . . . ;)

Yes it is sickening. However, there are some gray areas. Some kids look older than they are and lie about their age. Do we adjust punishment accordingly? Do we consider sick drawings that do not use real people to also be similarly illegal? If so, on what grounds since no children are directly harmed? If not, are we just setting up a dangerous situation by feeding depraved lusts?

[_moksha]

Most members who are serious about their religion do extracurricular reading. They that don't, don't.

That's right. This information is only hidden or obscured to those who fail to seek it out. If they want to know the truth, they have their ways and agency to seek it out. It is not like it is in their or anyone's best interest to make it available otherwise. Information can lead to confusion and distrust if too readily available.

[DrW]

A-man, said:

Yes it is sickening. However, there are some gray areas. Some kids look older than they are and lie about their age. Do we adjust punishment accordingly? Do we consider sick drawings that do not use real people to also be similarly illegal? If so, on what grounds since no children are directly harmed? If not, are we just setting up a dangerous situation by feeding depraved lusts? (UL added by RM)

Your thoughts are worth considering. BUT, babies,toddlers, pre-schoolers, jr.-schoolers would have a very difficult time convincing anyone that they are consenting adults.

When I introduced "child pornography" to this thread it was after watching Oprah on Mon & Tues when she did a show dealing with undeniably infants to 12 year olds as the victims. Worth digging from her archives. This is an Internet Industry that is rampant! And in many cases carried on in home nurseries. Not all are, "...sent to parents, kind & dear." (Has that piece of romantic-imagining BS been taken out of the LDS Hymnal yet?)

Most disturbing is the FACT that most of those violating these helpless & innocent victims are known as friends, neighbors, Coaches, and fathers! The danger isn't with strangers!!

I could address your other thoughts. But, I want to make it clear we are not talking "Lolita" type temptresses. If that makes a difference in a caring conscious society.

Mok, I'm with you Bro. Used to be bare-foot in winter & pregnant in summer kept the women close to home. Now fear, ignorance and "approved readings" add to the dummy-downing tricks...

Roger

[_truth dancer]

When is our society going to wake up and protect our children? When are these perverts going to be taken out of society?

How about when our convictions are beyond the shadow of a doubt.

We could easily end this perverted practice in a week... you know how? Castration. Yep! It would take about ten convictions and it would be over. But so long as these disgusting men get a little slap on the wrist it will continue.

Not that I'm against such drastic measures, I'm just not convinced that castration would work. People are still willing to take huge risks when sex is involved. Would it even help stop the pevps? I don't know. That kind of stuff may be based on more than hormones or lust. Furthermore, I wonder what we'd do to the (significantly rarer but yet dangerous) female predators.

I'm just REALLY sick and tired of men

Or women. Rare as it is, it happens and even one is a disguisting tragedy that must be considered.

harming/using/abusing children for their sexual desires. I don't care if it is a prophet screwing girls or a man down the street getting off on children in the neighborhood. It is sickening.

Tell us how you really feel . . . ;)

Yes it is sickening. However, there are some gray areas. Some kids look older than they are and lie about their age. Do we adjust punishment accordingly? Do we consider sick drawings that do not use real people to also be similarly illegal? If so, on what grounds since no children are directly harmed? If not, are we just setting up a dangerous situation by feeding depraved lusts?

Hi Asbestosman... I don't really think for one minute anyone is going to be castrated. :-) I'm just engaging in wishful thinking. (smile) I think it would work but it is never going to happen. (darn). LOL!

I'm not talking about those gray areas. I'm talking about men who sexually abuse children. (Yes there are women but it is very rare as you know). Yes, there are PLENTY of perpetrators who are caught, who admit to their behavior, and situations where there is no question.

When it comes to men sexually abusing and using children... yeah, I have NO tolerance. None.

~td~