Polygamy

[NoGreaterLove]

Some interesting quotes to consider.

(Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life's Review [Independence, Mo.: Zion's Printing & Publishing Co., 1947], 93 - 95.)

Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs, 1903,
Church Archives

My words astonished me and almost took my breath. I sat for a time amazed and finally, almost ready to burst with emotion, I looked him straight in the face and said: "Brother Joseph, this is something I did not expect, and I do not understand it. You know whether it is right, I do not. I want to do just as you tell me, and I will try, but if I ever should know that you do this to dishonor and debauch my sister, I will kill you as sure as the Lord lives." And while his eyes did not move from mine, he said with a smile, in a soft tone: "But Benjamin you will never know that, but you will know the principle in time, and will greatly rejoice in what it will bring to you." "But how," I asked, "Can I teach my sister what I myself do not understand, or show her what I do not myself see?" "But you will see and understand it," he said, "And when you open your mouth to talk to your sister, light will come to you and your mouth will be full and your tongue loose, and I will today preach a sermon to you that none but you will understand." Both of these promises were more than fulfilled. The text of his sermon was our use of the "one, five and ten talents," and as God had now commanded plural marriage, and was exaltation and dominion of the saints depended upon the number of their righteous posterity, from him who was then but with one talent, it would be taken and given him that had ten, which item of doctrine seems now to be somewhat differently constructed.
(Latter-day Tracts [Pamphlets], 335.)

Discourse by President Brigham Young
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 16: 158 - 159.)

Now, where a man in this Church says, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one," he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, "Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent," and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 16: 167.)

Brigham told the Saints:

Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdom of God. If any man had asked me what was my choice when Joseph revealed that doctrine, provided that it would not diminish my glory, I would have said, "Let me have but one wife."fn


(Susan Evans McCloud, Brigham Young, A Personal Portrait [American Fork, Ut.: Covenant Communications, 1996], .)

On this occasion Elder Woodruff in his talk to the priesthood said: "I see in my mind's eye forty thousand men in these mountains bearing the Holy Priesthood, foreordained to come forth in this dispensation. Then I see in the vision of my mind's eye forty million devils gathered to make war against these forty thousand priests of the Lord. We have many bishops and elders who have but one wife. They are abundantly qualified to enter the higher law and take more, but their wives will not let them. Any man who will permit a woman to lead him and bind him down is but little account in the Church and Kingdom of God. The law of Patriarchal marriage and plurality of wives is a revelation and commandment of God to us, and we should obey it; but one says, 'If you do, Judge McKean will be after you.' What has given us a future in these Valleys of the Mountains? It is because we have obeyed this part of the Celestial Law of God."
(Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff, His Life and Labors, comp. Matthias F. Cowley [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1916], 489 - 490.)

Concerning the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, President Taylor said: "If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we cannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law." In harmony with the remarks of President Taylor Elder Woodruff observed: "The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation just as baptism for the dead does, or any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to resign."
(Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff, His Life and Labors, comp. Matthias F. Cowley [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1916], 542.)

But in a fuller and more complete sense, the promises deal with celestial marriage, with the continuation of the family unit in eternity, with eternal increase, with having spirit children forever so that (literally) they will outnumber the particles of the earth and the near infinite number of stars in all the galaxies of the sidereal heavens. And in this greater and more important sense, all of these same blessings become the inheritance of all saints who live the law of Abraham and enter into the same order of matrimony which blessed his life and that of Isaac and Jacob. (D. & C. 132:29-32.)
(Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-1973], 3: 205.)

The "law of Sarah" seems to be the approval given by the first wife for the husband to take additional wives, in order to "raise up seed" unto the Lord (D&C 132:61, 64-65). Even though God commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife, Sarah, as the first wife, gave her approval (D&C 132:34). It appears that if the first wife will not give her approval, however, after having been properly taught the priesthood propriety of such action, she is under condemnation and the husband is exempt from this "law of permission
(Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., Doctrine and Covenants Encyclopedia [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 317.)

