Reading between the lines of something she said reminds me of how the government has always created problems but not solutions. Some things never change.
Wow this was SO informative and such an awesome interview. She has such insights into the backstory here. Thank you for having her and her, IMHO, non confrontational approach to Church history. Loved it.
@@CwicShow Marriage issues will be sorted out by God during the Millennium if not sorted out here before the Second Coming. The council of the living prophet of God on the earth to us today is more important than the Council of dead prophets of the past who lived over 200 years ago who taught the early saints of the Church living in a totally different time of history and who are not facing the challenges we have today in our day and our time. This is why God has a living prophet to lead the church today. .
Thank you for this insightful discussion on polygamy. My great-great grandfather was one of those men who began practicing it before the saints left Nauvoo. The more I understand about polygamy the more I appreciate the courage and faith of my wonderful ancestors.
My great-great grandparents were married in Mexico 1903 (she was his 3rd wife). I remember several times my grandfather talking about what it was like to grow up a child of plural marriage. It was NOT easy. I remember meeting many of his siblings from the other family at family reunions. Very good interview.
I thought that it was a calling to practice polygamy? I for one would rather be in a lower kingdom... I could never give my heart to another woman, but I know God will never force anyone to do anything.
One of your best interviews! Cristina is very credible and brings a fresh approach to this history especially enhanced by her being outside the church. Thanks for your great and informative channel.
Greg , I am so grateful you take on HARD , REAL, topics head in and with out blinders. Thank you. At this point I just say HA,. It's never been an easy ride on the good ship ZION.
I've really enjoyed learning a lot more of the details on the history of polygamy. Christina's perspective is valuable because I think she comes at things very objectively and just wants to understand the people that make the history. One thing she may not quite understand/agree with is just how much we look at polygamy as an Abrahamic sacrifice (which is heavily referenced in Section 132). For the early saints, especially Joseph, polygamy was a test - a test to see if the Saints would "do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." They were going against the trends of the day, and suffered a lot of persecution for it. Hence, they probably also had to be a little bit overzealous in adopting it or rationalizing it, because they believed it was a commandment from God.Similarly, what I didn't quite appreciate before, was how the same thing happened when polygamy ended. With the excommunications, it became necessary again that the Saints do what the Lord commanded through the prophet.The real test is whether or not we will follow Jesus, the person, rather than just the laws. The Jews had this problem - even though the Law of Moses was supposed to turn their hearts to Jesus, they ended up choosing to follow their laws and traditions rather than following the Messiah. The Book of Mormon makes clear the warning that we are not to worship the laws, we are to follow the laws because we follow Jesus Christ, and by following the laws, we become ready to follow whatever he commands us to do - just like Abraham. Ultimately, we will all have to face a test of loyalty, and both the beginning and end of polygamy were clearly very difficult tests of loyalty for the early Saints. Also, has anyone seen a mathematical projection of what the Church population would be today if it weren't for polygamy in the early days of the church? When you have an exponential function of population growth, the starting population size makes a huge difference in the amount of time it takes to reach a mature population. I've heard that the Amish are predicted to take up the entire U.S. population in something like 200 years if trends were to continue, if they had started off with a huge burst to their population initially, it would have had massive implications in population size after several generations. I'd be curious to see how much polygamy would affect the Church population size today based on those factors of growth. It might be that for the Church to reach the global population required to prepare for Christ's second coming, polygamy may have knocked off like 100 years, which from God's perspective, would be pretty important. He has a timeline to meet, and polygamy may have been his way of making up time (just an idea).
Awesome interview! I would listen to more of Cristina Rosetti's details on this! What started out as me saying, "Really, an hour of this?" turned into "whoa! This is waaay too abbreviated!" (P.S. I did find your interview a year ago and have it in my playlist...) Thanks for a wonderful show!
It’s not selfish nor possessive to want your husband to love you only, just as a wife is expected to love him only. It’s called being one. Having only 1/2, 1/3, 1/4….1/35th of your husband’s time and devotion is beyond insulting and mocking of the meaning of true love and healthy, thriving, living marriage.
Fascinating episode. 1). I appreciate how Greg allows his guests to finish speaking uninterrupted, 2). Christina Rossetti knows this topic probably better than most members. Can I assume she has some documentation that substantiates her claims?
@@cristinarosetti45 wow. Listening now. Thx! Yes can we get list of your books? Maybe already as Links above. Also. What was title of “yellow brick” book? I am a Lyman and Partridge descendent, as you will know Bushman is too :) appreciate your approach
@@cristinarosetti45 at the time mar 50:04 you gave a time line for when polygamy happened. You said that “between 1809 and 1903”. That was a mistake. The church wasn’t even organized till 1830 and it was years after that before polygamy was introduced. Didn’t you really mean from the time of the manifesto in 1890?
