The LDS temples

[unbound]

That post was on topic. The early LDS shed blood to protect their polygamous lifestyle, in perfect spirit with Brigham Youngs blood attonement(sacrafice) sermons.

 

[baker]

The CHAIRMAN. Could a person living in polygamy, married for time, be sealed to some other woman for eternity?
Mr. SMITH. No, Sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You have heard of instances where two living persons have been sealed for eternity?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, Sir.
The CHAIRMAN. According to the doctrines of your church, did that carry with it the right of earthly cohabitation?
Mr. SMITH. It was not so understood.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, what is your—
Mr. SMITH. It does not carry that right. (Smoot Hearings Vol. 1:378-380)

Interestingly enough, further testimony between Mr. Smith and the Chairman reveal this:

Chairman: That is the Book of Mormon?

Mr. Smith: Yes sir, that is the Book of Mormon.


Chairman: Is the doctrine of polygamy taught in that revelation?

Mr Smith: Taught in it?

Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Smith It is emphatically forbidden in that book.

Chairman: In that book it is emphatically forbidden?

Mr Smith: It is.

(Reed Smoot case, Vol. 1, pg. 480)


What we see here is that even early church leaders felt the language in the bom was prohibiting polygamy. The rationale that it somehow gave an exception seems to be a modern day rationalization. Those promoting polygamy simply used D&C 132 to allow its use back then. There was never any of this current rationalization that the bom somehow "allowed polygamy to raise seed" back then.

 

[gort]

Hello,

Can you please explain how these verses you quote have anything to do with polygamists inheriting the earth?

thanx

<><

bump for Doc T

 

[Tawhano]

I'll ask this again:

Doc T said:
‘Christians today merely tolerate the fact that God sanctioned polygamy in ancient days, and refuse to accept that He would do so today.’ I see that as a double standard, and a lack of understanding of the Bible.

Then perhaps you can enlighten us with the true meaning of Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2:24.

 

[baker]

Alma and Skylark have been having a discussion on the difference between a marriage and a sealing. If I understand what the lds position is, at least today, the marriage and sealing are two separate ceremonies and or ordiances.


If this is the case, why does the lds church punish those couples wishing to have a marriage ceremony outside of the temple, for the accomodation of family and freinds, by making them wait 1 year to then be sealed in the temple?

The reason I ask is that in many countries outside the US, the lds church, in accomodating the laws of these countries, allows it's members to be married in a civil or public ceremony and then get sealed immediately afterwards in the temple. If the lds church can accomodate these laws without having any impact on the religious or spiritual nature of the sealing ceremony outside the US, why cant it accomodate the desires of the couples family and friends to witness the marriage first and then be sealed, say the next day or week?

Why then force a couple to wait one year, what is the reason or purpose.

Can any knowlegable lds address this question?

 

[emerald Dragon]

I wish I could answer your question Baker, but there is still much I have to learn about the temple. I haven't been. I also have heard nothing about your question. For my own learning experience, could you please cite sources? I ask this so that I can learn more about the temple. Thanks.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

 

[baker]

I wish I could answer your question Baker, but there is still much I have to learn about the temple. I haven't been. I also have heard nothing about your question. For my own learning experience, could you please cite sources? I ask this so that I can learn more about the temple. Thanks.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

That's ok ED.

I know there are a lot of lds who are not familiar with the temple, thats why I was asking for those "knowledgable".

 

[emerald Dragon]

I know. But, seriously, could you tell me where you heard the reasoning behind our question. I would appreciate it. Thanks.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

 

[baker]

I know. But, seriously, could you tell me where you heard the reasoning behind our question. I would appreciate it. Thanks.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

Explain again. Not following you here.

 

[emerald Dragon]

Where did you hear that if an individual gets a civil marriage, or one outside of the temple, they have to wait one year before they can get sealed in the temple. I would like to know, so that I can learn more.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

 

[baker]

Where did you hear that if an individual gets a civil marriage, or one outside of the temple, they have to wait one year before they can get sealed in the temple. I would like to know, so that I can learn more.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

I may be mistaken, but I believe it is in your church "handbook of intructions" which all bishops have. But perhaps those more knowledgable should verify or correct me here.

 

[twhite982]

Twhite, all you have done is show everyone that the article on marriage was voted upon as, so I'm told, all revelations must be before accepted. Again, please read the preface to the 1835 D&C's again. Third paragraph:

"The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones."

Actually, what I have done is to show the 2 articles were voted on seperate from the revelations given to Joseph Smith.

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1835DnC2.htm#pg001

Look at the bottom of the page and see how those assembled voted on it.

Your assumtion is duly noted, but incorrect. You would have me believe that the article on marriage / government was revelation given from the Lord to Joseph Smith to the church.

From the "evidence" you posted I have to also have your assumtions to hold to your "facts".

Is there any other evidence for these two articles as being revelations to Joseph Smith and not written in response to events by Oliver Cowdrey / WW Phelps?

