Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just me, I was a little sloppy with my terminology. I agree with Bruce in Montana in that Quote:I don’t see how anyone can read Section 131 2-4 (which speaks of the conditions of exaltation) and then read Section 132 and not see that the New and Everlasting covenant IS celestial plural marriage.
Yes, I’m sure Bruce and I will have a big difference of opinion here. In short,
Quote:one is free to believe that Joseph Smith erred and that Section 132 is not a true revelation.
I’m not trying to argue with Bruce either, but let me explain my reasoning here a bit, and then I’ll let the issue drop. I just don’t accept that the scriptures referencing Abraham/David, etc in this section match the context of the Bible. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe God really did command polygamy, but let me explain my reasons for believing God did not.
In D&C 132:1, it says,
I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubinesIf we accept temple marriage and polygamy as divinely inspired, then theoretically, David and Solomon’s wives would have have needed to be temple worthy. Since some of these wives clearly worshiped other gods than Jehovah, I don’t know how God could justify David and Solomon in particular, which is why I reject the reasoning in D&C 132. The justifications in 132 just make no sense to me in light of David and Solomon marrying “non-members.” If Peter, or Nathan, had the sealing power, why would God have Solomon marry 700 wives and 300 concubines many of whom weren’t even Jewish? If God is a jealous God, and thou shalt worship no other gods before me, how on earth can God claim to have justified these marriages–it is breaking the 1st of the 10 commandments? I can’t comprehend God accepting eternal marriages to people who worshiped Zeus, Asherah, or the multitude of other gods these women worshiped. How could God justify Solomon in this? And why don’t we accept concubines for eternal partners in the LDS church?
I’m glad Ray answered swimordie’s question before I got to it. At first I was going to say, ‘yes’, but in light of his comments, I would say that polygamy is reprehensible in ‘most’ (nearly all) circumstances. My position on polygamy is far from orthodox, and I fully admit that. Perhaps there are some exceptions as Ray mentions. But I just don’t believe polygamy is an inspired doctrine. Perhaps reprehensible is a little harsher word than I would normally choose to characterize polygamy, but it’s not too far off either. I know that Joseph was trying to claim he was restoring biblical polygamy. But in my view, biblical polygamy was wrong, and Joseph didn’t practice it the same way Abraham, Jacob, David, or Solomon did, so I question this restoration of the biblical practice. Certainly Abraham never seems to have claimed that God commanded him to take Hagar–Sarah proposed Abraham take Hagar as a wife. Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah. David and Solomon married women for political alliances, and it certainly was not in any sort of spiritual sealings that Joseph Smith claimed. In fact, the prophets like Nathan condemned the practice of marrying outside the Jewish faith, because it would turn their hearts away from Jehovah (which it did.)
On the other hand, Hagar had 2 angelic visits, so God certainly didn’t reject her for participating in the practice. But I guess that polygamy is never really seen as a necessary part of salvation in the Bible as Joseph claimed in section 132. I don’t have a problem with the sealing ordinance in the temple, but I think that polygamy was a corruption. All the spiritual extra-marital sealings to Joseph seem a bit odd to me, and just don’t pass the smell test, IMO. I believe God wants us to be primarily monogamists. Perhaps if we want to be in a group marriage due to spouses’ dying, and if it is consensual, I guess that’s ok. (If my wife died first, I do not believe she would ever consent to being in a group marriage even if I remarried.) But I just don’t believe that it is required to get into the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom.
Whether there was a law against polygamy or not, it was certainly against the social mores of the time, which is why it inspired so much condemnation. There probably weren’t laws against identity theft back then either, but I think everyone of that day would find it morally reprehensible. I don’t believe tithing is required to be baptized, but you are asked to be willing to pay tithing. Can you tell me why you are opposed to tithing? Also, what is it about the WoW that you have a problem with? I think the church can be very Pharisaical about the WoW, and I don’t believe any of the prohibitions are inherently wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised that when Christ comes, he tells us to start using wine for the sacrament. But, if you enjoy the fellowship of the church, it seems kind of strange that you would let these issues keep these issues from allowing yourself back in. Perhaps you can explain your disagreements in a little more detail so I can understand where you are coming from?
Don’t be too hard on the ward members. I’m sure they are thoughtless, but I don’t believe they were intentionally trying to make you feel bad. I think you should ask the bishop if you can do baptisms too. I don’t know how long you’ve been a member, but he may think that is a good idea for you to participate, and apologize for his lack of good manners on this. I hope you get a chance to do baptisms too–I think it would be a good experience for you. If this works better than a blog for you, then by all means keep doing what works. I don’t believe you need to have “solid theories” to blog. Sometimes I use my blog to vent about things that bug me. You don’t always have to be academic like I am. While I like interaction with others, sometimes it is just a place to vent. LaLaLove, I started my blog as an outlet to express myself, because of frustrations with expressing myself in church and family. I’ve come across way more people who sympathize with me than don’t, and I’ve made some great internet buddies. The result is that I don’t feel the need to talk to my family any more, because I have a safe outlet where I feel understood, and supported. I still love my family, but I am so much more secure with all the things that bother me that I really don’t feel the need to bring them up at church or with family. I’m happier, and they don’t seem to worry about me any more. I still go to church, but luckily I hang out in the clerk’s office instead of Sunday School now.
Heber, a few people in my family know about my blog, but not my wife. I think you need to be careful who you share your true feelings with. Of course, this is a perfect place to share concerns about the church. I did change my look a bit, but I haven’t done a post on Oliver Cowdery per se. However, I have commented on some other blogs about Oliver. Were you thinking of Gosepl Doctrine Underground? He did some posts and I commented there. It talks about all the “sticky” issues in church history, from a former Stake President, Harvard grad, Columbia University professor, internationally recognized historian, and current Director of Mormon Studies at Claremont University in California. He hits almost all the rough topics, and is probably as close to neutral as anyone can be, while still being considered faithful. I must say his treatment of polygamy left me feeling it is not an inspired practice, but I though he explained things wonderfully.