@@cristinarosetti45 impressive understanding, don't know how recent your research is, Ryan from "NephiteExplorer" produced a video recently, "The Missing Piece", he shows some compelling documents, and logical conclusions. Well worth your time, if you watch it, I'd be really interested in your take on it.
President Eyering hinted at polygamy in heaven this last conference. "If this dispensation is anything like ones previous, there will be more faithful women than men." If you take our stance on marriage seriously, that can only mean polygamy if every woman is to have an opportunity at marriage.
I’m sure every young soldier who gave his life in the countless wars will be exalted. Also, boy babies are born slightly more than female babies and they die before the age of accountability more than girl babies. Many young men die from diseases, drunk drivers, being murdered, etc. There may actually be more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom.
This was a great interview. Further reading that helps clear up misconceptions about polygamy would be a recent book by Brittany Chapman Nash "Let's talk about polygamy". I did appreciate the history and context behind this interview though...and the more context we get about the time period- the better for us.
It amazes me that a non-member can completely understand that polygamy is a law of heaven, "A law of the Gods," and yet, 99% of members cannot even comprehend it. D&C 132 clearly tells us that it is "Celestial Marriage". If we stay true to our covenants, this doctrine will be presented to us again and I hope we will be ready to accept it.
Great interview! Note that she says it was a core doctrine of the church. The real reason that the saints left the United States. Why are we still trying to cover up the fact this is a doctrine that has changed. What an I missing here?
It was at the time...meant as an Abrahamic test for their time. It lived it's purpose...it won't be our Abrahamic test. It could also be that she was talking about the sealings. In that case- YES that is absolutely core. :)
Because current church leadership bends and sways with modern social trends in contradiction with the eternal principles of Jesus Christ and His church. The church is losing doctrine upon doctrine because of disobedience and disbelief. The pure doctrine is being whittled away so we can be popular in the eyes of the world.
@@cindlou7335 D&C 132 is a letter written to Emma to convince her that the polygamous marriages her husband had hid from her up until that point were from sanctioned by God and she had to accept that or be destroyed. It wasn’t a letter teaching about celestial marriage in the way we manipulate it now in our manuals and from the pulpit. It I’d very concerning to me and it seems disingenuous of leaders and apologist to present 132 in these terms.
@@cindlou7335 the prophet of God said that if polygamy was ever rejected it by the church the church would be in apostasy. I don’t believe that to be the case but it makes sense that some would think this. To overlook the words of a prophet in certain cases but teach that anything the prophet teaches now is of God is a form of mental gymnastics that most people struggle to do. Might be one of the reasons so many people are leaving the church.
Polygamy smack down!!! Fascinating! Thank you, for this perspective. Not surprised, that to truly dissect this principal would come from a non member with out protective bias. I was raised by grandparents that were both from polygamist families and have always wondered why ppl became so upset when this topic was addressed. Lol (cough) relief Society. Run for cover. JK In my opinion……. The highest blessing possible is for a righteous patriarch to have a faithful kingdom building posterity. To this day as I have witnessed this dynamic come to pass as many in my extended family line are still faithful and active.
Was the Manifesto revelation or policy. It was a revelation on practice and policy --- definitely not a change of doctrine. We still believe that a man sealed for time and eternity to more than one woman will be together in the afterlife.
I enjoyed her insight on discerning between revelation on doctrine and revelation on policy. The stewardship of the Prophets includes the protection of the Saints and of the Church organization. I think this an important distinction, since we see it happening today and we will likely see it happen even more. I find it sad that people can't distinguish this because many abandon their faith due to their disagreement on policy. They throw away the doctrine because they can't see the purpose of the policy.
@@michaelmansfield8568 It takes a Catholic to make it clear to members? I guess so! Pres. Nelson emphasizes the "requirement" of each member to get revelation rather than depend on others. If you let someone come between you and God, that person between you and God is closer. Zig Ziegler said something like this.
In my genealogy I go back to 8th great grandparents with ancestors that had multiple wives. There were good reasons for it at that time period in history. It was for the men to take on additional wives who lost their husbands to death and needed someone to take care of them.
No, that’s a myth. I’ve studied plural marriage for 45 years. That is utterly not true. The Brethren married young virgins as section 132 states. Some married a girl’s mother, but in name only. Even Presidents Nelson and Oaks took 2nd wives who had never been married before. At their advanced ages when they became widowers, they didn’t seek widows who were already sealed. Further, if you read plural wives’ journals, you’ll learn how many lived in abject poverty and were not provided for. You’ll read of the depression, loneliness, and yearning for love they dealt with. You’ll also discover how many men (not all) didn’t like the idea when they first heard it (intuitive reaction). But once they started having new, young wives, they got on board quite strongly (carnal reaction).
