Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

[_Yoda]

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

The correct thing to do first is ignore all statements not published by the Church as the Church itself does not consider such to be doctrine. I'm not, for the moment, going to assess BRM's statement. I'll wait for you to find it or something similar in LDS doctrine. The same goes for any and all "comments" that you may have had in mind.

So when you come up with something doctrinal, let us know.

McConkie's statement is cited from Mormon Doctrine, page 578. Are you saying that this statement should not be considered doctrine?

Surely, the scriptures are considered doctrine? What about the conflicting statements in D&C 132 and Jacob 2?

Also, I understand the official stance that the Journal of Discourses is not considered official Church doctrine. But....wasn't the Journal of Discourses the Ensign of the early Church's day? Not to mention the fact that these statements regarding the state of one's exaltation are being made by prophets, who we are told have the ability to commune with God.

We consider Ensign articles to be considered Church doctrine.

Again, there are significant conflicts surrounding this issue that can easily confuse the average member. Surely, you can come off your high horse long enough to at least acknowledge this?

[_bcspace]

McConkie's statement is cited from Mormon Doctrine, page 578. Are you saying that this statement should not be considered doctrine?

I think you know as well as I do that BRM's Mormon Doctrine is not considered doctrine by the Church since it is not published by the Church.

To be sure, you can find Mormon Doctrine quotes in doctrinal works, but only those case are considered doctrine. Can you find this particular one or one like it in a doctrinal work?

Surely, the scriptures are considered doctrine? What about the conflicting statements in D&C 132 and Jacob 2?

Where is the conflict? Are you forgetting Jacob 2:30?

Also, I understand the official stance that the Journal of Discourses is not considered official Church doctrine.

Because it was not published by the Church just as Mormon Doctrine is not published by the Church.

But....wasn't the Journal of Discourses the Ensign of the early Church's day?

The Ensign is published by the Church.

We consider Ensign articles to be considered Church doctrine.

Sure. Of latest date applies according to the principle of continuing revelation.

Again, there are significant conflicts surrounding this issue that can easily confuse the average member. Surely, you can come off your high horse long enough to at least acknowledge this?

I have never been one to shy away from the truth. However, I have found that much that is posited by antiMormons and other critics of the Church as truth is not truth at all, but a strawman.

So once you find an example of a conflict in doctrine, I will be happy to consider it.

[_Yoda]

Because it was not published by the Church just as Mormon Doctrine is not published by the Church.

So a prophet's words(a prophet who communes with God) are not considered Church doctrine unless they are specifically published by the Church? That is your official stance. Interesting. So...taking that stance, when President Monson gives a conference address, we can't technically consider it doctrine until it comes out in print, and is officially published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I mean, let's face it. What is the majority of material in the Journal of Discourses? Conference addresses.

Where is the conflict? Are you forgetting Jacob 2:30?

Not at all. This is the exact verse:

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

If you read the scripture in context, with the verses that follow, it seems to me that the Lord's idea of raising up seed is going to occur in monogamous settings:

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and aabominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

The bold emphasis is mine...for Gaz's benefit as well as yours. I believe that the Lord is referring to Old Testament polygamy here.

[_bcspace]

So a prophet's words(a prophet who communes with God) are not considered Church doctrine unless they are specifically published by the Church? That is your official stance.

No, that is the Church's official stance as you already know.

Interesting. So...taking that stance, when President Monson gives a conference address, we can't technically consider it doctrine until it comes out in print, and is officially published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

That's right.

I mean, let's face it. What is the majority of material in the Journal of Discourses? Conference addresses.

Were they published by the Church?

If you read the scripture in context, with the verses that follow, it seems to me that the Lord's idea of raising up seed is going to occur in monogamous settings:

The bold emphasis is mine...for Gaz's benefit as well as yours. I believe that the Lord is referring to Old Testament polygamy here.

Incorrect. This is where D&C 132 comes in...

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

The bold emphasis is mine...for your benefit of course.

[_moksha]

So a prophet's words(a prophet who communes with God) are not considered Church doctrine unless they are specifically published by the Church? That is your official stance.

No, that is the Church's official stance as you already know.

Interesting. So...taking that stance, when President Monson gives a conference address, we can't technically consider it doctrine until it comes out in print, and is officially published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

That's right.

I mean, let's face it. What is the majority of material in the Journal of Discourses? Conference addresses.

Were they published by the Church?

These are all very good points. It is not like these past words were published in the Ensign magazine or the Liahona. They are merely utterances of the past and have nothing whatsoever to do with any current revision. It is what they say right now and in the future that matters. The Universe is in an ever changing state. Should we be any different?

.

[_The Nehor]

I don't get what the problem is. Accepting plural marriage (in the sense that you would practice it if necessary) then was a requirement for exaltation. It was revealed by the Lord and in force so you had to accept it. This is no longer the case. The Lord has some different but mostly the same commands for us now as then. If consecration comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If plural marriage comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If animal sacrifice comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If I'm commanded to hunt a white whale then....well, you get the idea.

[_moksha]

If consecration comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If plural marriage comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If animal sacrifice comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If I'm commanded to hunt a white whale then....well, you get the idea.

So we can alternately call you Karl, Brigham, Hannibal and Ishmael?

[_Yoda]

Were they published by the Church?

Perhaps not, but the Journal of Discourses, which IS a collection of conference talks, is important enough to the Church that the first edition is housed at the BYU Harold B. Lee Library, which, if I am not mistaken IS owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Reference here:

We also link to the first edition Journal of Discourses from the Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University. The library provides further access to other important scanned texts and manuscripts at the Lee Library digital collections.

This quote came from http://scriptures.BYU.edu/

Basically, BC, everything you have pointed out has proven my point. Thanks for that, by the way. ;)

There are mass conflicts and confusion surrounding this doctrine. Everyone has a different interpretation of what is correct.

[_The Nehor]

If consecration comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If plural marriage comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If animal sacrifice comes back I have to accept it and live it if commanded to. If I'm commanded to hunt a white whale then....well, you get the idea.

So we can alternately call you Karl, Brigham, Hannibal and Ishmael?

Call me Ishamakarlbrigibal

[_Jason Bourne]

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

The correct thing to do first is ignore all statements not published by the Church as the Church itself does not consider such to be doctrine. I'm not, for the moment, going to assess BRM's statement. I'll wait for you to find it or something similar in LDS doctrine. The same goes for any and all "comments" that you may have had in mind.

So when you come up with something doctrinal, let us know.

Jacob 2:30 contradicts D&C 132-directly. Both published by the Church, both canon.

D&C 132 commands plural marriage and is still in canon and it contradicts current LDS policy and practice of monogamy.