Now, a few "basic" questions should be asked: 1) Was this not the only principle on marriage that the church had? (hint: yes).

The church as a WHOLE, yes.

2) Was it not instituted for the regulation of the church? (hint: yes again)

See above. Regulation does NOT equal revelation!

3) Where did Smith, Cowdery, Rigdon and Willaims attest to that these "items or principles for the regulation of the church" came from? (hint: revelations)

See above. The two articles (marriage and government) were taken from the then revelations to the church as a whole. Polygamy was not given to the church as a whole, until 1852, by your own admitance.

I would tend to think that he would let it stand as he already indicated it came from revelation!

You've haven't shown the two articles to be revelations from God.

By Joseph simply letting them stand does NOT indicate they are revelations. In fact as I stated earlier each and every link I bring up on the article of marriage shows Oliver Cowdrey as the author, but that may just be due to the fact that most links are pro-LDS.

Either way there is NO proof to show Joseph being the author and his acceptance of the commitee's decision is NOT proof.

The purpose of the commitee was to change the name of the book of commandemnts and compile those regulations for the church.

It is a clear fact Joseph was NOT present during said gathering, but he did allow its compilations to stand "as-is".

First off, I've already demonstrated that Smith said this was revelation. Second, and more importantly, if anyone was practicing polygamy it was not only against the law, but against the only regulation on marriage the church had which came from revelation.

Third, and of real reason here, did god give your church any other revelations that were meant for only a select few as a test drive? Come on Twhite, this argument makes no sense. This is what you've been told to pacify the conflicts of reason.

You have NOT shown the article on marriage to be revelation.

I have shown that the two articles were voted SEPERATE from the revelations to be included within the 1835 D&C.

Again elements of eternal marriage were given to Joseph as early as 1831, but were not ready for the church as a whole.

Additionally as I look throught the church's history even after 1852, the "authorization" to engage in polygamy was NOT practiced by the church as a whole and around 15-20% were enganged in it.

This seems to point that although the revelation may have been initiated as early as 1831 and pieces added subsequently, the church was NOT ready to practice it until much later.

Please sick with the facts, does it state marriage or sealings. Emotions aside, how do you conclude that it was not a marriage?

It says marriage.

You and I both know there is NO way to distinguish between a sealing and a marriage upon those records.

You would want everyone to believe that just because it says marriage on the familysearch web site this was an earthly solemnized marriage, but that is stretching it too far.

Twhite, lets think through this. What could Smith have possibly been providing these women that they could not have had through a normal marriage. If their own lds husbands could not provide them what the prophet could, when did this change in your church and why? What evidence or support do you have for any of this? I'd really like to explore this claim.

The idea is to seal families together as you well know.

There were several women, who were sealed to Joseph Smith, even after his death.

What else do you conclude from this?

Your theory of adultery is a little tough to swallow, especially with Joseph being dead.


Tom

 

[rnmomof7]

Those claims are correct. Probably the best source for an explanation comes from the Reed Smoot Hearings when then president Joseph F. Smith was on the witness stand testifying about the differences between sealings for time, time and eternity, and eternity only. He explained that a sealing for eternity did not carry with it the right to earthly cohabitation and that the church had stopped performing those ceremonies 20 or more years before that time (which would have put it in the 1880's.)

The CHAIRMAN. Could a person living in polygamy, married for time, be sealed to some other woman for eternity?
Mr. SMITH. No, Sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You have heard of instances where two living persons have been sealed for eternity?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, Sir.
The CHAIRMAN. According to the doctrines of your church, did that carry with it the right of earthly cohabitation?
Mr. SMITH. It was not so understood.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, what is your—
Mr. SMITH. It does not carry that right. (Smoot Hearings Vol. 1:378-380)

That's one of the reasons for believing that to have been the case. The other is the historical fact that sealings occurred but no cohabitation followed. That was clearly the case when women who were already married were posthumously sealed to Joseph Smith. While it would be nice if it were more tidy and easily identified, scholars have pointed to the fact that in the early days of sealing, some procedures were followed that indicated they were still working out some of the specifics. BY claimed that Joseph Smith was given the principles but expected to work out the specifics on his own.

As to being able to ascertain whether or not a sealing was for time or for time and eternity, I don't think that's possible in all cases. I guess that's part of the historian's work.

The other fly in the ointment seems to be that distinctions were always apparent between sealings as spouses and sealings as parents or children.

While critics of Mormonism like to jump to the worst possible conclusion, these practices occurred among a rigidly moral people. I find it hard to believe that any of them would have tolerated any hint of impropriety under the guise of religion. Oliver Hungtington is a typical example. When he learned that his sister had been sealed to Joseph Smith, he confronted Smith and promised him that if he ever found that Smith had plans to dishonor his sister he would make sure Smith suffered for it. Joseph Smith assured Huntington that he would in time come to realize that he was acting in good faith. Huntington did become a staunch supporter of Joseph Smith.

Alma

So does the Mormon church still seal unmarried people for eternity ?

If I had a really ugly daughter could she be sealed to you ?