Yes, polygamy can only be "lawfully" practiced under the keys of the prophet through revelation. When the revelation was received to withdraw the practice, it ended, but those who practiced prior to that, still had the obligation to continue to take care of their families.
How do you account for the 25 new plural marriages in LDS temples before 1904 and Lorenzo Snow authorizing plural marriages in Mexico after the Manifesto? We know the Church authorized them until 1904. The Church acknowledges this in their essays on the First and Second Manifesto.
@@cristinarosetti45 As long as they were done under the authority of the prophet, I have no problem with it...not that me having a problem with it means anything to anyone but me. So I'm glad I don't have to account for it.
@@cristinarosetti45 so if the prophet said polygamy is back on the menu and your husband is told to marry and father children with a cute blonde in your ward, would you be ok with that? I wouldn't
When the government threatens a people with annihilation unless it stops a practice, then God holds that people free from his edict to follow that practice. God frees a people from that covenant in order that they survive.
@@zachgarver7922 Perhaps annihilation of the body, no, but if one's property is taken and one is put into prison indefinitely, it is virtually a death sentence. From the perspective of the saints at that time, and from their experience in Missouri (a Governor's extermination order), they perceived a threat of complete destruction if they continued to practice what they believed to be a firm doctrinal covenant with God. Hence some fled to Canada and Mexico to escape prosecution. Prior to the Supreme Court decision that stated that marriage was a civil contract that could be regulated by Government, it was almost always considered a religious sacrament conducted mostly in the churches.
In 2016, 69% of the nation's children lived with families headed by two parents (bio, step, or adoptive). Compare that to 88% in 1960. The number of children living with a single mother has tripled since 1960 from 8% to 23%. Society wants to be monogamous but the facts state otherwise - 40% of all births in 2019 were to unwed partners according to the CDC and this is the lowest rate since 2007. I simply don't understand why a man/woman can't have multiple partners within marriage if he can do so outside of marriage. I let you figure out which one is best for society and the children. I don't support it but it seems polygamy or bigamy would be better and more stable environment for the children which is the key function of family.
really good . at the same time it really show the church did and likely will bow down to babylon. 😞 we can conclude that the church is at high risk to bow down to govt lgbt agenda and trans. the past show what future will be.
I really appreciate her insights, but I think she is mistaken on the 1st Ammendment being focused on Christianity. A number of the founding fathers and the authors of the idea and the various documents weren't Christian themselves. Jefferson, though he was a very dedicated Christian - using the definition of a person who believes in Jesus Christ, but he wasn't a Crhristian by any of the faiths of the time, nor in the divinity if Christ. He was a devout Theist, often labeled himself as a Deist (based on the definition of the time as a belief in one God). His rewriting of the Bible was primarily to pull out Jesus' writings to identify it as the philosophy of Jesus. Likewise, here suggestion that polygamy isn't prosecuted today is really not accurate. It's very selectively enforced to establish control or dominance. Nonethelss, she is a fountain of knowledge on the topic and has a unique point of view, particularly related to the Manifesto.
We can agree to disagree on the First Amendment. The reality is that many were excluded and it really did serve to establishes a "correct" practice of Christianity. As mentioned, public Masses were prohibited at one point in U.S. history. As for polygamy, it's widely unprosecuted (except in instances where it's associated with other crimes) because prosecuting is a logistical nightmare. This is precisely one of the reasons we were so easily able to lobby SB102 in Utah.
@@cristinarosetti45 There have been any number of infringements over the years, but I just can't see anything in the writings Of Jefferson or Madison to support the idea. They were mostly trying to minimize squabbles between the various Christian sects at the time. My understanding was that the public masses were blocked by the Catholic Church itself, not the government., and primarily duringthe Spanish Flu to avoid gatherings. What event are you thinking of? On the prosecution, it seems historically, the "other crimes" were pretty much fiction created to justify the prosecution, and the actions were primarily politically based - just as they were in Missouri. I think you may be glossing over the political environment and the impacts it has on the situation. I've read the article you wrote on the Short Creek Raid to promote SB102, and it seems to me you may be glossing over the impacts of the political environment and taking the claims used to justify the raids more seriously. Of course, the article was in support of a specific position and not a dissertation of the incident, so any assertion of that is unjustified. The fact is that I have no belief Governor Pyle or Judge Walther were [primarily concerned about the women or children in those communities. On individual prosecutions, being a bigamist requires an actual marriage. Most of the time, only the first marriage is a government recognized marriage. The only way you could legally prosecute for bigamy would be to have one of the spouses testify they were in a polygamous relationship as there would be no legal documentation of it. So unless one of the spouses was asngry snd looking to get out, there's nothing to prosecute. THanks. I appreciate your comments and research.
