Polygamy and the LDS Church

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Worse still, the LDS Church refuses to be accountable for any of its unfortunate consequences.

It's the same with the priesthood ban, MM massacre, and less problematic wrongdoings such as the junk science and doctrine spread about the origins of American aborigines for so long. One thing the LDS Church refuses to do is come to terms in an honest way about its past so that it can expiate its past sins. So the stains just get worse and more prominent.

I'll be blunt; this delusion and denial about the past will always tarnish the LDS Church's moral authority in the world's eyes as long as it persists.

Why would the church apologize for a principle we still endear? Polygamy was, is, and probably always will be part of the Latter Day Saint portion of the church of Christ. They apologize in the sense of disavowment from the current practices, but to admit guilt for the abuse of polygamy now wouldn't be prudent.

Did you read the prophets words in Priesthood Conference this past conference concerning the priesthood ban? I took them as a semi-open apology to those who were considered uneligible for the priesthood, pre-1978...

[Rickomatic]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

If murdering your wife innocent wife was acceptable behavior at one time it would be ok for people to connected Mark Hoffman and the LDS church....

We forget the church still espouses the principles of polygamy. The men practicing today have solid theological ground on which to found their practices.....

To say we aren't connected is pretty ignorant.

I guess I missed that in SS discussion. The church still "espouses" the principles? How?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Rickomatic

I guess I missed that in SS discussion. The church still "espouses" the principles? How?

A man still is able to be sealed to more than one woman....

A woman isn't afforded that opportunity....

If we believe sealings are for eternities, anytime a man on this Earth is sealed to another women, he becomes an eternal polygamist.....

[Rickomatic]

I guess my understandings of the book of Jacob are out of line with your beliefs then.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Rickomatic

I guess my understandings of the book of Jacob are out of line with your beliefs then.

How so?

If you believe Joseph, Brigham, Wilford, John, etc, polygamy is an eternal principle and was never to leave the earth.....

If the modern day church allows for 'eternal polygamous sealings' is it simply not God ordained polygamy that would be consistent with the Book of Jacob?

[Rickomatic]

Dosen't it say in the book of Jacob (Chapter 2 verse 27) hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

[Rickomatic]

I realize the church did allow plural wives for a time. But I have not heard of any now. And I will be honest that I have not heard that a man could be sealed to another if the first wife died. But that does not mean it can't happen. I am maybe just ignorant of that practice.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Why would the church apologize for a principle we still endear? Polygamy was, is, and probably always will be part of the Latter Day Saint portion of the church of Christ. They apologize in the sense of disavowment from the current practices, but to admit guilt for the abuse of polygamy now wouldn't be prudent.

Did you read the prophets words in Priesthood Conference this past conference concerning the priesthood ban? I took them as a semi-open apology to those who were considered uneligible for the priesthood, pre-1978...

Is this fusnick's doctrine? Can you point me to an encyclical? In defense of Bruce R. McConckie, I think that through his infamous tome he was in an Augustinian sort of way trying to clarify what is to a large extent muddled and confusing, and even evolving, folk doctrine.

"Semi-apology"? I rest my case. I haven't read it but would be interested in seeing a quote.
__________________

[Rickomatic]

SU,
one question for you. How did the LDS church "create" the polygamy mess. Plural marriage has been practiced for much langer than the church has been around and some religions still practice it.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Is this fusnick's doctrine? Can you point me to an encyclical? In defense of Bruce R. McConckie, I think that through his infamous tome he was in an Augustinian sort of way trying to clarify what is to a large extent muddled and confusing, and even evolving, folk doctrine.

Of the disavowment of polygamy? Look at lds.org, there are plenty of disavowments of the practice. As far as folk doctrine, being able to be sealed to more than one woman is not folk doctrine, nor is the idea that polygamy is an eternal principle.....(if you, like I said, believe the words of past propphets, and I don't personally believe everyone must practice, but I do believe it is allowed)

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

"Semi-apology"? I rest my case. I haven't read it but would be interested in seeing a quote.
__________________

Here is the quote, given in this year's Priesthood Session...

'I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. We are involved in terrible wars with lives lost and many crippling wounds. Coming closer to home, there is so much of jealousy, pride, arrogance, and carping criticism; fathers who rise in anger over small, inconsequential things and make wives weep and children fear.

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.'

Gordon B. Hinckley