When a man who has a wife, teaches her the law of God, as revealed to the ancient patriarchs, and as manifested by new revelation, and she refuses to give her consent for him to marry another according to that law, then it becomes necessary for her to state before the President the reasons why she withholds her consent: if her reasons are sufficient and justifiable, and the husband is found in the fault or in transgression, then he is not permitted to take any step in regard to obtaining another. But if the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the Prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him, as Sarah gave Hagar unto Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Billhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob.

Emma's willing participation was fundamental and therefore of concern to Joseph. Ideally the law could not be fulfilled without the first wife's consent: "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law." (D&C 132:34.) "And again as pertaining to the law of the priesthood . . . [if] the first give her consent . . . then is he justified." (D&C 132:61.) But if a husband taught the principle to his first wife and she refused consent, then he was justified, having met his obligation by his teaching her. He was therefore exempt from the "law of Sarah." (D&C 132:64.) Emma had no choice—either way plural marriage would be a reality in her life. But Joseph's choices were not easy either. He loved Emma, and he was a prophet commanded to obey or be "destroyed." He had taught his wife, and she had refused to accept. Having fulfilled his obligation by teaching her, he may have felt he had no other choice but to go forward with the practice.
(Jerrie W. Hurd, Our Sisters in the Latter-day Scriptures [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987], 84 - 85.)


The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away although some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself. I wish more of our young men would take to themselves wives of the daughters of Zion, and not wait for us old men to take them all; go ahead upon the right principle, young gentlemen, and God bless you for ever and ever, and make you fruitful, that we may fill the mountains and then the earth with righteous inhabitants. That is my prayer, and that is my blessing upon all the Saints and upon your posterity after you, for ever. Amen.
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 3: 125.)

A Discourse, by President H. C. Kimball, Delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, September 28, 1856.
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 105.)
Many of this people have broken their covenants by speaking evil of one another, by speaking against the servants of God, and by finding fault with the plurality of wives and trying to sink it out of existence. But you cannot do that, for God will cut you off and raise up another people that will carry out His purposes in righteousness, unless you walk up to the line of your duty. On the one hand there is glory and exaltation; and on the other no tongue can express the suffering and affliction this people will pass through, if they do not repent.
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 108.)

Remarks by President Heber C. Kimball, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 4, 1866.
Reported by G. D. Watt.
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 11: 208.)
I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman will be damned, and they and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and glory there shall be no end. This will equally apply to Jew, Gentile, and Mormon, male and female, old and young.
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 11: 211.)

[braingrunt]

Here is my interpretation of DC132

1 God says: so, you want to know why I allowed Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and so on to have multiple wives. This is a good question since normally I don't like it.
2 I'm your God and here's your answer
3 But once you know this stuff you have to live by it
4 Before I get into your answer directly, I need to give you some background. I make covenants with you which you can't reject
5 or you can't be blessed
6 Marriage is one such covenant, and it brings glory on me and you
7 not just any marriage will do, most come to an end when you die
8 I like to keep things neat and orderly
9 the marriage has to be in my name
10 done the way I appoint
11 according to eternal law
12 ... (eternal marriages lead to continuation of the seeds, exhaltation etc)
28 ...
29 Abraham had bonafide eternal marriage and is now exalted
30 he was promised countless posterity and this is partially fulfilled in the afterlife because his eternal marriage allows it
31 you can have it too
32 have an eternal marriage like abraham
33 ...
34 So now, here's why it OK for Abraham to have multiple wives: CAUSE I COMMANDED IT and it was my law to him at the time. It was partially to fulfull the promise of countless posterity to him. If I will raise up seed I'll command.
35 So, would I condemn Abraham? No, I told him to to it. That's the key.
36 Now look, you know that normally I wouldn't ask a person to kill. But if I do don't refuse me, and I'll count it for righteousness. That's like polygamy. (this verse draws the paralel between polygamy and murder, not just my wild ideas)
37 Once again I say that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were only doing what I said. Now don't get down on them.
38 David and solomon were mostly authorized too but they did some things outside my will
39 (More about david)
40 (?)
41 (adultery info)
48 Again, I have instuted polygamy for now. If done properly you'll get blessings instead of the normal cursings, and I won't condemn you
49 I'll be with you throughout this difficult time
50 I've seen what a sacrifice this has been for you and I accept this sacrifice like I accept the sacrifice of Abraham or his son isaac
51 (I don't fully undestand this verse) This is a proving ground for you like it was for abraham, and I REQUIRE this offering at your hand, emma.
52 Emma, recieve this now.
53 Obey me
54 or be destroyed
55 But Joseph, if she won't, don't worry about yourself
56 Emma, forgive Joseph, I know he's not perfect. I'll fogive you at the same time and bless you
57 (More laws applicable to the priesthood and polygamy WHILE THE LORD COMMANDS IT) ...

