Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

APA on Consensual Nonmonogamy spin-off thread: Mormon Polygamy


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My personal argument in favor of polygamy used to be that it had to be restored as part of the "fullness". 

That is my general perception (though Jacob 2:30 may also have had some application).

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

After decades of in depth gospel study and lots of prayer, I've concluded that it was just one of the mistakes of men along the way to us learning the fullness.

Same here, except that I have concluded that polygamy was at is is presented in the scriptures and by modern prophets and apostles: a divine-but-only-occasionally-implemented commandment.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
Just now, JulieM said:
Quote

Yes, it was commanded and taught by Christ.

So you must believe Christ lived polygamy?

If pressed, I would say that I am undecided.  I am quite open to the possibility, though.

Just now, JulieM said:

i can’t imagine he’d teach or actually command others to do something he wasn’t living.

That's a reasonable surmise.

Just now, JulieM said:

I do know that Brigham Young taught that Jesus was a polygamist.

I don't know that this was revelatory, though.  It seems to have been speculation on his part.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know that this was revelatory, though.  It seems to have been speculation on his part.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wait... doesn't 1:38 tell us that whatever BY spoke as prophet was the voice and will of the Lord?  What makes this an exception?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

D&C 1:38 is binding on us ("my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same").

D&C 132. 

Jacob 2:27 (starting after "hearken to the word of the Lord:") through Jacob 2:33 (ending with "saith the Lord of Hosts").

 

And once again, you conveniently leave out the "for if I will" phrase.... :) 

It's ok....I'm moving on and release you from this CFR.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wait... doesn't 1:38 tell us that whatever BY spoke as prophet was the voice and will of the Lord?  What makes this an exception?

Not everything that he said was in that capacity.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And once again, you conveniently leave out the "for if I will" phrase.... :) 

It's ok....I'm moving on and release you from this CFR.

I am not leaving it out. I have addressed it repeatedly in fact.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not everything that he said was in that capacity.

How do you know that Joseph was not speaking as a man (not in the capacity of Prophet) about the need for polygamy?

Looking at this from the outside, most of your references come through him too.  Just sayin. (At least the most clear about it being commanded.)

I’m in the camp of polygamy coming from men (even good men) and not God.  I think all have to study about it and how it was lived and then come to their own beliefs on it.  

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not everything that he said was in that capacity.

Yes, the focus of D&C 1:39 is the word (which is perfect) that the Lord (who is perfect) has spoken, not Brigham Young, who is fallible and yet can be the vehicle for the Lord to speak His perfect word.

Whatever word or principle once wishes to attribute to Brigham Young's fallibility is ideally confirmed (that is, confirmed in a "fulness") by personal revelation, but usually isn't for a variety of reasons, namely those same attributes put upon Brigham Young. And while personal revelation is not for the Church, like does cleave unto like for better or worse. This is why the general wisdom is to align with those who hold the keys by living the commandments and covenants extended to us by those keys, including plural marriage when it was in force.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the focus of D&C 1:39 is the word (which is perfect) that the Lord (who is perfect) has spoken, not Brigham Young, who is fallible and yet can be the vehicle for the Lord to speak His perfect word.

Whatever word or principle once wishes to attribute to Brigham Young's fallibility is ideally confirmed (that is, confirmed in a "fulness") by personal revelation, but usually isn't for a variety of reasons, namely those same attributes put upon Brigham Young. And while personal revelation is not for the Church, like does cleave unto like for better or worse. This is why the general wisdom is to align with those who hold the keys by living the commandments and covenants extended to us by those keys, including plural marriage when it was in force.

So what makes the words of Joseph Smith in section 132 the "voice of the Lord" but other words spoken by Brigham Young NOT the voice of the Lord?  Both were spoken/dictated by prophets.  Is there anything aside from personal revelation by which we can determine which prophetic utterances fall under 1:38 and which do not?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So what makes the words of Joseph Smith in section 132 the "voice of the Lord" but other words spoken by Brigham Young NOT the voice of the Lord?  Both were spoken/dictated by prophets.  Is there anything aside from personal revelation by which we can determine which prophetic utterances fall under 1:38 and which do not?

