Is polygamy the New and everlasting covenant?

[rewcox]

I worry about all mankind.

You should spend some time proselyting to non members. I don't think LDSFF is a very big market for non members.

[deep water]

First we should define the group (members). Members of what? I see many non-members( of the church of Christ ) to preach to here.

[Melissa]

[quote="deep water]I, like Joseph Smith being a descendant of Joseph of old, through Ephram, I do not take teachings without questioning and searching.

Since you question the church, you have no idea you are of Ephraim. Your patriarchal blessing would be worth less than the paper it is on.

[/quote]

Please be carefull rewcox. If you will not be careful, I will quit communicating with you, as I do not want your downfall upon my conscience.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Wow.

[freedomforall]

This is just one more thread out of a numerous quantity geared to stir up contention. Faithful Saints are dying every day believing they'll go to the Celestial Kingdom at some point, that do not live a polygamous lifestyle, so what is all the ranting for?

Well, again, let's see what God says about this:

Prov 6
16 ¶These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

So how many of these things the Lord hates are involved with this continual same topic coming up over and over and over and over again?

1) A proud look? Very possibly?
2) a lying tongue?
3) hands that shed innocent blood?
4) An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations? Like stirring up trouble unnecessarily?
5) feet that be swift in running to mischief? Depends on the motive, right?
6) A false witness that speaketh lies? An emotionally charged, angry outburst...over whatever?
7) he that soweth discord among brethren? Like repetitive rant over points of doctrines only from a single point of view and not seeking true resolve through prayer and humility?

What is the point of throwing rocks into the gears? A multitude of people have gone to the temple and lived up to their covenants as presented them. Why should any of us remotely think they were deceived? Why is polygamy such a big issue, other than to raise contention and discord?

[deep water]

FFA; The Church has no other choice whether or not Joseph practiced polygamy. The whole question and supporting evidence as to whether or not BY was or is a legitimate heir to the mantle of president of the Church, thus the Church itself, is on the line. By the way, the Church still practices polygamy in truth, when it seals, not just weds two or three women to one man in the temple.
Should have Gideon just let Nehor continue his teachings? Or has God given us the obligation to confront false teaching? How will someone ever remove the blood, false teachings places upon their hands if They do not confront it?

[rewcox]

Let me try to clarify, I don't think you understand my point.

All of our patriarchal blessings would be worthless, why? Because the priesthood is based upon righteousness. If polygamy was wrong, then Brigham Young and the other leaders would have been guilty of gross adultery and sin. Their priesthood would have been gone. The keys would have been gone also.

Stake Presidents with no priesthood, since none could be given. Same for patriarchs. Temple presidents, etc.

The only thing that could correct this would be a restoration. Just like the one with Joseph Smith.

If you believe Brigham Young was a gross sinner, then the church is nothing.

I don't believe Brigham Young was a sinner.

[quote="deep water]I, like Joseph Smith being a descendant of Joseph of old, through Ephram, I do not take teachings without questioning and searching.

Since you question the church, you have no idea you are of Ephraim. Your patriarchal blessing would be worth less than the paper it is on.

Please be carefull rewcox. If you will not be careful, I will quit communicating with you, as I do not want your downfall upon my conscience.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Wow.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

[deep water]

Rewcox wrote; I don't believe Brigham Young was a sinner.

Could this be our difference rewcox. Could you please give some of the things you do believe are sins. And those things BY did but are not sins according to scripture.
Like is it not a sin to be unequal in things things?
Like is it immoral to marrying 14 year olds?
Like making whisky and drinking and selling it?
Like making a law restricting the art of liquor making to himself only?
Like making the Lords daughters to mourn and sorrow?

[rewcox]

Polygamy is not a sin if God authorizes it. See Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Soloman.

Rewcox wrote; I don't believe Brigham Young was a sinner.

Could this be our difference rewcox. Could you please give some of the things you do believe are sins. And those things BY did but are not sins according to scripture.
Like is it not a sin to be unequal in things things?
Like is it immoral to marrying 14 year olds?
Like making whisky and drinking and selling it?
Like making a law restricting the art of liquor making to himself only?
Like making the Lords daughters to mourn and sorrow?

[Melissa]

Polygamy is not a sin if God authorizes it. See Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Soloman.

Rewcox wrote; I don't believe Brigham Young was a sinner.

