How should we view the Manifesto?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Where is the change in doctrine? As I've said before, I can find no evidence anywhere that the DOCTRINE was changed, just the practice thereof.

Whether we can personally accept polygamy as doctrine or not is a personal choice, but to me, the evidence is very clear that polygams is LDS Doctrine that has not been rescinded.

Please point me in the right direction if you have a source that says otherwise.

Although you are not addressing the point I raised, I am assuming you are responding to my post.

It all depends on what you mean by doctrine. If you mean that the Lord occasionally allows polygamy or directs a certain few to practice, then I can buy that. If by doctrine you mean that having plural wives is essential for salvation (as many polygamist sects claim) then I don't buy that.

I find it interesting that people like to quote Jacob 2:30 when discussing modern polygamy. Yes, the Lord did say that He may allow it under select circumstances. But the previous verses clearly state that practicing unauthorized polygamy is a terrible sin.

You keep saying something to the effect of "It is still a doctrine, we are just not practicing it." I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Even non-LDS will agree that polygamy was practiced (apparently without censure) at certain times in the old testament. But it is clearly taboo now. Furthermore, we could use the same line of logic for other things. "Stoning is a doctrine, we are just not practicing it." "Murder is a doctrine (Nephi-Laban), we are just not practicing it." "Human sacrifice is a doctrine (Abraham-Isaac), we are just not practicing it."

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by homeboy

taboo now. Furthermore, we could use the same line of logic for other things. "Stoning is a doctrine, we are just not practicing it." "Murder is a doctrine (Nephi-Laban), we are just not practicing it." "Human sacrifice is a doctrine (Abraham-Isaac), we are just not practicing it."

Now how long do we wait for Robin to chime in about your Logic?. Seeings how he is the utmost authority on all things logic wise...

[MikeWaters]

Men can be married in the temple more than once, right? If the first wife dies for example.

I understand that sometimes women can be married twice also. That's kind of interesting.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Now how long do we wait for Robin to chime in about your Logic?. Seeings how he is the utmost authority on all things logic wise...

There is no arguing in matters of 'faith.' By definition, 'faith' is the moment when otherwise sensible people check their reason at the door. You can throw whatever kind of costume party you want, so long as you don't require me to wear a French Maid costume.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Men can be married in the temple more than once, right? If the first wife dies for example.

I understand that sometimes women can be married twice also. That's kind of interesting.

Men can be sealed to additional wives for time and all eternity, only if the wife was not previously sealed to another man. If she was previously sealed, there is a temple ceremony where a couple can be sealed for "time only".

I believe the "time only" ceremony is what you're referring to in terms of women being married in the temple more than once.

Which all goes to my point that the true and everlasting covenant IS polygamy (or polygny more accurately).

If my wife died tomorrow and I remarried in the temple to someone who had not previously been married in the temple, I would be sealed to both of them.

What is so hard to understand about this?

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by homeboy

If by doctrine you mean that having plural wives is essential for salvation (as many polygamist sects claim) then I don't buy that.

You keep saying something to the effect of "It is still a doctrine, we are just not practicing it." I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Even non-LDS will agree that polygamy was practiced (apparently without censure) at certain times in the old testament. But it is clearly taboo now. Furthermore, we could use the same line of logic for other things. "Stoning is a doctrine, we are just not practicing it." "Murder is a doctrine (Nephi-Laban), we are just not practicing it." "Human sacrifice is a doctrine (Abraham-Isaac), we are just not practicing it."

We keep going around in circles on this but I'll try one more time.

None of the things you mention are or were ever doctrines essential to the plan of salvation. The true and everlasting covenant is. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

See my response to MikeWaters if you want an example of the doctrine of polygamy/plural marriage, as it is practiced, today in the church (not a breakaway sect). The difference between now and earlier in this dispensation is that it is only practiced beyond the veil, not in this life.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

None of the things you mention are or were ever doctrines essential to the plan of salvation. The true and everlasting covenant is. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

And you have never explained to me how polygamy (in this world or the hereafter) is "essential for salvation" as many argue. To be fair, I understand that you are more specifically arguing that it is "essential to the plan of salvation", a significant difference. Yet, I still take issue with the "essential" keyword. How is it essential? If my wife dies and I wed my second wife for time only, am I committing sin? I doubt it.

And while you are at it, how about explaining why it is OK for a man to have multiple wives, but not the other way around.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by homeboy

And you have never explained to me how polygamy (in this world or the hereafter) is "essential for salvation" as many argue. To be fair, I understand that you are more specifically arguing that it is "essential to the plan of salvation", a significant difference. Yet, I still take issue with the "essential" keyword. How is it essential? If my wife dies and I wed my second wife for time only, am I committing sin? I doubt it.

And while you are at it, how about explaining why it is OK for a man to have multiple wives, but not the other way around.

Of course you would not be committing sin in that case. And I'm not saying it is essential for EVERYONE to practice. But that it is an eternal doctrine and there WILL BE SOME PEOPLE practicing it in the next life.

In terms of why the double standard? I have no idea. You'll have to ask a higher source than I on that one. Same question could be asked about priesthood and/or many other things as well. The short answer (and good enough for me) is "Because God said so."