As you can see, this understanding is readily reconcilable with the concept I get from Jacob 2 that the Lord normally dislikes polygamy, since he spends so much time explaining that it goes Kosher when he gives the command. He also compares it to other acts which go kosher when he commands, such as abraham offering isaac. This increases the idea that staying away from polygamy his default desire.

The whole section about eternal marriage, which of course applies to us now, I take as an aside, preparing our minds to understand part of the answer to the polygamy question. It sets up the idea that his marriages were such eternal marriages and therefore are of effect when he is out of the world, and is fulfilling the promise to him that he would have an unusually large posterity (in the next world) due to the nature of eternal marriages.

[braingrunt]

And I still don't see how widespread polygamy is even theoretically possible

[NoGreaterLove]

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.)
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 578.)

[NoGreaterLove]

And I still don't see how widespread polygamy is even theoretically possible

That tells me that there are a lot of men who do not honor their priesthood verses worthy women. Plurality of wives is only practiced in righteousness when it is directed by the prophet. It is a calling from god, not some whim a priesthood holder gets and decides to act out upon.

[braingrunt]

And I still don't see how widespread polygamy is even theoretically possible

That tells me that there are a lot of men who do not honor their priesthood verses worthy women. Plurality of wives is only practiced in righteousness when it is directed by the prophet. It is a calling from god, not some whim a priesthood holder gets and decides to act out upon.

But I already addressed that a few posts back with my comment about those who die before the age of accountability.

[NoGreaterLove]

But I already addressed that a few posts back with my comment about those who die before the age of accountability.

We do not know what the percentage of women verses men births have been over the millenniums, nor do we know what the percentage will be during the next millennium.
So we can not accurately give a percentage of righteous vs unrighteous, both living and dead.
I read your post but I do not agree with your philosophy.

[patriotsaint]

Polygamy is an eternal law. It exists and it's true. I won't argue that. The question is because it exists, does it have to be practiced? Obviously it doesn't. Should I specifically prepare for it? I say no. Are those that don't practice it short changed? I don't think so. Exaltation is exaltation with one spouse or many. It's the same. I don't think polygamy is a higher law nor a lower law. It is what it is.

"It is what it is" doesn't seem to explain things well enough to my mind. God's house is a house of order and eternal law. One law can only be "broken" if a greater law takes its place.

The law of Moses was in full force until replaced by the Gospel. Tithing will exist until replaced by the law of consecration etc. Why would polygamy somehow by the one instance in which this hierarchy of laws is not followed?

I'm willing to accept that it is a lower law if shown evidence to substantiate such a claim, but I haven't seen any so far in this thread.

[patriotsaint]

I hope I am not guilty of this, I want to give it it's proper place as a tool the Lord uses when necessary AND HIS USE OF IT IS NOT TO BE RIDICULED OR QUESTIONED! I also hope I'm not guilty of running anybody down. If so I apologize.

No need to apologize Braingrunt, your posts have been thought provoking and friendly. I appreciate your thoughts and insights in this thread.

[shadow]

I'm willing to accept that it is a lower law if shown evidence to substantiate such a claim, but I haven't seen any so far in this thread.

Maybe it isn't a lower law or a higher law. Nothing is greater than exaltation. Exaltation does not require more than one wife. It may include more than one wife, but more isn't required.

[bobhenstra]

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.)
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 578.)

There ya go! Best statement yet that applies to our current situation!

In China millions of baby girls are killed at birth because boys are preferable in that one child country. I wonder, throughout history, how many times has that been the custom? And with our superior knowledge of gospel principals, i.e. how our Heavenly father takes advantage of the stupidity of mankind, what does that say about the pre-existence status of those our spirit sisters who only needed to come to earth to get a body, the test of mortality not necessary in their case. Also, What does it say about our sisters here that were willing to come to earth and give other spirits the chance to receive a physical body, any reward there?