Could this be our difference rewcox. Could you please give some of the things you do believe are sins. And those things BY did but are not sins according to scripture.
Like is it not a sin to be unequal in things things?
Like is it immoral to marrying 14 year olds?
Like making whisky and drinking and selling it?
Like making a law restricting the art of liquor making to himself only?
Like making the Lords daughters to mourn and sorrow?

So what would be an example of God not approving of these men practicing polygamy? Would he destroy them?

So what would be an example of God not approving of beating your wife? Would God destroy the man?

How can we honestly know if God approved of Abraham using hagar to have a child when God specifically told Abraham that Sarah would conceive? Did Abraham mock God or doubt God's word here? Or did he really like Hagar and passed the lack of faith blame to his wife? I mean....we really don't know the workings that went on in these men's lives besides the very tiny snap shot given in scripture. It seems Abraham had a serious laps of faith in God by trying to fulfill His word through his own works.

Example:
I fornicate.....repent.....change.......have faith in God's word......become exalted. The only part you know is, I fornicated and God accepted me and exalted me because the rest of the story is long, boring,and quite personal.
We cannot say that God accepts the act of fornication unless otherwise commanded.

All I'm saying is that the scriptures give a very small glimpse of what really happened. Alot of it doesn't seem to sail smoothly unless we fill In the blanks. There was more to the story and we all know that is true.

[rewcox]

So what would be an example of God not approving of these men practicing polygamy? Would he destroy them?

There would be no spiritual guidance to BY and the other leaders. RLDS would have had the power.

[Melissa]

So what would be an example of God not approving of these men practicing polygamy? Would he destroy them?

There would be no spiritual guidance to BY and the other leaders. RLDS would have had the power.

So I thought we (my coment to you) were talking about old prophets. Now your talking about BY and RLDS.

Not on same page here.

[rewcox]

all i know on the old prophets is they were accepted.

So what would be an example of God not approving of these men practicing polygamy? Would he destroy them?

There would be no spiritual guidance to BY and the other leaders. RLDS would have had the power.

So I thought we (my coment to you) were talking about old prophets. Now your talking about BY and RLDS.

Not on same page here.

[Melissa]

all i know on the old prophets is they were accepted.

So what would be an example of God not approving of these men practicing polygamy? Would he destroy them?

There would be no spiritual guidance to BY and the other leaders. RLDS would have had the power.

So I thought we (my coment to you) were talking about old prophets. Now your talking about BY and RLDS.

Not on same page here.

True. And I just wanted to get you to think more than just a simple acceptance. But a possible alternate view of how God can exalt a person who lived imperfectly or sinned. God "accepts" every sin we commit as long as we repent for it. The scriptures never mention how Abraham had to make amen's to God for producing his first born son with another woman because he doubted God would deliver a child through the sanctioned marriage with sarah. And by the way, Hagar wasn't referred to as Abrahams wife. She was the maid.

And if this arrangement was good or produced good fruits then why did Sarah tell Abraham to send hagar and the child away? She saw that it was a mistake to offer Hagar for selfish reason of her own and got what she deserved because Abraham developed feelings for hagar and liked her. Sarah just wanted a child not to lose her husband's favor in anyway. So she got jealous and angry and had them put out. And yes, Hagar was visited and comforted because she was a slave and had no choice but was an innocent victim to Abraham and Sarah mess. And God held Abraham accountable for his actions and he was to love and support hagar and the child. Does this really mean that God wished for this?

[Serragon]

As I understand it, the new and everlasting covenant is based upon the use of the sealing power. Any covenant entered into by the Sealing power is everlasting and becomes a new covenant. Covenants entered into prior to the sealing power being restored were not everlasting and as such were old covenants.

D&C 131 & 132 talks pretty specifically about being sealed to a spouse and that you enter new order priesthood by doing so. I don't think the number of spouses was actually relevant. But I think the term also applies to ANY covenant entered into using the sealing power.

[Melissa]

As I understand it, the new and everlasting covenant is based upon the use of the sealing power. Any covenant entered into by the Sealing power is everlasting and becomes a new covenant. Covenants entered into prior to the sealing power being restored were not everlasting and as such were old covenants.

D&C 131 & 132 talks pretty specifically about being sealed to a spouse and that you enter new order priesthood by doing so. I don't think the number of spouses was actually relevant. But I think the term also applies to ANY covenant entered into using the sealing power.

I was reading up on what the new covenant was and I have to say that I agree with you. I read that baptism is part of the new covenant.

Could it be that once the church was reestablished in the latter days, that we entered a new era? And all things done with covenants were under this new era and we're this called the new and everlasting covenants. We do know that the church will never leave again and will from the time it was reestablished, be everlasting.