Why do you purport she is mistaken on the application of the 1st amendment? You omitted any support for that thought. The positions of the founding fathers is a not justification for such a statement, as we can see the ideals of the founding fathers and the founding documents have not always been applied appropriately. The guest made a fairly compelling point about 1st amendment in pointing out how it was not applied to the early saints because they were not seen as Christians. Can you show that she is wrong about the saints not being considered christians by their contemporaries? Or show that the 1st amendment was fairly applied to the saints? Or alternatively, evidence facts counter to her claim that it was applied to Christians in that period (e.g. a case applicable to another religion)?
@@RichardChappell1 I’m not sure what you think I’m glossing over. I’ve written at length about the Short Creek community and spoken with people who lived through the raid. We know what was happening behind the scenes. As for bigamy, Tom Green was prosecuted for four counts of bigamy without four marriage licenses. However, he was guilty of marrying an underage girl. Prosecution of bigamy has never really been about legal marriages.
@@cristinarosetti45 Except that Tom Green's prosecution hinged on the court deciding that Green's first "wife" was a legal marriage just so they could define it as bigamy. It was a total abuse of the law, and literally made thousands of relationships illegal - which is why Utah's unique cohabitation rules (a carryover from trying to hard to show they weren't supporting polygamy) were thrown out as unconstitutional in 2013. Tom Green's lawyer blew the appeal by ignoring that aspect of the prosecution and focusing on the religion and the moral disapproval of polygamy. Without that declaration that the marriage was legal, the law would not have applied to Tom Green. The practice Utah had of prosecuting polygamists by declaring their relationships legal and cohabitation was a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, as the courts later ruled. Utah's law was obviously created to target the break off polygamists and they ignored prosecution of others who legally violated the law - such as anyone who lived with one person and then left to live with another. As long as it was not religiously based, it was not considered a violation. Before Short Creek, it wasn't that uncommon for polygamists in Utah to get prosecuted in a similar way. Short Creek weakened the interest in prosecuting - unless some local authority was looking to get around legal technicalities - such as Tom Green couldn't really be convicted of welfare fraud if they didn't "prove" the bigamy. What I thought was glossed over, at least in your article in support of SB102, was the motivation for Governor Pyle's need to go after them - it wasn't the health and safety of the women and children. It was purely political, and the alleged abuse was just an excuse. As I admitted in my comment, I may not be aware of your actual position as I've only read the one article, which looked to be advocating for the bill.
That is not true. Exaltation is absolutely not dependant on plural marriage. It is an appendage of Celestial marriage...it is NOT celestial marriage alone.
@@cindlou7335 sorry sister...but D&C 132 is very clear. If you dont participate you will not be married in the Celestial Kingdom. Those who reject this principle will be servants to those who choose to live the gospel in its fullness. There is no appendage to Celestial marriage, only Celestial marriage.
@@aarondb8300 this is the issue for me. We know from multiple sources why 132 was written and that is very clearly about plural marriage. One of my biggest issues with apologist and what caused my shelf to tremble a bit was hearing them teach that it is about temple marriage. It seems like the solution would be to dismiss 132 from the D&C as a letter from Joseph to Emma to help her accept his plural marriages. Because that is what it is.
@@aarondb8300 Wrong. Celestial marriage is different, and since it was introduced around the same time as plural- it is often confused. It is a huge misconception in our culture. Celestial marriage is part of the Abrahamic covenant...the sealing portion. Plural marriage is commanded at times...but is not the norm of heaven. I do understand where people get confused though.
Reading between the lines of something she said reminds me of how the government has always created problems but not solutions.
Some things never change.
Wow this was SO informative and such an awesome interview. She has such insights into the backstory here. Thank you for having her and her, IMHO, non confrontational approach to Church history. Loved it.
I agree...so well done.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@CwicShow Marriage issues will be sorted out by God during the Millennium if not sorted out here before the Second Coming. The council of the living prophet of God on the earth to us today is more important than the Council of dead prophets of the past who lived over 200 years ago who taught the early saints of the Church living in a totally different time of history and who are not facing the challenges we have today in our day and our time. This is why God has a living prophet to lead the church today.
.
Thank you for this insightful discussion on polygamy. My great-great grandfather was one of those men who began practicing it before the saints left Nauvoo. The more I understand about polygamy the more I appreciate the courage and faith of my wonderful ancestors.
Thanks for sharing!
Fascinating. Cristina has an amazing grasp of this topic and the ability to stay objective and subordinate her personal opinions.
She won't like the grasp once she's in a polygamous relationship
What a lovely, intelligent woman, and what a pleasure of an interview!
I really enjoyed this!
We agree!
My great-great grandparents were married in Mexico 1903 (she was his 3rd wife). I remember several times my grandfather talking about what it was like to grow up a child of plural marriage. It was NOT easy. I remember meeting many of his siblings from the other family at family reunions. Very good interview.