After all is said and done, no, since study (including humble / humbling experience) and faith (including obedience, service and prayer) lead to the companionship of the Holy Ghost and personal revelation. Even when we choose to believe that such-and-such is not the word of the Lord, whatever we choose to believe to be His word, and of which we receive spiritual confirmation, would allow us to proceed similarly to the brother of Jared. For example, the brother of Jared did not go about teaching what he saw through personal revelation that was not yet intended by the Lord to be revealed in that dispensation, but obeyed the Lord and sealed up his record/testimony for a future dispensation when the Lord deemed it appropriate to come forth and share. Of course most personal revelation is appropriately shared because it typically aligns well with what has been revealed for the current dispensation through the Lord's prophets, and we seek spiritual confirmation for what they say. The Lord doesn't seem to have commanded them to seek confirmation about individual members' personal revelations, though they may do this when ministering individually.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

After all is said and done, no, since study (including humble / humbling experience) and faith (including obedience, service and prayer) lead to the companionship of the Holy Ghost and personal revelation. 

I agree.  Each person needs to do their own personal study and prayer.  The result is that different people come to different conclusions or beliefs.

I respect each of the members on this forum.  However, we disagree on most every topic (to some degree and with different posters at different times).  I enjoy the interaction here and learn from reading other's beliefs, feelings and opinions.  But those beliefs or opinions are what it mostly comes down to when we enter a discussion.   What one person believes comes from God...another believes does not come from God.  Bottom line for me is that we are all good people trying to decipher and determine our beliefs and then be true to them.   We also hopefully want to serve and help others....at least that is what motivates me.  That and the love I have for my fellow members and family.  

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Bold added by me.

I don't see any evidence in the LDS practice of plural marriage to support the conclusion that it was focused on the family unit.  I do agree that polygamy was likely more stable than the world's version of polyamory today but...

If we believe that focusing on the family unit means mother/father jointly caring for their children -- we didn't really have that in these situation where there was one father/husband to 13, 33, or 53 wives and dozens of children.  There's no conceivable way that those children had the same relationship with their father as children being raised in a two parent household.

I don't believe that the current Family Proclamation is reconcilable with the early LDS practice of plural marriage.

The lack of attention from a father may seem far from ideal to us as we see it from our own mostly monogamous perspectives when many children were involved. Has anyone done any type of study to find out how children from families of our more famous polygamous leaders turned out in general? I would be interested in reading something on that subject. But it is only fairly recently that we have the expectation of fathers taking a more active role in their children's lives. It has happened as families have gotten smaller and men in general have been able to rise above a survival income level and have been able to do so on forty or so hour a week. There is something I remember from the Book of Mormon, something about the stripling warriors being taught by their mothers. Nothing is said about their fathers. That is interesting.

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

My personal argument in favor of polygamy used to be that it had to be restored as part of the "fullness".  After decades of in depth gospel study and lots of prayer, I've concluded that it was just one of the mistakes of men along the way to us learning the fullness. 

I guess that polygamy would have been something that you would reject after praying about it. There were many that came to the same conclusion when they were approached about it. Men and women. Some left the church over it and some remained. Seems like God still allowed them to remain in the church in good standing.

Glenn

Link to comment
10 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Each person needs to do their own personal study and prayer.  The result is that different people come to different conclusions or beliefs.

I respect each of the members on this forum.  However, we disagree on most every topic (to some degree and with different posters at different times).  I enjoy the interaction here and learn from reading other's beliefs, feelings and opinions.  But those beliefs or opinions are what it mostly comes down to when we enter a discussion.   What one person believes comes from God...another believes does not come from God.  Bottom line for me is that we are all good people trying to decipher and determine our beliefs and then be true to them.   We also hopefully want to serve and help others....at least that is what motivates me.  That and the love I have for my fellow members and family.  