42 percent of boys and 45 percent of all girls born worldwide die before the age of accountability, therefore almost half of the people born into this world are guaranteed the Celestial Kingdom.

Jo and I lost a boy at birth, we consider him perfect! We named him Peter. For that matter Jo brought 8 kids into mortality, and because she was a righteous woman in mortality, doesn't that mean she was saved at least 8 times? Don't we need to be saved only once-- Hopefully she'll share----with me, her loving husband, who was forced to raise those-- uh, brats here in this--place called mortality---

There's just gotta be some justice------

Bob

I wonder what the percentage of female to male birth ratio will be during the millennium?

[NoGreaterLove]

I'm willing to accept that it is a lower law if shown evidence to substantiate such a claim, but I haven't seen any so far in this thread.

It appears that President Wilford Woodruff, President Taylor and Orson Whitney believed it was a higher law.

"I see in my mind's eye forty thousand men in these mountains bearing the Holy Priesthood, foreordained to come forth in this dispensation. Then I see in the vision of my mind's eye forty million devils gathered to make war against these forty thousand priests of the Lord. We have many bishops and elders who have but one wife. They are abundantly qualified to enter the higher law and take more, but their wives will not let them. Any man who will permit a woman to lead him and bind him down is but little account in the Church and Kingdom of God. The law of Patriarchal marriage and plurality of wives is a revelation and commandment of God to us, and we should obey it; but one says, 'If you do, Judge McKean will be after you.' What has given us a future in these Valleys of the Mountains? It is because we have obeyed this part of the Celestial Law of God."
(Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff, His Life and Labors, comp. Matthias F. Cowley [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1916], 489 - 490.)

Concerning the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, President Taylor said: "If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we cannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law." In harmony with the remarks of President Taylor Elder Woodruff observed: "The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation just as baptism for the dead does, or any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to resign."
(Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff, His Life and Labors, comp. Matthias F. Cowley [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1916], 542.)

Mormon plural marriage, practiced from the days of Nauvoo down to the time of the prohibitory "Manifesto" of 1890, was not a system of licentiousness; it was designed to correct and abolish such evils. It enjoined strict purity of life, imposed obligations, involved trials, and demanded from husbands and wives sacrifices of which those who never lived in it never dreamed. Only the best of men and women were considered worthy to live this higher law; and indeed only the best and noblest were capable of living it aright. These were called to be the pioneers in its establishment.
(Orson F. Whitney, The Mormon Prophet's Tragedy: A Review [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1905], 35.)

[bobhenstra]

I'm willing to accept that it is a lower law if shown evidence to substantiate such a claim, but I haven't seen any so far in this thread.

Maybe it isn't a lower law or a higher law. Nothing is greater than exaltation. Exaltation does not require more than one wife. It may include more than one wife, but more isn't required.

Absolutely, Nothing is higher than exaltation! All those statements suggesting different apply only to those times when plural marriage was allowed by the Lord, I'm very happy I was born in my day, and didn't have to add that challenge to my life.

Lol, and now I'm to old----

Bob

[Original_Intent]

I'll live it when and if commanded. That's all the "preparation" or thought I need to give the subject.

I just found it odd that someone brought this up out of the blue in another thread that they were "preparing" to live this law when it is brought back. I'd focus on the commandments which we have now, perfect yourself in that and then when polygamy comes back it will not be an issue for you or your wife.

[Zionlist.com's wife]

Zionlist's wife was clear that he desires and seeks for this blessing. Polygamy is about children. You mean to tell me you don't even have any Zionlist? I hope for your sake you're not using BC! That would be the ultimate hypocritical irony here! Sounds like a gospel hobby to me. Maybe ought to read the parable of talents...

Sorry, I'm new here and not sure how to say who I'm quoting here except to say it's SwissMrs&Pitchfire and ZL isn't here to tell me right now. We were married a little over a year ago and I am currently 8 months pregnant with our first child. So, yeah, that's why we currently have no children but will be expecting our first shortly.