I thought that it was a calling to practice polygamy? I for one would rather be in a lower kingdom... I could never give my heart to another woman, but I know God will never force anyone to do anything.
One of your best interviews! Cristina is very credible and brings a fresh approach to this history especially enhanced by her being outside the church. Thanks for your great and informative channel.
Glad you enjoyed it and glad you follow the Channel!
Greg , I am so grateful you take on HARD , REAL, topics head in and with out blinders. Thank you.
At this point I just say HA,. It's never been an easy ride on the good ship ZION.
Those are the best topics. I appreciate your feedback!
I didn't get a chance to watch this until today. What a great conversation.
Glad you like it!
Incredible! One of the best things I’ve ever heard on the subject. Terrific insights! Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I've really enjoyed learning a lot more of the details on the history of polygamy. Christina's perspective is valuable because I think she comes at things very objectively and just wants to understand the people that make the history.
One thing she may not quite understand/agree with is just how much we look at polygamy as an Abrahamic sacrifice (which is heavily referenced in Section 132). For the early saints, especially Joseph, polygamy was a test - a test to see if the Saints would "do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." They were going against the trends of the day, and suffered a lot of persecution for it. Hence, they probably also had to be a little bit overzealous in adopting it or rationalizing it, because they believed it was a commandment from God.Similarly, what I didn't quite appreciate before, was how the same thing happened when polygamy ended. With the excommunications, it became necessary again that the Saints do what the Lord commanded through the prophet.The real test is whether or not we will follow Jesus, the person, rather than just the laws. The Jews had this problem - even though the Law of Moses was supposed to turn their hearts to Jesus, they ended up choosing to follow their laws and traditions rather than following the Messiah. The Book of Mormon makes clear the warning that we are not to worship the laws, we are to follow the laws because we follow Jesus Christ, and by following the laws, we become ready to follow whatever he commands us to do - just like Abraham. Ultimately, we will all have to face a test of loyalty, and both the beginning and end of polygamy were clearly very difficult tests of loyalty for the early Saints.
Also, has anyone seen a mathematical projection of what the Church population would be today if it weren't for polygamy in the early days of the church? When you have an exponential function of population growth, the starting population size makes a huge difference in the amount of time it takes to reach a mature population. I've heard that the Amish are predicted to take up the entire U.S. population in something like 200 years if trends were to continue, if they had started off with a huge burst to their population initially, it would have had massive implications in population size after several generations. I'd be curious to see how much polygamy would affect the Church population size today based on those factors of growth. It might be that for the Church to reach the global population required to prepare for Christ's second coming, polygamy may have knocked off like 100 years, which from God's perspective, would be pretty important. He has a timeline to meet, and polygamy may have been his way of making up time (just an idea).
Please have her on your show again!
Awesome interview! I would listen to more of Cristina Rosetti's details on this! What started out as me saying, "Really, an hour of this?" turned into "whoa! This is waaay too abbreviated!" (P.S. I did find your interview a year ago and have it in my playlist...)
Thanks for a wonderful show!
Glad you enjoyed it!
This was very insightful. I’ve heard several times that Reynolds would be decided differently today. Maybe she or you have opinions on that?
Love her points of view. Thank you 🙏 for the education! We have to learn not to be selfish or possessive. It’s hard to share.
It’s not selfish nor possessive to want your husband to love you only, just as a wife is expected to love him only. It’s called being one. Having only 1/2, 1/3, 1/4….1/35th of your husband’s time and devotion is beyond insulting and mocking of the meaning of true love and healthy, thriving, living marriage.
Fascinating episode. 1). I appreciate how Greg allows his guests to finish speaking uninterrupted, 2). Christina Rossetti knows this topic probably better than most members. Can I assume she has some documentation that substantiates her claims?
Hi, Mike. What claims would you like documentation for? I've written quite a bit on the subject and am more than willing to provide sources.
@@cristinarosetti45 wow. Listening now. Thx! Yes can we get list of your books? Maybe already as Links above. Also. What was title of “yellow brick” book? I am a Lyman and Partridge descendent, as you will know Bushman is too :) appreciate your approach
@@cristinarosetti45 at the time mar 50:04 you gave a time line for when polygamy happened. You said that “between 1809 and 1903”. That was a mistake. The church wasn’t even organized till 1830 and it was years after that before polygamy was introduced. Didn’t you really mean from the time of the manifesto in 1890?
@@cristinarosetti45 impressive understanding, don't know how recent your research is, Ryan from "NephiteExplorer" produced a video recently, "The Missing Piece", he shows some compelling documents, and logical conclusions. Well worth your time, if you watch it, I'd be really interested in your take on it.
@@bethp8436 Sorry about that! Yes. October 1890.
