Polygamy or Monogamy; ignoring official doctrine

[_jon]

Subgenuis, nice try but...


The 1835 and 1844 versions of Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) prohibited polygamy and declared that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage:
"In as much as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again"

[_truth dancer]

interesting point, especially about "official doctrine". Considering that Oliver Cowdery wrote that particular quotation and offered as a statement of belief (not revelation) at conference shows that perhaps the issue of polygamy was not quite Church-wide approved by the Lord, yet (see DC 132).
I think the assumption that leaders were in "direct opposition" is not founded on the context of this particular scripture reference, especially considering the politics of the matter and O.C.'s motivations.

Hi Sub... are you saying that official doctrine contained in official LDS scripture is not actually doctrine?

Or that because of its origin scripture may or may not be binding on the saints? Or does scripture only apply to certain saints?

If official LDS scripture states polygamy is not allowed and monogamy is the only form of marriage acceptable to God, yet members are practicing polygamy, is this not direct opposition?

I'm not sure if I understand you.

~td~

[_truth dancer]

Td, I don't think the people living Polygamous lives at a time when the doctrine being taught was monogamy should be classed as just LDS members. They were the Leaders. It was "do as we say, not as we do".

In fact a member was excommunicated by Joseph Smith for expressing Polygamy as a righteous principle at the very time that he himself (Joseph that is) was living polygamously.

Hey Jon,

I am not an expert hence my inquiry but it seems to me that by 1876 it was more than just the LDS leaders that were practicing polygamy no?

I thought after forty years it was pretty much in the open.

~td~

[_subgenius]

Subgenuis, nice try but...


The 1835 and 1844 versions of Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) prohibited polygamy and declared that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage:
"In as much as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again"

again, you ignore the context of the topic and the particular scripture.
consider the notion that a person steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving child - you have simply fixated on the theft, with no regard for the bread or child.
Now, i am not equating this topic with feeding the hungry, but simply illustrating the rather cursory opinion you are flaunting about this topic, and all by way of a ruse.
One can not deny Oliver's position on that scripture and the manner by which it was included in DC, nor can one ignore the dates by which printed editions of DC were put to press, nor can one ignore the political context surrounding the Saints and the fuel that was being poured on society from either side, nor can one deny the role that revelation plays, nor can one attempt to reduce any issue to the rather black and white notion of simply "bread was stolen".
Objectivist philosophy has long been discarded by most every reasonable person...barring the die-hard Rand fans and, of course, the egotistical CEO of the day.

[_truth dancer]

Subgenuis, nice try but...


The 1835 and 1844 versions of Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) prohibited polygamy and declared that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage:
"In as much as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again"

again, you ignore the context of the topic and the particular scripture.
consider the notion that a person steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving child - you have simply fixated on the theft, with no regard for the bread or child.
Now, i am not equating this topic with feeding the hungry, but simply illustrating the rather cursory opinion you are flaunting about this topic, and all by way of a ruse.
One can not deny Oliver's position on that scripture and the manner by which it was included in DC, nor can one ignore the dates by which printed editions of DC were put to press, nor can one ignore the political context surrounding the Saints and the fuel that was being poured on society from either side, nor can one deny the role that revelation plays, nor can one attempt to reduce any issue to the rather black and white notion of simply "bread was stolen".
Objectivist philosophy has long been discarded by most every reasonable person...barring the die-hard Rand fans and, of course, the egotistical CEO of the day.

Hi Sub...

I honestly do not think it matters how the scripture came to exist.

The fact is it IS scripture, official doctrine, official teaching, voted on and approved by the leaders of the LDS church, certainly, at minimum sanctioned and approved by Joseph Smith, and considered truth.

And.. it remained so for decades.

Again, how did LDS members justify living in direct opposition to official LDS doctrine?

~td~

[_Wisdom Seeker]

If I recall correctly, this verse was removed from the official scriptures of the CoJCoLDS in 1876.

I'm wondering how members of the LDS church, participating in polygamy and polyandry justified and rationalized living in direct opposition to this official doctrine and teaching.

They probably noted that 1833 comes before 1843.

BC, I know you believe that modern revelation Trump's old revelation, but don't you think God should have been more careful about allowing the prophet to reveal something that would later be contradicted?

Having doctrine revised to help better clarify things is one thing, but to make an 180 Degree change shows that God may not be steadfast, reliable or fair.

[_harmony]

Having doctrine revised to help better clarify things is one thing, but to make an 180 Degree change shows that God may not be steadfast, reliable or fair.

Actually, what it proves it that men are liars.

[_jon]

Having doctrine revised to help better clarify things is one thing, but to make an 180 Degree change shows that God may not be steadfast, reliable or fair.

Actually, what it proves it that men are liars.

It only proves that if God is a man....

[_harmony]

Actually, what it proves it that men are liars.

It only proves that if God is a man....

How so? Man can claim that anything man says is from God, while not once having ever had any interaction with God.

[_bcspace]

BC, I know you believe that modern revelation Trump's old revelation,

Anyone who accepts revelation believes that.

but don't you think God should have been more careful about allowing the prophet to reveal something that would later be contradicted?

What we do know from the scriptures is that God authorizes plural marriage from time to time.

Having doctrine revised to help better clarify things is one thing, but to make an 180 Degree change shows that God may not be steadfast, reliable or fair.

It could be that people are not steadfast, reliable, or fair. And there is also Isaiah 55:8 to consider as well.