[Zionlist.com's wife]

This quote is particularly relevant:
Joseph F. Smith wrote:
The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.

I think he was speaking to people to whom polygamy was commended/commanded. You see, if I lived back then and never entered polygamy I would figure that I was somehow lacking...otherwise the Lord would have me enter it.

To me it's like, when israel was under kings, a prophet may have said regarding respecting religious leaders: respecting a prophet is a fulfillment of the law of respecting leaders in part-and is good so far as it goes.... but you've got to respect the king too to get the full blessings of this observance!"

Well, such a statement, if it existed, has zero application to me because we have no god-annointed political leaders; and furthermore, that statement has no meaning that the lord actually wants us to have god-annointed political leaders.

To me, that's a pretty good comparison. Because I'm convinced that the lord feels similar about the two subjects. We know from the BOM that he prefers that the power be in the people. We also know that he prefers monogamy. However, when under his direction these things are contradicted, we should strive to "respect the king" or have the marriage arrangement which god deems necessary at the time. What's so hard to understand about this?

ZL has said over and over again that plural marriage is ONLY for those whom the Lord has chosen to participate in it. There is nothing wrong with being ready to do whatever God asks of us so that we may give of ourselves fully without hesitation.

[Zionlist.com's wife]

Umm you actually attacked personal worthiness of anyone that doesn't want to live polygamy. And insinuated that if you don't want to live it you are not as good as people who do want to live it. And can't be as exalted. Since it is a commandment to NOT live it, I am supposed to not want to live it.

You must include quotes when you're providing examples or references. Just saying that I said something doesn't help your case at all.

Any such expressions were unintentional. While I may believe that enlightened persons will prepare to receive all revealed law, I don't recall any attacks on personal worthiness. Please note that personal worthiness is personal and not general. I didn't reply to any post to tell the poster that because he/she believes one way, he/she must not really be taking care of his/her family. Several posters have said that to me.

I didn't accuse a person of a sin. It is not my place to judge sin from cleanliness on a personal level. I can only judge between truth and error generally. One may err without committing sin.

If you enter into single celestial marriage, you will obtain an exaltation compatible with the portion of the law which you practiced. If you enter into a plural celestial marriage, which is the fulness of the new and everlasting covenant, likewise. Those who live the greater law will receive the greater exaltation. I don't know what to tell you if that upsets you, because it is absolute light and truth. It has been espoused by prophets over and over again. There are quotes throughout this thread and throughout the other thread. This quote is particularly relevant:

The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.

I don't know what else you want. If you're offended at that idea, well, I don't know what you want me to do. I didn't make it up. If you have a problem with it, you have to take that up with the Lord, who established and decreed the law.

I have repeatedly stated that plural marriage is absolutely NOT to be practiced unless the Lord commands, authorizes, solemnizes, and ordains it unto the persons considered. As such, yes, you should NOT want to live it until the Lord commands that you live it, because your foremost desire should be adhering to the word of God. Preparing to receive the higher law is not the same thing as wanting to live the higher law now.

It's also important that we distinguish between times here. We should not want to live plural marriage right now when it is an abomination before the Lord. It is an abomination now because the Lord has commanded that we not live it, not because of any inherent or intrinsically evil thing about it.

We should want to live plural marriage one day when the Lord determines that it would be appropriate to do so. We should want this because we know that it represents a fullness of the law and because we know that it is a celestial law with celestial ramifications, the practice of which entitles us to a richer and greater exaltation than that of those found in single marriage exaltations.

I really don't see how some of you guys aren't getting this, or why I have to repeat this so many times. Please don't make me go through and highlight the many times I've repeated these things, as I had to do in the medical thread to get the guy to believe that he wasn't paying attention to my posts. Just pay attention as you read and you shouldn't have a problem; perhaps it'd help to take notes, or something, too, so that you don't make embarrassing errors like this.

Wow, you just don't have any room for improvement do you.

Wow. Was laughing at him really necessary? We are all saints here and have no need for ridicule. Let's please keep this nice. And I know a lot of you feel ZL isn't keeping it nice, and that he is, in fact, quite rude and has a "holier than thou" attitude. Sure, he could flower it up a bit or leave a few unnecessary words out, but he feels he is just telling it like it is so try not to get offended.