President Eyering hinted at polygamy in heaven this last conference. "If this dispensation is anything like ones previous, there will be more faithful women than men." If you take our stance on marriage seriously, that can only mean polygamy if every woman is to have an opportunity at marriage.
And now that all kinds of marriages are protected by law, even practicing polygamy would finally be legal.
I’m sure every young soldier who gave his life in the countless wars will be exalted. Also, boy babies are born slightly more than female babies and they die before the age of accountability more than girl babies. Many young men die from diseases, drunk drivers, being murdered, etc. There may actually be more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom.
This was a great interview. Further reading that helps clear up misconceptions about polygamy would be a recent book by Brittany Chapman Nash "Let's talk about polygamy". I did appreciate the history and context behind this interview though...and the more context we get about the time period- the better for us.
Can you tell us the books and documentary she mentioned! I couldn't hear them.
It amazes me that a non-member can completely understand that polygamy is a law of heaven, "A law of the Gods," and yet, 99% of members cannot even comprehend it. D&C 132 clearly tells us that it is "Celestial Marriage".
If we stay true to our covenants, this doctrine will be presented to us again and I hope we will be ready to accept it.
That’s pure baloney. Modern-day leaders have clearly stated that monogamy is the standard for marriage and polygamy is a rare exception. Thank heaven!
Fascinating. So glad I listened.
Fantastic interview.
Many thanks!
OUTSTANDING!
Has anyone assembled some history on how many hihh ranking government officials back in early history a wife and also a few mistresses ?
Very very interesting
Great interview! Note that she says it was a core doctrine of the church. The real reason that the saints left the United States. Why are we still trying to cover up the fact this is a doctrine that has changed. What an I missing here?
It was at the time...meant as an Abrahamic test for their time. It lived it's purpose...it won't be our Abrahamic test. It could also be that she was talking about the sealings. In that case- YES that is absolutely core. :)
Because current church leadership bends and sways with modern social trends in contradiction with the eternal principles of Jesus Christ and His church. The church is losing doctrine upon doctrine because of disobedience and disbelief. The pure doctrine is being whittled away so we can be popular in the eyes of the world.
@@aarondb8300 The doctrine isn't changing...but some of the culture is. In some cases that's probably necessary.
@@cindlou7335 D&C 132 is a letter written to Emma to convince her that the polygamous marriages her husband had hid from her up until that point were from sanctioned by God and she had to accept that or be destroyed. It wasn’t a letter teaching about celestial marriage in the way we manipulate it now in our manuals and from the pulpit. It I’d very concerning to me and it seems disingenuous of leaders and apologist to present 132 in these terms.
@@cindlou7335 the prophet of God said that if polygamy was ever rejected it by the church the church would be in apostasy. I don’t believe that to be the case but it makes sense that some would think this. To overlook the words of a prophet in certain cases but teach that anything the prophet teaches now is of God is a form of mental gymnastics that most people struggle to do. Might be one of the reasons so many people are leaving the church.
Polygamy smack down!!! Fascinating! Thank you, for this perspective. Not surprised, that to truly dissect this principal would come from a non member with out protective bias. I was raised by grandparents that were both from polygamist families and have always wondered why ppl became so upset when this topic was addressed. Lol (cough) relief Society. Run for cover. JK
In my opinion……. The highest blessing possible is for a righteous patriarch to have a faithful kingdom building posterity. To this day as I have witnessed this dynamic come to pass as many in my extended family line are still faithful and active.
Why do so many call this an Abrahamic test? Where was the ram in the thicket for these early Saints?
The only way I'm coming back to church is if polygamy comes back on the menu
Was the Manifesto revelation or policy. It was a revelation on practice and policy --- definitely not a change of doctrine. We still believe that a man sealed for time and eternity to more than one woman will be together in the afterlife.
I enjoyed her insight on discerning between revelation on doctrine and revelation on policy. The stewardship of the Prophets includes the protection of the Saints and of the Church organization. I think this an important distinction, since we see it happening today and we will likely see it happen even more. I find it sad that people can't distinguish this because many abandon their faith due to their disagreement on policy. They throw away the doctrine because they can't see the purpose of the policy.
@@michaelmansfield8568 It takes a Catholic to make it clear to members? I guess so! Pres. Nelson emphasizes the "requirement" of each member to get revelation rather than depend on others. If you let someone come between you and God, that person between you and God is closer. Zig Ziegler said something like this.
Isn't the law of polygamy still in force in the celestial kingdom ?
Yes. But what does that mean and who does it apply to?
@@CwicShow it means there are marriages occurring in the temples where men have more than one wife sealed to them.
@@carlatamanczyk3891 women also have multiple husbands sealed... if they have passed. Sooooo it's likely about the sealing aspect.
Christina, come back to lobsters. We miss you.