Wording is important here and may not refer to new things but things done new. Does that make any sense?

[Rachael]

God made covenants with Abraham. He kept them no matter if his descendants did this or that. So if there were covenants made Unconditionally with JS in this dispensation, I don't see why TBMS freak and raise an infallibility shield up when past leaders fail or sin. God will keep up His end. At least Jews in the bible recorded warts and all and had faith that God wasn't through with them just because they had a vile/vulgar leader. We think God's promise hangs on whoever the 15 are, what they say, do,etc and it doesn't

[rewcox]

I haven't spent any time considering the pros or cons of polygamy. It was practiced in the past, for whatever reason. The LDS church practiced it maybe for 50 years. Jacob 2 explains that the lusting scenarios are not condoned by God.

My only opinion is that it is easy to abuse. People need to be a terrestrial level or higher. We don't have to live, so we can be exalted with one spouse.

And the Jacob/Israel scenario is even more interesting.

all i know on the old prophets is they were accepted.

There would be no spiritual guidance to BY and the other leaders. RLDS would have had the power.

So what would be an example of God not approving of these men practicing polygamy? Would he destroy them?

So I thought we (my coment to you) were talking about old prophets. Now your talking about BY and RLDS.

Not on same page here.

True. And I just wanted to get you to think more than just a simple acceptance. But a possible alternate view of how God can exalt a person who lived imperfectly or sinned. God "accepts" every sin we commit as long as we repent for it. The scriptures never mention how Abraham had to make amen's to God for producing his first born son with another woman because he doubted God would deliver a child through the sanctioned marriage with sarah. And by the way, Hagar wasn't referred to as Abrahams wife. She was the maid.

And if this arrangement was good or produced good fruits then why did Sarah tell Abraham to send hagar and the child away? She saw that it was a mistake to offer Hagar for selfish reason of her own and got what she deserved because Abraham developed feelings for hagar and liked her. Sarah just wanted a child not to lose her husband's favor in anyway. So she got jealous and angry and had them put out. And yes, Hagar was visited and comforted because she was a slave and had no choice but was an innocent victim to Abraham and Sarah mess. And God held Abraham accountable for his actions and he was to love and support hagar and the child. Does this really mean that God wished for this?

[deep water]

Rewcox, FFA, Jason: just what are you three's intentions here on this thread? Combined you three have posted 11 posts and not one of the 11 have anything to do with the subject of the question IS POLYGAMY THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT? Why are you here other than to mock and disrupt conversation over this subject. Your "because the church says so" that you three seem to think is a valid answer to every question ever asked, gets tiresome and old. I like that you are here, I just wish you would respond with something other that "because the church says so."

[rewcox]

It's obvious dw, it is one of the New and Everlasting Covenants. As we know from Jacob 2:30, it can be on or off. Currently it is off, so don't do it. If it is turned on again. it will be a New and Everlasting Covenant. Cool.

Rewcox, FFA, Jason: just what are you three's intentions here on this thread? Combined you three have posted 11 posts and not one of the 11 have anything to do with the subject of the question IS POLYGAMY THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT? Why are you here other than to mock and disrupt conversation over this subject. Your "because the church says so" that you three seem to think is a valid answer to every question ever asked, gets tiresome and old. I like that you are here, I just wish you would respond with something other that "because the church says so."

[deep water]

God made covenants with Abraham. He kept them no matter if his descendants did this or that. So if there were covenants made Unconditionally with JS in this dispensation, I don't see why TBMS freak and raise an infallibility shield up when past leaders fail or sin. God will keep up His end. At least Jews in the bible recorded warts and all and had faith that God wasn't through with them just because they had a vile/vulgar leader. We think God's promise hangs on whoever the 15 are, what they say, do,etc and it doesn't

The promise that was made to the Gentiles is conditional. I will be your God, IF you will be my people, is conditional. That is the new and everlasting covenant. See ch 22 D&C. In Ch 22 in order to pass through the gate you have to be invited through by Christ, and only Christ as he employes no servant there. Being invited through the Gate fulfilled the "if you will be my people". All this mortal skirmishing back and forth down here, means nothing.

[deep water]

Everyone needs to be sealed to a spouse, and that is part of the new and everlasting covenant, the marriage sealing of husband and wife. So yes, I think everyone agrees it is important, and essential to exaltation. I also believe that individuals will need to agree to live the plurality principle if they want to progress and keep the covenant for eternity. Right now we are living a lower form of the law of husband/wife sealings.