 

Yes, I think the Lord set things up in the Church for each person to do their own personal study and prayer, and hash things out within a key-defined covenant community they commit to charitably sustain by their prayers and works. It requires the Spirit to do that, similarly in the council and counseling processes. I think He wants us to come to a unifying conclusion or belief on the salient points (Joseph Smith called them the “fundamental principles of our religion”), which entails keeping the Great Commandment (which can be applied by everyone by virtue of the light of Christ we are born with irrespective of beliefs and conclusions) in conjunction with avoiding the spirit of contention over His doctrine as administered by proper authority.

Acting charitably in our interactions and differences is a great point, but I was addressing the point of discerning when prophets are and are not speaking the word of the Lord, particularly when they say something one finds objectionable. I acknowledged that it is by personal revelation gained through the Holy Ghost. Of course, we are free to use our own personal judgement, standards, feelings and attitudes instead, or (more typically I think) in some kind of dance with the Spirit as long as He strives with us.

To illustrate, the brother of Jared was not speaking for the Lord when he demonstrated an unexpected level of faith and vision. Additionally, he was commanded not to share this personal revelation but to seal it up for another dispensation. He spoke nothing of it to his own generation or community. Some revelations are reserved for a later time, even when the prophet of that dispensation might have received it prematurely through his faith or not at all, which is more in line with the Lord’s expectation. I doubt the brother of Jared struggled with the gag order, but even if he did, the record shows that he kept it and promoted his community’s unity with the Lord.

I think this chapter from Ether is good to remember when people think the Lord has revealed His word to them that is not in line with, or believe has come earlier to them than to the Brethren. Or when they are relying upon their own judgement to sort things out from past pronouncements that might detract on some level from  the unifying effect of "the fundamental principles of our religion."

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The lack of attention from a father may seem far from ideal to us as we see it from our own mostly monogamous perspectives when many children were involved. Has anyone done any type of study to find out how children from families of our more famous polygamous leaders turned out in general? I would be interested in reading something on that subject. But it is only fairly recently that we have the expectation of fathers taking a more active role in their children's lives. It has happened as families have gotten smaller and men in general have been able to rise above a survival income level and have been able to do so on forty or so hour a week. There is something I remember from the Book of Mormon, something about the stripling warriors being taught by their mothers. Nothing is said about their fathers. That is interesting.

I guess that polygamy would have been something that you would reject after praying about it. There were many that came to the same conclusion when they were approached about it. Men and women. Some left the church over it and some remained. Seems like God still allowed them to remain in the church in good standing.

Glenn

Indeed. We should be wary of judging past family patterns and parental practices using current American patterns and practices....which may not be the best.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I think the Lord set things up in the Church for each person to do their own personal study and prayer, and hash things out within a key-defined covenant community they commit to charitably sustain by their prayers and works. It requires the Spirit to do that, similarly in the council and counseling processes. I think He wants us to come to a unifying conclusion or belief on the salient points (Joseph Smith called them the “fundamental principles of our religion”), which entails keeping the Great Commandment (which can be applied by everyone by virtue of the light of Christ we are born with irrespective of beliefs and conclusions) in conjunction with avoiding the spirit of contention over His doctrine as administered by proper authority.

Acting charitably in our interactions and differences is a great point, but I was addressing the point of discerning when prophets are and are not speaking the word of the Lord, particularly when they say something one finds objectionable. I acknowledged that it is by personal revelation gained through the Holy Ghost. Of course, we are free to use our own personal judgement, standards, feelings and attitudes instead, or (more typically I think) in some kind of dance with the Spirit as long as He strives with us.