In my genealogy I go back to 8th great grandparents with ancestors that had multiple wives. There were good reasons for it at that time period in history. It was for the men to take on additional wives who lost their husbands to death and needed someone to take care of them.
No, that’s a myth. I’ve studied plural marriage for 45 years. That is utterly not true. The Brethren married young virgins as section 132 states. Some married a girl’s mother, but in name only. Even Presidents Nelson and Oaks took 2nd wives who had never been married before. At their advanced ages when they became widowers, they didn’t seek widows who were already sealed. Further, if you read plural wives’ journals, you’ll learn how many lived in abject poverty and were not provided for. You’ll read of the depression, loneliness, and yearning for love they dealt with. You’ll also discover how many men (not all) didn’t like the idea when they first heard it (intuitive reaction). But once they started having new, young wives, they got on board quite strongly (carnal reaction).
Yes, polygamy can only be "lawfully" practiced under the keys of the prophet through revelation. When the revelation was received to withdraw the practice, it ended, but those who practiced prior to that, still had the obligation to continue to take care of their families.
How do you account for the 25 new plural marriages in LDS temples before 1904 and Lorenzo Snow authorizing plural marriages in Mexico after the Manifesto? We know the Church authorized them until 1904. The Church acknowledges this in their essays on the First and Second Manifesto.
@@cristinarosetti45 As long as they were done under the authority of the prophet, I have no problem with it...not that me having a problem with it means anything to anyone but me. So I'm glad I don't have to account for it.
The federal government put an end to polygamy
@@cristinarosetti45 so if the prophet said polygamy is back on the menu and your husband is told to marry and father children with a cute blonde in your ward, would you be ok with that? I wouldn't
@@t-pain3343 I don't know if you watched the video, but I'm not Mormon. Never had been. Don't have a ward.
Greg: have Jeremy Hoop on your podcast if you want the truth on polygamy.
When the government threatens a people with annihilation unless it stops a practice, then God holds that people free from his edict to follow that practice. God frees a people from that covenant in order that they survive.
This sounds very pleasant and kind of God, I'm trying to think of scriptural support for your statement? Can you help me with some please?
@@zachgarver7922 Perhaps annihilation of the body, no, but if one's property is taken and one is put into prison indefinitely, it is virtually a death sentence. From the perspective of the saints at that time, and from their experience in Missouri (a Governor's extermination order), they perceived a threat of complete destruction if they continued to practice what they believed to be a firm doctrinal covenant with God. Hence some fled to Canada and Mexico to escape prosecution. Prior to the Supreme Court decision that stated that marriage was a civil contract that could be regulated by Government, it was almost always considered a religious sacrament conducted mostly in the churches.
In 2016, 69% of the nation's children lived with families headed by two parents (bio, step, or adoptive). Compare that to 88% in 1960. The number of children living with a single mother has tripled since 1960 from 8% to 23%. Society wants to be monogamous but the facts state otherwise - 40% of all births in 2019 were to unwed partners according to the CDC and this is the lowest rate since 2007. I simply don't understand why a man/woman can't have multiple partners within marriage if he can do so outside of marriage. I let you figure out which one is best for society and the children. I don't support it but it seems polygamy or bigamy would be better and more stable environment for the children which is the key function of family.
Swingers
really good . at the same time it really show the church did and likely will bow down to babylon. 😞 we can conclude that the church is at high risk to bow down to govt lgbt agenda and trans. the past show what future will be.
I really appreciate her insights, but I think she is mistaken on the 1st Ammendment being focused on Christianity. A number of the founding fathers and the authors of the idea and the various documents weren't Christian themselves. Jefferson, though he was a very dedicated Christian - using the definition of a person who believes in Jesus Christ, but he wasn't a Crhristian by any of the faiths of the time, nor in the divinity if Christ. He was a devout Theist, often labeled himself as a Deist (based on the definition of the time as a belief in one God). His rewriting of the Bible was primarily to pull out Jesus' writings to identify it as the philosophy of Jesus.
Likewise, here suggestion that polygamy isn't prosecuted today is really not accurate. It's very selectively enforced to establish control or dominance.
Nonethelss, she is a fountain of knowledge on the topic and has a unique point of view, particularly related to the Manifesto.
We can agree to disagree on the First Amendment. The reality is that many were excluded and it really did serve to establishes a "correct" practice of Christianity. As mentioned, public Masses were prohibited at one point in U.S. history. As for polygamy, it's widely unprosecuted (except in instances where it's associated with other crimes) because prosecuting is a logistical nightmare. This is precisely one of the reasons we were so easily able to lobby SB102 in Utah.
@@cristinarosetti45 There have been any number of infringements over the years, but I just can't see anything in the writings Of Jefferson or Madison to support the idea. They were mostly trying to minimize squabbles between the various Christian sects at the time. My understanding was that the public masses were blocked by the Catholic Church itself, not the government., and primarily duringthe Spanish Flu to avoid gatherings. What event are you thinking of?
