[Shawn]

Deleted.

[Shawn]

wayfarer wrote:

shawn, everything the church says there in that website definition is accurate when it speaks of the history, but it’s still not complete. Joseph Smith may not have been so ‘inspired’ when he talked about this ‘principle’, in as far as he required married woman to participate in it with him, and many times without their active husbands’ knowledge of it. You can apologetically defend that as a test, but even the church is hesitant about broadcasting that part of the history.

Yes, the website does not give all the history. I was thinking the OP asked if the church acknowledged a revelation from 1831. Maybe I misunderstood.

wayfarer wrote:

the conclusion the church makes in the statement is that the principle of polygamy was a commandment. I would submit that this conclusion is suspect, given the nature of how polyandry was part of the bargain. To defend the ‘inspired’ nature of it, is to paint god as a bit of a monster with respect to testing and trying people’s loyalty within marriage, and then allowing the prophet to commit polyandry with other mens’ wives without their knowledge.

My understanding is that sealings to woman who were already married were spiritual only and that Joseph Smith did not live with the women or have sexual relations with them. I think there are one or two exceptions. It is noteworthy that some men actually stood in as proxy to have his wife sealed to the deceased Joseph Smith. I know that apologetics are not cool here, so I won’t say more.

wayfarer wrote:

But it doesn’t matter. I like what you originally said in a post: something to the effect that Joseph Smith commmitted polyandry, yet he is the prophet of the restoration. I have no issue with him being both a sinner and a prophet, and I suspect neither do you. I find it harmful, however, to try to defend his position on polyandry (specifically) — so I don’t bother, and I don’t think there are many people, scholars or otherwise, that would bother to defend polyandry either (although I recognize now that MH has corrected me that a few scholars defended polygamy/polygyny).

Yes, polyandry occurred and I won’t call Joseph Smith a sinner for it. Obviously, he wasn’t perfect, but we don’t know if any of those marriages or sealings were wrong. Why do we try to apply the standards of man to God?

[Shawn]

Roy wrote:

I don’t think there is any easy way out of this predicament. “If only JS hadn’t hesitated to take Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner as a plural wife when she was 15/16 when he was originally prompted, instead of waiting 8 years until she was 23 and married to someone else.” For some reason this doesn’t make me feel any better.

Is the concern here the prospective age? Don’t we all know that it was okay for men to marry 15-year-olds in the 19th century? We can’t apply today’s standards to that time period.

cwald wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

Roy wrote:

If this is true then it still doesn’t make me feel particularly good about what happened

I’m with you Roy. I’m not sure I’ve found anything to help me feel good about it…but there are some plausible explanations…just not ones I like.

Yep. Count me in.

The part that says “he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees” is actually not outlandish! In the American frontier, a divorce decree was not always granted before one remarried. You guys need to be more objective.

[Shawn]

Thankful wrote:

Not believing would be a terribly painful tragedy for me. I cannot let it go. It is so important for me to find a way to hang on. I’ve had too many experiences with the spirit to discount it all. And the church is part of my identity.

I hear ya. A few weeks ago, I let loose a bit with my wife. Quite passionately, I said “With all the stuff Brigham Young said, there is no way he could have been a prophet. And the Church changes according to the trends of the world – it is just 20 or so years behind. Why can’t the Gospel be simpler? Why does all that crap get in the way?” I voiced some other concerns (I can’t’ really remember it all), and my wife was upset and crying. She said “So what are you going to do? Do you want to leave the church?” I said “No, I love the church. I just want it to be simple again.”

Thankful wrote:

Yet I can’t have that simple faith anymore.

That actually sounds like someone saying “I just can’t love again” after breaking up with a boy/girlfriend. But they can!

Thankful wrote:

What caused my greatest faith challenge has been my experience with the spirit. I learned at church to listen to and trust the Holy Ghost. Yet my listening to the Holy Ghost is what has been so hard. I have prayed about my husband’s lack of belief for years, and it was a deep concern to me. And what I learned through the spirit was that all is ok. It doesn’t matter. We can be an eternal family through our deep love, no matter what choices he makes regarding the LDS church.

But if I trust the answer I got as I prayed, how do I make sense of it? If it doesn’t really matter, why are all the rules and ordinances so important?

Though there may not be an answer now, I bet you will understand someday.

[Shawn]

curt wrote:

Is this acknowledgement of the 1831 revelation?

Interestingly, the Church website says this:

Quote:

After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.

When the Saints moved west under the direction of Brigham Young, more Latter-day Saints entered into plural marriages.

Influenced by rumors and exaggerated reports, the United States Congress, beginning in 1862, enacted a series of laws against polygamy that became increasingly harsh. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saint men were imprisoned or went into hiding.

In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890 and is published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1 (see also “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto” following Official Declaration 1).

Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage?lang=eng

[Shawn]

wayfarer wrote:

you should be concerned about this. it already has had a significant impact on his self esteem, and it is abuse. forget about “over time” and “bordering”. your son is being manipulated by guilt over not being “worthy”, and is being emotionally trained to view himself as not having worth. the impact is life-long and must be addressed now.

i have spent forty plus years undoing this kind of damage. Please, for the sake of your son, stop this abuse, and help your son understand that his explorations into his nature are good and natural for a teen boy.

i also would not allow the bishop or any leader to conduct one on one private interviews about sexuality. you should be there with him, and he needs to know and say that talking about sexuality in a private adult-child setting is not appropriate and that his parent must be there. I believe, strongly, that the private interview setting of an adult with authority over a young teen is de facto abuse and is against most modern policies in BSA, schools, and non-LDS youth programs.