[Original_Intent]

No there is nothing wrong with being ready.

I found it odd that ZL brought up the issue in another thread that "my wife and I are preparing to live the law of polygamy when it is brought back".

That's an odd thing to bring up in conversation. I think many hear (myself included) got the impression that there was a specific focus to this law rather than the more general "be ready to do whatever God commands when he commands".

What does one do to "prepare to live the law of polygamy"? It's just an odd statement.

[zionlist.com]

I didn't bring it up like that and your quote is not a quote, for the record. The original post is at http://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... 33#p106433

The thread was called "Waiting on the Church". It was about our frustrations with the general membership. I mentioned that "We need to get ready so that when the Lord tells the prophet to announce the reinstitution of polygamy, we can go without trouble. We need to get ready so that when the Lord tells the prophet to move to Zion, we can respond." It is a passing mention. The thread proceeded to blow up and freak out, which I suppose is a major reason why the Lord has taken the law away.

Anyway, once again, no one here can go through my posts and respond reasonably and this has again devolved into an ad-hominen mock fest because you people cannot understand the words I type, so I'm done with the thread, again. It's sad that it always has to come to this on this forum.

Mormons are supposed to love light and truth. They are supposed to seek it and consume and internalize it, even if it is "at odds" with cultural belief. I am consistently disappointed. If this generation is to qualify for the blessings which its predecessors missed, like building the New Jerusalem, it must rise above the others. It must improve.

I've been looking around for help from many different Saints recently. Most of them have ignored my requests completely. Do you forget your baptismal covenant to bear one another's burdens? Yet I can find no help among the body of the Church, from those well-equipped to help me. I can't even find an acknowledgement, like "thanks but no thanks". Do you think the generation that builds Zion, a generation of Saints among whom there will be no poor, will have this attitude? President Monson's most consistently plea the last several conferences has been for the Saints to bear one another up, to help each other. I might say that's the most consistent admonition of apostles generally. And yet I can find no help.

But none of them come under condemnation among you all. As long as your rejection of the gospel is done for the sake of worldly comfort or compatibility with cultural ideals and other doctrines of men, you are excused by your fellow Saints. However, if you preach the fulness of the law as taught in the scriptures, as taught by the prophets, etc., you are ostracized, outcast, and condemned. Does this remind you of anything?

The Lord will not suffer His blessings to come upon wicked generations. See:

53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.
54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—
55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—
58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.
59 For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.

There is a common belief among the patrons of this forum that they will enter in at the New Jerusalem. We have now seen that we must do all we can to qualify to build it, and that it's not a forgone conclusion. If you want into Zion, you have to help raise this generation up. We can start by valuing the doctrine of God over the doctrine of man, specifically over the doctrine of apostate Christianity which has so deeply affected the perceptions of many in the Church.

Also see the very next verse:

60 Verily, verily, I say unto you who now hear my words, which are my voice, blessed are ye inasmuch as you receive these things;

We are blessed inasmuch as we receive the doctrines of the Kingdom and the Light and Truth of God, which are His Spirit. Please think about that. Are you doing what you can to help? When someone in your ward, stake, or someone in the Church generally asks for assistance, are you leaving them hanging? Are you cleansing and recleansing your heart to the best of your ability so that you can receive the greater light and be prepared on the Lord's call, or do you cling to the wicked traditions of our father Gentiles?

Just some questions for the people here. I want everyone to get better. Please do so.

[shadow]

You had the wrong quote OI, but you were close...

"I am preparing to live plural marriage spiritually, emotionally, and temporally. This means that I save money in the anticipation that any day another woman and the subsequent children may be under my care." -Zionlist.com

[zionlist.com]

Right, that's a different quote that came up later in the conversation, it wasn't used to start it off and it didn't come "out of the blue" as OI posited. Why can't anyone here read? Seriously you guys. LIKE SERIOUSLY. Learn to read please, holy crap.

Anyway, I missed about a page of this thread before my earlier reply. Let me ask all of you who believe that you will obtain a complete exaltation, the same as any man with a plurality of wives, with only a single marriage something. I ask you, Why do we even go to the temple?