 

[twhite982]

Alma and Skylark have been having a discussion on the difference between a marriage and a sealing. If I understand what the lds position is, at least today, the marriage and sealing are two separate ceremonies and or ordiances.


If this is the case, why does the lds church punish those couples wishing to have a marriage ceremony outside of the temple, for the accomodation of family and freinds, by making them wait 1 year to then be sealed in the temple?

The reason I ask is that in many countries outside the US, the lds church, in accomodating the laws of these countries, allows it's members to be married in a civil or public ceremony and then get sealed immediately afterwards in the temple. If the lds church can accomodate these laws without having any impact on the religious or spiritual nature of the sealing ceremony outside the US, why cant it accomodate the desires of the couples family and friends to witness the marriage first and then be sealed, say the next day or week?

Why then force a couple to wait one year, what is the reason or purpose.

Can any knowlegable lds address this question?

This is an interesting side note.


I'd like to get further details of the circumstances outside the US.

Have those members been active for 1 year?

Have the went through the appropriate interviews?

etc...


Baker,

Where do you get your information for the above comments?


Tom

 

[twhite982]

If I had a really ugly daughter could she be sealed to you ?

Its comments like this that tell me you have no concern with discussion here.

You only want to trash other's beliefs and do this with mocking and snide remarks.


You may feel justified with your posts, but they're embarrassing many people here since you claim to be a professing "Christian".




Tom

 

[skylark1]

Alma,

Thanks for your reply. After I read your post, I was searching for some background information concerning the Reed Smoot investigation. Since my searches kept pulling up a specific review, maybe you could just help me. Was Senator Smoot being investigated for allegedly practicing polygamy, or was he being investigated for supporting polygamy because he was both a Senator and an LDS apostle? Or was the investigation for a different reason?

Also, when did sealings for "eternity only" cease?


Thanks.

 

[Alma]

What we see here is that even early church leaders felt the language in the bom was prohibiting polygamy. The rationale that it somehow gave an exception seems to be a modern day rationalization. Those promoting polygamy simply used D&C 132 to allow its use back then. There was never any of this current rationalization that the bom somehow "allowed polygamy to raise seed" back then.

Of course there was. Joseph F. Smith was absolutely aware of the prohibition in Jacob 2 as well as the stipulation that allowed for polygamy to “raise seed.” George A. Smith, a cousin of Joseph Smith wrote to the Joseph Smith III (president of RLDS Church) in 1869 pointing out this “rationalization” as you put it. George A. Smith wrote that when Joseph Smith was confronted with this passage from the Book of Mormon, he would cite the passage: "For if it will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people......... (Jacob 2:30), and follow this by saying, "God has commanded us" (George A. Smith to Joseph Smith III, 9 October 1869, Historian's Office Letterpress Copybooks, Church Archives – cited in “Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question” by Andrew Ehat).



Even the source you cite contains the same caveat, Baker:



The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Book of Mormon. You know what I mean. When was that repudiated or modified in any way, and by whom?

Mr. SMITH. If you will permit me, I will read a little further.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. It is this:

“29. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts. or cursed be the land for their sakes.

“30. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

All you need to do, sir, is to read the whole thing, and it explains itself. (Smoot Hearings same volume, next page.)



How can you claim that this is a modern day rationalization when the source you cite yourself demonstrates that such is not the case?



Alma

 

[rnmomof7]

Additionally as I look throught the church's history even after 1852, the "authorization" to engage in polygamy was NOT practiced by the church as a whole and around 15-20% were enganged in it.

Yet it was necessary for exhaultation per the prophet.
Wouldn't you think if eternity hung on it that it would be practiced by all Mormon men ?

 

[rnmomof7]

Its comments like this that tell me you have no concern with discussion here.

You only want to trash other's beliefs and do this with mocking and snide remarks.


You may feel justified with your posts, but they're embarrassing many people here since you claim to be a professing "Christian".




Tom

Does that mean you do not wish to say if sealing between people not legally married are still happening today ?

The doctrine of polygamy is still on the LDS "books" .
LDS still believe that polygamy will be in effect in the Celestial Kingdom

So my question was a sincere one.

If an observant Mormon had a daughter that was not marriageable in this life or if he had a daughter in a mixed marriage,( or to a non temple worthy male) could she be sealed to a living or dead observant mormon male for "eternity"?

I know this is done when a mormon woman had a non mormon husband that dies. If god tells someone he has converted in the next life they can be sealed then (I have a friend awaiting the "word")

 

[twhite982]

Yet it was necessary for exhaultation per the prophet.
Wouldn't you think if eternity hung on it that it would be practiced by all Mormon men ?

Could you refresh my memory on that quote?


Simply put it is clear from what I've seen that only 15-20% practiced polygamy, if the practice was necessary for exaltation, why was it not more striclty preached / practiced.

In other words, time and time again the members were told they needed to practice polygamy, just like today the members are told time and time again that exaltation is in the temple.

Your logic doesn't fit too well.


Tom