There must be a way to determine who may or may not administer ordinances. In general, it is NOT abuse to ask a member to refrain from partaking of the sacrament. This particular bishop, however, may be overzealous.

The idea that “his explorations into his nature are good and natural for a teen boy” is half correct. While is it natural (according to the natural man), it is not good.

To me, the idea that there should not be any private interviews with youth is a politically correct overreaction in America to sexual abuse.

crl21 wrote:

I wish the church would realize and talk about the fact that this “sin” is really not that serious. The problem is that in public the church equates masturbation and porn to other sexual sin which then would lead many young men to the conclusion that it is next to murder.

In my experience, it has NOT been taught that P & M are like other sexual sins.

[Shawn]

Quote:

bc_pg: Likewise someone who is not temple worthy doesn’t get to attend a child’s wedding. They either have to boycott it or endure the shame of sitting outside on the temple grounds. As you know, this lack of worthiness can be something as simple as drinking coffee or not believing the church president is literally a prophet. I haven’t had this experience yet personally, but have read accounts of people in this situation and shame is definitely a strong emotion they experience.

I have been thinking about this recently. I think the solution is NOT to allow those without recommends to attend sealings – I think the solution is allow sealings to occur shortly after civil weddings! What would be wrong with a couple having a civil wedding with as much or as little grandeur as they want and then getting sealed the next day or even later on the same day? I am pretty sure this is how it used to be. I don’t have a source, but remember reading about a couple who got married in the 40s or 50s and then travelled to a temple a week or so later.

(I changed “dealings” to “sealings” – thanks, wayfarer)

[Shawn]

cwald, you humbled me with your reply. Thank you. I want you to stayLDS.

I am quite new here. Somehow people need to vent frustrations, but people also need answers and just a listening ear without digging up more concerns unnecessarily. I don’t know how to strike a good balance.

[Shawn]

Seeker wrote “However, doubts have surfaced in my mind about… women’s roles in the Church…” That’s it! We don’t even know the details, and its as if you are saying “Grasp the doubt, feed it, and become bitter!” It may be that the orthodox answer might work here.

[Shawn]

The more I lose sight of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the darker my life is, like dwelling in a cave. The more I’m following the Gospel of Jesus Christ and experiencing the influence of Holy Ghost, the more I see “things as they really are, and of things as they really will be.” That is when the world is bright and beautiful.

[Shawn]

cwald wrote:

Women can’t hold most callings or participate in most priesthood functions and ordinations because….because…they don’t have a penis?

Yeah, I get it now. Sorry women. Sorry jwald. I understand the pain that patriarchy is causing some of the members.

I don’t see that could help someone stayLDS.

I’m sure it is more than having a penis. Generally, the minds of men work differently from women. Moreover, there are male and female spirits. “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Men and women have different roles. Men have held the priesthood since Adam. There may some useful info here: http://www.lds.org/relief-society/daughters-in-my-kingdom?lang=eng

[Shawn]

“Keystone” does not necessarily mean the most sacred or important. It was just an imperfect metaphor.

[Shawn]

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God has already come unto you.”

(http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/17.20)

You will see that I inserted the JST. The other footnote to that verse is interesting. It says “Many translations read ‘among’ because the pronoun ‘you’ is plural here in Greek.” Sure enough, some translations read”the kingdom of God is among you” or “in the midst of you” or variations of those. See http://bible.cc/luke/17-21.htm

Also, can the word “church” be inserted where the following verses say “kingdom”?:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/dan/2.44)

“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/21.43)

[Shawn]

seeker wrote:

…It was great and I have never felt the Spirit stronger than in that experience. However, doubts have surfaced in my mind about the origins of the Book of Mormon, women’s roles in the Church, and the Church’s stances on gay marriage and homosexuality.

As first assistant in my priest’s quorum, I feel an obligation to be an example to the other priests, teachers, and deacons, and also to the friend whom I baptized. At times I feel ridden with guilt that my doubts…

Remember when you felt the Spirit! There was a good reason for you to have that experience.

I agree that you should not feel guilty.

Do you have specific concerns about the origins of the Book of Mormon?

The role of women issue has bothered me before, but I’m cool with it now. I witnessed a sealing in the temple yesterday and the sealer said to the groom “You are the head of a co-equal partnership” and he really did stress the co-equal part. I don’t think holding the Priesthood makes men better than women. I see it as a responsibility and it just makes roles different.

Regarding the stance on same-sex marriage, I think the Church is resisting changes being forced on us rather than being the one trying to force others. “…a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.” Here is a source that may shed some light on the issue: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

[Shawn]

I was a rascally teenager. I dropped out of school to drop LSD and smoke pot. I then had a very powerful experience and became a very dedicated LDS kid, focused on serving a mission. So I got my mission call and went through the temple for the first time. I thought it was “meh” and a little weird. I decided not to think of it much. My mission was good and I went to the temple twice while there. They were not good experiences, but not bad either.

After returning home from the mission and getting married (which happened quickly), my wife and I attended the temple regularly. I just didn’t like it. For 7 or 8 years I went very infrequently. A couple years ago I was having a faith crisis and thought I was nearly agnostic. But I went to the temple (I determined I believed “enough” to go, maybe I was wrong) and had one of the greatest experiences of my life. I don’t want to give many details – I will just say that I was able to envision what the Celestial Kingdom might be like as I was in the Celestial Room.

Anyway, I believe Satan can influence us even when we are in a temple. Of course, our own thoughts can also seem like a prompting. I cannot know what the source of your “prompting” was.

[Author]

Posts