On the prosecution, it seems historically, the "other crimes" were pretty much fiction created to justify the prosecution, and the actions were primarily politically based - just as they were in Missouri. I think you may be glossing over the political environment and the impacts it has on the situation. I've read the article you wrote on the Short Creek Raid to promote SB102, and it seems to me you may be glossing over the impacts of the political environment and taking the claims used to justify the raids more seriously. Of course, the article was in support of a specific position and not a dissertation of the incident, so any assertion of that is unjustified. The fact is that I have no belief Governor Pyle or Judge Walther were [primarily concerned about the women or children in those communities.
On individual prosecutions, being a bigamist requires an actual marriage. Most of the time, only the first marriage is a government recognized marriage. The only way you could legally prosecute for bigamy would be to have one of the spouses testify they were in a polygamous relationship as there would be no legal documentation of it. So unless one of the spouses was asngry snd looking to get out, there's nothing to prosecute.
THanks. I appreciate your comments and research.
Why do you purport she is mistaken on the application of the 1st amendment? You omitted any support for that thought. The positions of the founding fathers is a not justification for such a statement, as we can see the ideals of the founding fathers and the founding documents have not always been applied appropriately. The guest made a fairly compelling point about 1st amendment in pointing out how it was not applied to the early saints because they were not seen as Christians. Can you show that she is wrong about the saints not being considered christians by their contemporaries? Or show that the 1st amendment was fairly applied to the saints? Or alternatively, evidence facts counter to her claim that it was applied to Christians in that period (e.g. a case applicable to another religion)?
@@RichardChappell1 I’m not sure what you think I’m glossing over. I’ve written at length about the Short Creek community and spoken with people who lived through the raid. We know what was happening behind the scenes.
As for bigamy, Tom Green was prosecuted for four counts of bigamy without four marriage licenses. However, he was guilty of marrying an underage girl. Prosecution of bigamy has never really been about legal marriages.
@@cristinarosetti45 Except that Tom Green's prosecution hinged on the court deciding that Green's first "wife" was a legal marriage just so they could define it as bigamy. It was a total abuse of the law, and literally made thousands of relationships illegal - which is why Utah's unique cohabitation rules (a carryover from trying to hard to show they weren't supporting polygamy) were thrown out as unconstitutional in 2013. Tom Green's lawyer blew the appeal by ignoring that aspect of the prosecution and focusing on the religion and the moral disapproval of polygamy. Without that declaration that the marriage was legal, the law would not have applied to Tom Green. The practice Utah had of prosecuting polygamists by declaring their relationships legal and cohabitation was a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, as the courts later ruled. Utah's law was obviously created to target the break off polygamists and they ignored prosecution of others who legally violated the law - such as anyone who lived with one person and then left to live with another. As long as it was not religiously based, it was not considered a violation.
Before Short Creek, it wasn't that uncommon for polygamists in Utah to get prosecuted in a similar way. Short Creek weakened the interest in prosecuting - unless some local authority was looking to get around legal technicalities - such as Tom Green couldn't really be convicted of welfare fraud if they didn't "prove" the bigamy.
What I thought was glossed over, at least in your article in support of SB102, was the motivation for Governor Pyle's need to go after them - it wasn't the health and safety of the women and children. It was purely political, and the alleged abuse was just an excuse. As I admitted in my comment, I may not be aware of your actual position as I've only read the one article, which looked to be advocating for the bill.
What was the point of this ? I feel like this is useless.
Context, information, history.
The government of heaven is indeed built on plural marriage, and our own exaltation will depend on our participation.
That is not true. Exaltation is absolutely not dependant on plural marriage. It is an appendage of Celestial marriage...it is NOT celestial marriage alone.
I suggest reading Valerie Hudson or Steve Harper, they clarify things nicely.
@@cindlou7335 sorry sister...but D&C 132 is very clear. If you dont participate you will not be married in the Celestial Kingdom. Those who reject this principle will be servants to those who choose to live the gospel in its fullness. There is no appendage to Celestial marriage, only Celestial marriage.
@@aarondb8300 this is the issue for me. We know from multiple sources why 132 was written and that is very clearly about plural marriage. One of my biggest issues with apologist and what caused my shelf to tremble a bit was hearing them teach that it is about temple marriage. It seems like the solution would be to dismiss 132 from the D&C as a letter from Joseph to Emma to help her accept his plural marriages. Because that is what it is.
@@aarondb8300 Wrong. Celestial marriage is different, and since it was introduced around the same time as plural- it is often confused. It is a huge misconception in our culture. Celestial marriage is part of the Abrahamic covenant...the sealing portion. Plural marriage is commanded at times...but is not the norm of heaven. I do understand where people get confused though.