To illustrate, the brother of Jared was not speaking for the Lord when he demonstrated an unexpected level of faith and vision. Additionally, he was commanded not to share this personal revelation but to seal it up for another dispensation. He spoke nothing of it to his own generation or community. Some revelations are reserved for a later time, even when the prophet of that dispensation might have received it prematurely through his faith or not at all, which is more in line with the Lord’s expectation. I doubt the brother of Jared struggled with the gag order, but even if he did, the record shows that he kept it and promoted his community’s unity with the Lord.

I think this chapter from Ether is good to remember when people think the Lord has revealed His word to them that is not in line with, or believe has come earlier to them than to the Brethren. Or when they are relying upon their own judgement to sort things out from past pronouncements that might detract on some level from  the unifying effect of "the fundamental principles of our religion."

Interesting.  I suppose you would agree with Clayton Christensen that he was misquoted?

"commenting on a theoretical Mormon disagreement with church doctrine"

Link to comment
23 hours ago, ALarson said:

My belief is that polygamy did not come from God, but from man.  .................................

We have had this discussion and there is no record of God commanding polygamy (the closest is when it is a part of the Levirate marriages, but was never an essential part of them).  I believe what is in the D&C regarding polygamy came from man (and much of it was written for Emma, IMO, because of the problems Joseph was having convincing her he was supposed to marry Fanny, her house maids and other men's wives)..............................................

God not only commanded polygamy, He also closely regulated it.  Presentists always have a hard time dealing with ancient cultures and their traditions.  How do we explain the utter normalcy of the multiple wives of Abraham or Jacob?  Why would God favor them,  if they were so evil by present standards?

"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul, And gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom." (2 Samuel 12:7)
-------------------------------------------------  
Deut 21:15 -"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:   Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:"
 
Exodus 21:10 - "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

God not only commanded polygamy, He also closely regulated it.  Presentists always have a hard time dealing with ancient cultures and their traditions.  How do we explain the utter normalcy of the multiple wives of Abraham or Jacob?  Why would God favor them,  if they were so evil by present standards?

"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul, And gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom." (2 Samuel 12:7)
-------------------------------------------------  
Deut 21:15 -"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:   Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:"
 
Exodus 21:10 - "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."

I actually agree that there’s no command involved in what you quote (or put in bold).

Just because some wives were offered or given, one still has a choice to take them as wives and live polygamy.  And in the last verse, it’s states “if” so there’s still a choice and no command.  There was no commandment or threat of destruction until Joseph reported that.

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
6 hours ago, blueglass said:

Interesting.  I suppose you would agree with Clayton Christensen that he was misquoted?

"commenting on a theoretical Mormon disagreement with church doctrine"

The Nautilus article apparently agrees, and having nothing else to go on, I take both at their published word. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605656/Clayton-Christensen-says-he-was-misquoted-misrepresented-regarding-LDS-Church-same-sex-marriage.html

If you have something more recent than the 2014 Deseret News Article linked above that credibly suggests otherwise I'd be happy to consider otherwise.

I think that theoretical doctrinal discussions may certainly be part of one's good faith learning by study and by faith.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The lack of attention from a father may seem far from ideal to us as we see it from our own mostly monogamous perspectives when many children were involved. Has anyone done any type of study to find out how children from families of our more famous polygamous leaders turned out in general? I would be interested in reading something on that subject. But it is only fairly recently that we have the expectation of fathers taking a more active role in their children's lives. It has happened as families have gotten smaller and men in general have been able to rise above a survival income level and have been able to do so on forty or so hour a week. There is something I remember from the Book of Mormon, something about the stripling warriors being taught by their mothers. Nothing is said about their fathers. That is interesting.

Yes, it's true that the stripling warriors were taught by their mothers.  I suppose the implication of that passage coupled with your commentary is that the fathers of the stripling warriors were too busy hunting, gathering, farming, and guarding to be home teaching.  In that way, they were fulfilling their part of what is indicated by the family proclamation:  "HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations."

I don't doubt that BY loved his children and his wives.  But he seemingly had to split up his time between three dozen conjugal families (not to mention the other wives and families that he didn't live with).  If I saw my father for two weeks per year, how much of an influence would he be?  How loved by him might I feel?

