Jason wrote:As for it being 19th century theological boosterism would you agree that the LDS leaders who said these things did not view it as such?
I think that they were honestly trying to make sense out of a system that they didn't understand themselves. When they said that plural marriage was required for exaltation, I think they came to the conclusion that it must be, because why else would they be forced to practice it?
I don't think that they received any type of "revelation" stating that plural marriage was required for exaltation, though. Also, there is a statement by J. Reuben Clark regarding marriage between one man and one woman being regarded as celestial marriage, and that being the requirement for exaltation. I can't find the quote at the moment. Ironically, Juliann gave it to me when we were still friends. If anyone here is friendly with her, she would probably give it to you. ;)
But you see this is the problem. I am ok with opinions for leaders and all. But this was a HUGE issue. Seems like they really should have got it right.
Isn't it equally tragic? Why doesn't anyone in the LDS church care about women?
Yes it's equally tragic, but do we really have equality in all things in marriage? Is my wife responsible for taking care of me financially or emotionally as I am her? How many people think that I should have just as much choice as her to go to work or not? Contemporary America seems to offer the woman the choice while the man has to go come hell or high water. How many young women feel that they have just as much right to education as a man, but when it comes to going to work to pay for that education or pay for anything, they say, "That's the man's job." Where's the fairness in that? I know TD that you may have a personal system of fairness because we've talked about this before, but in my experience I've seen a lot of women who pick and choose parts of the old culture and parts of the new and the formula they come up with more often than not isn't very fair to the man. Yet nobody is looking to fix this problem with our culture, and that's why I say...
Truth is that most people don't care about each other period, men or women. I think that many men and women hold unfair ideas and expectations about marriage and what is expected of their partners. Whether anyone in the LDS church cares about women or not it shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter to me that I feel like women are often (almost systematically) unfair to men in terms of the marriage contract and the divorce. Nobody concerns themselves with that either! All we can control is ourselves and only our own actions really have any meaning. It's my belief that through God's grace ultimately fairness will be reached, and as Dr. Peterson said, maybe even better.
Then you need to let your feelings be known to the powers that be. The POTF flat out tells women, especially young women, that men work while women raise babies. Start where the seed is planted, ajax. Quit complaining to women who are working, like Liz and I, and let it be known that women are an untapped resource that's going to waste. See how far that gets you.
Another reason to kick the POTF to the curb. It's not only not revelation, it's bad advice.
But you see this is the problem. I am ok with opinions for leaders and all. But this was a HUGE issue. Seems like they really should have got it right.
Maybe the biggest issue is the how and what we understand revelation to be.
I guess I've seen two extremes. I asked how you could know that one person was the one for you to marry when you're going to be meeting new people for the rest of your life.
Yet on the other hand, we often hear line upon line, precept upon precept. So where are we? Are we at the absolute truth yet, or are we still at line upon line?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Celestial marriage - that is, marriage for time and eternity - and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are celestial marriages. - Heber J. Grant, MS 95:588, September, 1933
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Celestial marriage - that is, marriage for time and eternity - and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are celestial marriages. - Heber J. Grant, MS 95:588, September, 1933
I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the [p.269] blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc," - the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. - JoD 11:268-269 (Aug 9, 1866)
Brigham Young
So Gaz who do I believe, Brigham or Heber?
Last edited by Lem on Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jason wrote:So Gaz who do I believe, Brigham Old Testament Heber?
Heber....The most recent modern revelation applies to us.
Heber Trump's Brigham.
;)
Right, Gaz?
I bet he says Heber. But let's see what else Brigham had to say.
Give up polygamy and the Devil will rejoice We are told that if we would give up polygamy - which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven, and it is God and the world for it - but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them. - JoD 11:239 (June 3, 1866)
Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned. - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)
To return to our starting point, the great question of what Congress demands. We have shown that in requiring the relinquishment of polygamy, they ask the renunciation of the entire faith of this people. No sophistry can get out of this. "Mormonism" is true in every leading doctrine, or it is false as a system altogether. The question for the wise heads of the nation will be, whether Government can constitutionally enforce a law which makes such a demand upon a people. Conclude how they will, before this people will renounce the glorious hopes their faith inspires, before they will renounce that faith for which they have given up home, father, mother, and broken asunder the dearest ties, or before they will put the brand of infamy upon the brows of their own children, or write "house of ill fame" with their own hands upon their Territorial doors, they will await the "extermination" to which they are invited. There is no half way house. The childish babble about another revelation is only an evidence of how half informed men can talk. The "Mormons" have either to spurn their religion and their God, and sink self-damned in the eyes of all civilization at the moment when most blest in the practice of their faith or go calmly on to the same issue which they have always had - "Mormonism" in the entirety the revelation of God, or nothing at all. - Millennial Star 27:675-676 (1865)
Playing devil's advocate, Jason...(I'm good at that..LOL) The apologetic view is going to be that the Journal of Discourses is not considered official LDS canon. Therefore, what Brigham Young wrote in the paragraphs you cited is considered opinion and not official doctrine.
The stance is that we don't actually know how much of what was written in the JoD was correctly transcribed, and in what context it was delivered.
liz3564 wrote:Playing devil's advocate, Jason...(I'm good at that..LOL) The apologetic view is going to be that the Journal of Discourses is not considered official LDS canon. Therefore, what Brigham Young wrote in the paragraphs you cited is considered opinion and not official doctrine.
The stance is that we don't actually know how much of what was written in the JoD was correctly transcribed, and in what context it was delivered.
Is that not the official stance, Dr. Peterson?
Two points;
1: The JoD is just as official as Heber J. Grant, MS 95:588, September, 1933 so if this is the case then neither statement would be doctrinal.
2: When Prophets speak about a topic numerous times in official setting such as a conference one can assume that they at least think that what they teach has more meaning then opinion. Not withstanding the aplogist but why should I take his word over Brigham's?
Jason wrote:2: When Prophets speak about a topic numerous times in official setting such as a conference one can assume that they at least think that what they teach has more meaning then opinion. Not withstanding the aplogist but why should I take his word over Brigham's?
Again..because we go by the most recent revelation...as in the 9th Article of Faith: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God."
Also....it has been said on numerous occasions that the JoD was written specifically for the Saints during that time frame, and there has always been a lot of controversy over how accurate the information in the JoD is. That's why it has not been canonized. It is not recognized as an official doctrinal reference.
More recent talks are.
Brigham Young did a lot of pontificating regarding polygamy. In my opinion, most of it is hogwash.