The church was kicked out of Missouri, it's place of inheritance, for not obeying the Celestial Law of Consecration among other things. I don't think we are under condemnation anymore than the children of Israel were for only living the lower laws. That was all the Lord required after they rejected the higher law Moses presented to them. It wouldn't have been appropriate for an off-shoot to start preaching that everyone abandon the lower law in favor of the higher law. That direction needs to come from the Lord and his anointed servant.

If members can live the Law of Consecration, they will be prepared to live the highest and most exalting form of the marriage covenant that includes a plurality. They will be able to share their spouses.

Please show your scriptural support for this claim.

[nvr]

I think 132 will be dropped at some future point or at least should be. I don't think it originated with Joseph Smith or at least wan't inspired. Everything preceding it disagrees with it. And after a 50 year period, everything afterwards disagrees with it. The Book of Mormon (Jacob 2) even disagrees with it. What happened was some bad ideas got into the church and spread about. Fortunately it has been discontinued and denounced since.

The problem is we all are hesitant to point out it was not doctrinal (Gordon B. Hinckley did though). Alma, (the older one) was one of King Noah's priests who participated in same sins ,likely as him. He repented, left and later still had authority to baptize. Priesthood survives and can be used again after repentance - I see this similar to period of polygamy. Priesthood was restored to Jos. Smith, some sinful practices started up later on, these eventually got corrected and fortunately the priesthood survived through it all

[freedomforall]

Rewcox, FFA, Jason: just what are you three's intentions here on this thread? Combined you three have posted 11 posts and not one of the 11 have anything to do with the subject of the question IS POLYGAMY THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT? Why are you here other than to mock and disrupt conversation over this subject. Your "because the church says so" that you three seem to think is a valid answer to every question ever asked, gets tiresome and old. I like that you are here, I just wish you would respond with something other that "because the church says so."

Why are you here? To stir up contention and discord? I would think you could do your own due diligence and prayer instead of raising a ruckus.
Polygamy does not exist in the church today. My Great-great grandfather, Wilford Woodruff, had several wives, one of whom was Sarah Brown. My genealogy traces back to her.
Again, polygamy is not practiced today because my grandfather wrote the manifesto putting a stop to any future practice.
Section 132 was given in 1843, the manifesto was written in 1890.

In 1843 the practice became a part of the new and everlasting covenant. It could be today, but since we have the Articles Of Faith, written in 1842 and accepted as scripture in 1880, the twelfth Article, which states...: 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law....the practice was abandoned. God doesn't normally tell us to do one thing knowing full well that everyone doing it will end up in prison, thus the 12th Article of Faith was born and adhered to.

SEE: D&C 134:1 (1–11) and D&C 58:21 (21–23)

Okay, now you have some substance to work with. You could have found this stuff on your own. Right?

[rewcox]

FFA, nice to know that you have superior bloodlines in your polygamy seed too! AI2.0 and I also have superior bloodlines in our polygamy seed. Well, I'm not famous like you two, but my ancestors tried!

Rewcox, FFA, Jason: just what are you three's intentions here on this thread? Combined you three have posted 11 posts and not one of the 11 have anything to do with the subject of the question IS POLYGAMY THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT? Why are you here other than to mock and disrupt conversation over this subject. Your "because the church says so" that you three seem to think is a valid answer to every question ever asked, gets tiresome and old. I like that you are here, I just wish you would respond with something other that "because the church says so."

Why are you here? To stir up contention and discord? I would think you could do your own due diligence and prayer instead of raising a ruckus.
Polygamy does not exist in the church today. My Great-great grandfather, Wilford Woodruff, had several wives, one of whom was Sarah Brown. My genealogy traces back to her.
Again, polygamy is not practiced today because my grandfather wrote the manifesto putting a stop to any future practice.
Section 132 was given in 1843, the manifesto was written in 1890.

In 1843 the practice became a part of the new and everlasting covenant. It could be today, but since we have the Articles Of Faith, written in 1842 and accepted as scripture in 1880, the twelfth Article, which states...: 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law....the practice was abandoned. God doesn't normally tell us to do one thing knowing full well that everyone doing it will end up in prison, thus the 12th Article of Faith was born and adhered to.

SEE: D&C 134:1 (1–11) and D&C 58:21 (21–23)

Okay, now you have some substance to work with. You could have found this stuff on your own. Right?

[Rachael]

I'm just a plain ole inbred from a stagnant gene pool in the South. So the best I can boast of is my Heavenly Father