The proclamation includes the command to multiply and replenish the earth.  And Jacob indicates that the purpose of plural marriage would be to raise up righteous seed.  BY averaged just over 1 child per wife.

 

19 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I guess that polygamy would have been something that you would reject after praying about it. There were many that came to the same conclusion when they were approached about it. Men and women. Some left the church over it and some remained. Seems like God still allowed them to remain in the church in good standing.

Glenn

I have tremendous respect for those who participated in plural marriage believing that it was divinely appointed (or commanded).  There are polygamists among my ancestors and I honor the great sacrifice they made for their faith.

Link to comment

Was polygamy a command of God?

I don't have an opinion on that topic. The way that it has shown up for me is that it is immaterial to God. I think there have been times where it has not conflicted with God's purposes and designs and then at other times it has. 

God forbids murder, but he does not forbid killing others. The catch is the circumstances and God's will. 

Human sexuality and the rules that humans use to govern it seem to run from having no morals to being prudes. God's teachings have always centered around sexuality within the bounds He sets. At no time has he taught that we should let our passions run wild. To the contrary, he has always taught that our passions must be mastered; we must be in control of our own house, which prevents us from sinning. 

I have known very few polygamists in my lifetime. Met several in the Middle East and have met children of polygamists in Utah. They all seemed well balanced - BUT, that is only as an observer from the outside. I don't have a clue what it is like from the inside. I suspect it can be like almost any marriage - it all depends on how good the individuals involved are. 

This is a topic that is far from being one of the "hot" topics for me. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

God not only commanded polygamy, He also closely regulated it.  Presentists always have a hard time dealing with ancient cultures and their traditions.  How do we explain the utter normalcy of the multiple wives of Abraham or Jacob?  Why would God favor them,  if they were so evil by present standards?

"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul, And gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom." (2 Samuel 12:7)
-------------------------------------------------  
Deut 21:15 -"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:   Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:"
 
Exodus 21:10 - "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."

I disagree and have already posted why.  As far as I know, there are no scriptures where it states that a person was commanded or mandated to live polygamy (including what you site above) prior to the statements or writings of Joseph Smith.  

In the Samuel reference above, was Saul also commanded to live in the master's house?  And in the Deuteronomy and Exodus references, they both begin with the word "if"....so no commandment there either.  

I'm fine if you disagree and respect your right to do so.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree and have already posted why.  As far as I know, there are no scriptures where it states that a person was commanded or mandated to live polygamy (including what you site above) prior to the statements or writings of Joseph Smith.  

In the Samuel reference above, was Saul also commanded to live in the master's house?  And in the Deuteronomy and Exodus references, they both begin with the word "if"....so no commandment there either.  

I'm fine if you disagree and respect your right to do so.

Would you agree that polygamy has, at times, not been against God's will?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Would you agree that polygamy has, at times, not been against God's will?

I think that’s possible.  Or, God was just unable to get men to listen to His desire for it to stop. 

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I disagree and have already posted why.  As far as I know, there are no scriptures where it states that a person was commanded or mandated to live polygamy (including what you site above) prior to the statements or writings of Joseph Smith.  

In the Samuel reference above, was Saul also commanded to live in the master's house?  And in the Deuteronomy and Exodus references, they both begin with the word "if"....so no commandment there either.  

I'm fine if you disagree and respect your right to do so.

The Deut and Ex references clearly had to do with close regulation, as I had stated.  You don't regulate something of which you don't approve -- at least if you are God.  David was clearly mandated to take the plural wives, in a society in which it was entirely normal.  One doesn't say "you must marry multiple wives" in a society in which it is entirely normal.  You have allowed your modern personal preferences to overrule logic.  As it happens, I do not favor plural wives, but as an anthropologist I see no reason to deny that in most of human history, polygyny has been normal, nor that God was fine with that -- and thus spent little time ordering that practice.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...