Plural Marriage

[Admin]

I think what was meant to be said or what was trying to be expressed is that it is not "current policy", as it is of course still part of the scriptures, the past and present in Temple ordinances.

[Kim B]

I think Jacob 23-35 is very significant.  Especially vs. 27, "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife and; and concubines he shall have none. " And vs.  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. " So, basically the Nephites were living plural marriage because their fore-fathers did, and not because the Lord had commanded it.  (sound like modern day fundamentalists?) Even Joseph Smith said "I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise. " (see tpjs 324).  He said this at a time when it was being lived.  Even he, himself, was living it.  And yet he told the brethren, DON't do it, unless the Lord directs you to.  I believe this is a "higher law", a sacred and holy principle, and should be treated as such.  This is something that the Lord, himself has to bring a person into, and if men try to live it otherwise they will be under the same condemnation as the nephites of old.

[Happy_LDS]

I wonder how the women in the Church particularly would handle it if we are asked to live this law again. The reason I ask is that I know some sisters that you cannot even mention the topic without them becoming very emotional or just plainly do not want to hear about it because they see it as an abomination.

If we talk to our average Church members in our Branch/Ward we will find that most believe in the myth that the reason the Church practiced Plural Marriage was because of widows needing men to take care of them.

[Kim B]

I wonder how the women in the Church particularly would handle it if we are asked to live this law again.  The reason I ask is that I know some sisters that you cannot even mention the topic without them becoming very emotional or just plainly do not want to hear about it because they see it as an abomination. 

If we talk to our average Church members in our Branch/Ward we will find that most believe in the myth that the reason the Church practiced Plural Marriage was because of widows needing men to take care of them. 

I think if the Lord required it, it wouldn't be as hard as we imagine.  If our husbands took it upon themselves it might be out of lust or other wrong reasons, which would be very difficult.  It would be like being cheated on, but worse.  I think if I was ever called to live it, I would be good at it, because I get along with women so well, and I would rest comfortably in the fact that IF the Lord called my husband to such a thing it would be because he was honorable, upright, etc. . .  Not every man in the beginning of this church was told to live it, only the ones whom the Lord deemed worthy. 

It's so odd how some people react to this topic.  I once asked my sister-in-law if she would live it if it ever became a requirement.  She said "no way, I would never share my husband" So I asked, what if you had to share him in order to have him for eternity? She said, "I would rather have him to myself now, and not have him at all then. "

As far as widows needing men to take care of them, that makes me laugh.  :D I don't think the 17, 18, 19, and 20 year olds Joseph Smith married were widows. 

I really feel like this is a subject that not everyone should study too deep into.  I, myself, have a very good ability to shelf things that don't make sense, rather than have my testimony shaken.  Anyone without this ability should steer clear, as subjects such as this can drive people towards apostasy.  Whether it be running out to live plural marriage, or even to doubting that Joseph Smith was a prophet altogether.  This subject along with others like it must be dealt with carefully.

[Robert9876]

It really bothers me to here what Pres.  Hinckley said.   I realize that polygamy is not politically "convenient" I realize the church wants to move into the main stream of christianity but at what price?  Are we selling our poineers down the toilet?  D&C 132 is rather blunt about it and so will the journal of discourses tell  you.   Are we saying Joseph Smith and all the early prophets were wrong.   Of course it was doctrinally correct.   I am surprised they have not removed D& C 132 yet.   Is it not easier to just acknowledge our history and state that the time is not now anymore.   Seems simple to me.     

[CM15426]

Pres.  Hinckley saying it is not doctrinal could mean very different things.   The way society looks at polygamy is not at all doctrinal in our church.  He probably didnt want to get too much into it but plural marriage is not a wrong principle eternally.   It is hard for people to understand and grasp that for this day.   

[Happy_LDS]

Kim B:

I really feel like this is a subject that not everyone should study too deep into.  I, myself, have a very good ability to shelf things that don't make sense, rather than have my testimony shaken.  Anyone without this ability should steer clear, as subjects such as this can drive people towards apostasy.  Whether it be running out to live plural marriage, or even to doubting that Joseph Smith was a prophet altogether.  This subject along with others like it must be dealt with carefully.

I understand what you are saying, nevertheless I think is almost a responsibility we have as members of the Church to educate ourselves with doctrines that had and will have such a deep impact in our lives and Eternity. I suppose we should all study line upon line, precept upon precept. Being in denial about the whole topic (as many members do) or brush it under the rag with "it is not necessary for my Salvation" is not good either.

Robert, we need to remember that our Prophets are also men. Maybe Pres. Hinckley did not find the correct word and he said what he said? I am not sure, what i do know is that it is almost like we are embarrassed about our past.

CM15426, you are right. He could have meant many things. I am afraid we are moving towards being way too concern about what other religions think about us and the way we look in "Babylon" than what it really matters. In my opinion, of course.

[CM15426]

true spoken! We should not be ashamed of those valient men doing what the lord called them to do at that time.   Polygamy was only given to those worthy and called of God, as some people dont even know.   

-and yes i have shared many beliefs with others, but when it comes down to it and they start asking me all sorts of questions, thats not what matters.  its that the church is true.   We also need to remember the church is perfect, but the people arent.   A lot of people teaching lessons in church are truthfully trying to teach the truth but sometimes dont always speak a correct principle.