If you all say that because the Lord has not asked us to live plural marriage in our day, then we there will never be an obligation for it, why is it that we must be baptized, endowed, sealed, etc., for people? Surely in their case the Lord had not asked them to live that law in their lives. Some may have known it was an eternal law, to require baptism, but may have said, "What difference is it to me? I shall never need baptism because the Lord has not asked me to live this eternal law."

And again, the quote for JFS I posted explicitly identifies plural marriage as the fullness of celestial marriage. It also teaches the general principle that NO MATTER WHEN A MAN LIVES, blessings cannot be given if the law is not followed. To the extent that we live a lesser law, we will receive lesser blessings than those who live the higher law.

You dudes.

[Zionlist.com's wife]

No there is nothing wrong with being ready.

I found it odd that ZL brought up the issue in another thread that "my wife and I are preparing to live the law of polygamy when it is brought back".

That's an odd thing to bring up in conversation. I think many hear (myself included) got the impression that there was a specific focus to this law rather than the more general "be ready to do whatever God commands when he commands".

What does one do to "prepare to live the law of polygamy"? It's just an odd statement.

I'm glad to see that you agree with being prepared for whatever God wants you to do. ZL brought that up because he was frustrated with people just waiting and not preparing for the future of the church (which I gather is what the thread was mainly about). Polygamy was an aspect of that frustration as well as others like the Law of Consecration or building Zion. He chose to use polygamy as an example because, along with those other things, it's something that eventually we'll all have to deal with whether we are called to be participants or not.

Also all one does to "prepare to live the law of polygamy" is be ready for it emotionally, spiritually and perhaps even financially. Prepare your mind so that when the time comes, whether it is in this life or the next, instead of thinking "Oh my! This is so horrible! How could anyone ever think this is right, I'll never share my spouse with another spouse." and so on, you think, "Hmm... I've made covenants in the temple to be willing to share all I have with the church and the Lord when the time comes to do so and the time is now so I will do it happily and faithfully." At least that's the main jest of my idea of the answer to that question.

[clarkkent14]

I know this is a little different, but others have looked past the present law towards something greater.

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.
25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

[bobhenstra]

Just some questions for the people here. I want everyone to get better. Please do so.

I will bud, but it'll be done at my speed! I think your a young pup full of vim and vigor all excited about discussing your "aha" moments, and your not near careful enough about how you word the topics you want to discuss. Then you make accusations that people simply are not reading what it is you are actually saying, but the fact is we are. There are many very knowledgeable scriptorians here.

I consider myself well versed in gospel scholarship, however there are those here that think otherwise. I don't mind, I don't argue with them, I attempt to point out my differences in a kind and casual way (most of the time) and let them continue on with their beliefs. If they choose to argue I simply refuse to continue the conversation.

I suggest you slow down a bit, take a deep breath and try again! Next time don't let your fingers type faster than your brain. Your fingers don't reason as well as your mind.

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... =19&t=5645


Bob

[shadow]

Right, that's a different quote that came up later in the conversation, it wasn't used to start it off and it didn't come "out of the blue" as OI posited. Why can't anyone here read? Seriously you guys. LIKE SERIOUSLY. Learn to read please, holy crap.

Yo, what up bro? You should read OI's post again but a tad slower this time. He didn't say "out of the blue" like you quoted him as doing. Seriously, read slower dude. Comprehend man, comprehend. Once you grasp what OI was suggesting, you'll see just how perfectly your post I quoted fit in.

No there is nothing wrong with being ready.

I found it odd that ZL brought up the issue in another thread that "my wife and I are preparing to live the law of polygamy when it is brought back".

That's an odd thing to bring up in conversation. I think many hear (myself included) got the impression that there was a specific focus to this law rather than the more general "be ready to do whatever God commands when he commands".

What does one do to "prepare to live the law of polygamy"? It's just an odd statement.

You had the wrong quote OI, but you were close...

"I am preparing to live plural marriage spiritually, emotionally, and temporally. This means that I save money in the anticipation that any day another woman and the subsequent children may be under my care." -Zionlist.com

See, from your above quote, OI wasn't too far off on his post was he?? LIKE SERIOUSLY DUDE, think it through!