Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ray Agostini

Plural Marriage was Essential for Exaltation.

Recommended Posts

Sometime ago when I started the thread about the contradiction between the BoM and D&C 132 I mentioned that in pre-1890 Utah the church leaders taught that plural marriage (PM) was essential to exaltation. Even some informed posters doubted this. So I'm posting some sources below which you can check for yourself. Remember, the problem we are discussing here is that the BoM does NOT teach that PM is essential for exaltation. No matter how you read (twist?) the BoM, it never teaches that, and even if it "allows" for PM it is ONLY to "raise up seed", not to secure your exaltation. Remember that the man perhaps considered to be the greatest prophet in the BoM, Nephi, was a monogamist. As far as we know, except what was wildly speculated by the early Brethren, Jesus was a monogamist (we assume, as we don't even have a record of his marriage to anyone). The greatest Christian missionary ever, and the man it is argued by some is the actual founder of Christianity, Paul, was not even married! Some have suggested that he was a widower, but I don't see any evidence from the New Testament to hold that view. Paul thought he was living in the last days, and he advised people that if they were married to stay that way, and to those who were unmarried - don't bother, you won't have much time left anyway. Now if marriage was so essential to exaltation, or even salvation, should Paul not have been working 24 hours a day to get his people married (sealed) before the second coming? He would have been frantic if that was the case, but he never counselled that.

The church leaders' teaching on the essentiality of PM came from D&C 132. That it was believed that a man could not be saved unless he had multiple wives is certain (a word to the scholastic pedants, sorry I have to use secondary sources from a website, but which are actual quotations from primary sources which you can check for accuracy, and get back to me if necessary):

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... [common background on Joseph Smith, skipped here] ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order of marriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally by the wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divine law, but upon physiological and scientific principles. In the latter view, the wives are even more benefitted, (sp) if possible, than the husband physically. But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes, and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, are immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage covenant.

... As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. ...

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.31, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866

President John Taylor went to the Lord in the True Order of Prayer and asked the Lord concerning His mind and His will concerning continuing practice of plural marriage in the LDS Church? The voice of the Lord came to President Taylor saying - "My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant  and how far it is binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant. For I the Lord am everlasting and my everlastinf (sp?) covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet I have borne with them these many years and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times. And furthermore it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph all those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen."

John Taylor Papers, Church Historian's Office, Sept. 27th, 1886, Centerville, Utah - Unpublished Revelations Vol. 1, Collier,1979.

Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord's servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny "Mormonism," and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by his people.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, p.204 - p.205, Heber C. Kimball, October 12, 1856

I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman will be damned, and they and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and glory there shall be no end. This will equally apply to Jew, Gentile, and Mormon, male and female, old and young.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.211, Heber C. Kimball, April 4, 1866

But one thing I will name, and that is in regard to plural marriage. A great many men say--"Oh, well, I can get along, I can live, and I believe I shall only have one wife." Well, that is your privilege, nobody compels you to take more than one; but with the commandment of the Lord before us like a blaze of light, can we disregard it and serve him acceptably? If we can, then why not retain those laws and commandments in heaven, and not send them down here to earth? These commandments are sent for our good, for our salvation and exaltation. Here is a woman who, in speaking of celestial marriage, says, "It will do very well for others, but it will not do in my house;" "it may do very well for somebody else, because her feelings are not quite so fine as mine, she has been differently raised from what I have." I do not know that the Lord will pay any particular respect as to how we are raised, and how fine and delicate our feelings may be, or how coarse and uncultivated they may be. I believe that if we submit to the law of heaven, that law has power to refine us and to fit us for immortality and eternal life. That is my opinion. Now hear this good sister, she says--"It will not do for me, I am not going to submit to it." Another sister says--"I am willing to submit to the law of Christ." Let these two sisters come together and talk over the law of marriage, and see whether their spirits will run together. They will no more run together than water and oil will unite. ... I am thankful for this privilege of saying a few words. I hope I have done no harm, and that I have not said anything that is contrary to the will of God, or to the feelings of the pure in heart, for they are just as sacred to me as the law of God, and I do not want to unnecessarily offend the ungodly; but I am not so particular to spare or shield them. I want to tell the truth, and bear a faithful testimony. I have been in this Church about forty-three years--almost from the beginning, for I was baptized into the Church on the 31st of October, 1831, and ordained the same day and sent to preach the Gospel, and more or less, most of the time since, I have been engaged in that work.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.16, p.236, Orson Hyde, October 5, 1873

Now, in relation to the position that we occupy concerning plurality, or, as it is termed, polygamy it differs from that of others. I have noticed the usage of several nations regarding marriage; but, as I have said, we are not indebted to any of them for our religion, nor for our ideas of marriage, they came from God. Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, (sp) and I do to-day; (sp) I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good men--it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with eternity. What are the covenants we enter into, and why is it that Joseph Smith said that unless this principle was entered into this kingdom could not proceed? We ought to know the whys and the wherefores in relation to these matters, and understand something about the principle enunciated. These are simply words; we wish to know their signification.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221, John Taylor, April. 7, 1866

Brigham Young, the second President of the Mormon Church made these statements:

Now if any of you will DENY THE PLURALITY OF WIVES and continue to do so, I promise that you will be DAMNED; and I will go still further, and say that this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord had given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that YOU WILL BE DAMNED.

Deseret News Nov. 14, 1855

There are men who say: 'Yield this practice for the present; perhaps public opinion may soften and then this principle may be taught and practiced.'

I look upon such a suggestion as from the DEVIL. It would be quite as proper to propose apostasy for a short season until public opinion would became more favorable to us. If there are any in the Church who cannot stand the pressure instead of talking COMPROMISE, let them WITHDRAW QUIETLY FROM THE CHURCH.

Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 20, page 156

In the Latter Day Saints Millennial Star the following was printed:

Shortly before the revelation known as the manifesto (which put a stop to the practice of polygamy) was given, Lorenzo Snow, who later became President of the Mormon Church, was declaring that no such revelation would ever come. When Lorenzo Snow was on trial for practicing polygamy, Mr. Bierbower (the prosecuting attorney) predicted that if he was convicted, 'a new revelation would soon follow, changing the divine law of celestial marriage.' To this Mr. Snow replied: "Whatever fame Mr. Bierbower may have secured as a lawyer, he certainly will FAIL AS A PROPHET. The severest prosecutions have never been followed by REVELATIONS CHANGING A DIVINE LAW, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom.

Though I go to prison, GOD WILL NOT CHANGE HIS LAW OF CELESTIAL MARRIAGE. But the man, the people, the nation, that oppose and fight against this doctrine and the Church of God, WILL BE OVERTHROWN.

Historical Record, page 144

I have only given half of the statements. You can find all of them at the following link:

http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/required.htm

It seems to me that historical revisionism has finally inculcated into most members that PM is not essential to exaltation, but the evidence shows that before 1890 it was believed that a man could not be exalted without PM. My opinion is that the church will eventually have to choose between the BoM and D&C 132. If it ever came to that it would be much easier to simply excise D&C 132 from the canon, but as you can clearly see, this will leave members doubting everything the Brethren teach, because they will ask themselves whether they can trust their teachings now any better than pre-1890.

Clarification: This does not alter my view that the BoM is divinely inspired. What it does show is why I have had a very difficult time remaining active in the church since the 1980s (and I have previously given my other reasons in other threads), and why I find it so hard to "march in step" when I have many doubts about whether I can "follow the Brethren". I think Brigham Young's test is best applied here: Do not follow the leaders blindly, but work it out for yourselves. But, was he inspired when he gave that counsel?

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with this logic is that it only applies when God commands (Jacob 2:30). We've gone over this already in the other thread and have proven no contradiction between Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132.

Share this post


Link to post

What if God originally said He wouldn't change it? From the sections above:

Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned.
I [the Lord] have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen."

Seems to be something of a disconnect, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

What is "the conditions there of"?

keeping all of Gods commandments no matter how reprehensible they might be. Even to the point of placing your child on an altar having complete faith that God was able to raise him from the dead.

Share this post


Link to post

Why, then, is Section 132 still in the canon, if it is only a reference to plural marriage?

I will tell you.

Because the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage refers to marriages solemnized in the Temples. It does not refer only to the second and later marriages. If it did, the first marriage of a (soon-to-be) polygamous man would be insufficient until he made that second step.

Even John Taylor's celebrated revelation of 1886, said to ensure that polygamy would last forever, never uses that term. It uses the above term only (New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage).

The quotes above are from a time when church leaders were vigorous in their defense of plural marriage. They could hardly speak otherwise. But I consider that their declarations go beyond the intent of Section 132, which is to delineate the marriage covenants of the temple.

This is the marriage that I am entered into now. That my parents are entered into. And their parents.

Removal of Section 132 would destroy the scriptural foundation for temple marriage. Do any of us want that?

I see no need to "choose" between DC132 and Jacob 2.

Beowulf

Share this post


Link to post

Not to mention Matthew 19 and Genesis. Marriage was eternal from the get go.

Share this post


Link to post
QUOTE 

In the Latter Day Saints Millennial Star the following was printed:

Shortly before the revelation known as the manifesto (which put a stop to the practice of polygamy) was given, Lorenzo Snow, who later became President of the Mormon Church, was declaring that no such revelation would ever come. When Lorenzo Snow was on trial for practicing polygamy, Mr. Bierbower (the prosecuting attorney) predicted that if he was convicted, 'a new revelation would soon follow, changing the divine law of celestial marriage.' To this Mr. Snow replied: "Whatever fame Mr. Bierbower may have secured as a lawyer, he certainly will FAIL AS A PROPHET. The severest prosecutions have never been followed by REVELATIONS CHANGING A DIVINE LAW, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom.

Though I go to prison, GOD WILL NOT CHANGE HIS LAW OF CELESTIAL MARRIAGE. But the man, the people, the nation, that oppose and fight against this doctrine and the Church of God, WILL BE OVERTHROWN.

Historical Record, page 144

That is funny...I guess the prosecutor was correct in all things...lol

Share this post


Link to post

Is there any modern thought or revelation or literature on the commonly-held idea that there will be polygamous marriages in the celestial kingdom? I'm not talking about Brigham Young or anything, but more recent, like in Mormon Doctrine or the Ensign. Just curious...

Share this post


Link to post

The only contradiction is of your own making. What does Jacob say? Its says (Paraphrasing) NO plural marriage unless I the Lord Command it)

1.) We started it when He commanded (actually a bit after the command).

2.) It was required of those that it was required of, if you turned it down after being commanded you lost you excaltation.

3.) We stopped it when the Lord commanded.

It really is quite simple. Section 132 is about Temple marriages NOT plural marriages. Being only about 3% of men were required to take extra wives, it would be pretty silly of anyone to think it was a requirement to reach the CK.

Share this post


Link to post
The only contradiction is of your own making. What does Jacob say? Its says (Paraphrasing) NO plural marriage unless I the Lord Command it)

1.) We started it when He commanded (actually a bit after the command).

2.) It was required of those that it was required of, if you turned it down after being commanded you lost you excaltation.

3.) We stopped it when the Lord commanded.

It really is quite simple. Section 132 is about Temple marriages NOT plural marriages. Being only about 3% of men were required to take extra wives, it would be pretty silly of anyone to think it was a requirement to reach the CK.

I am quite amazed that despite all of the above clear quotations and reasoning that this line of thought still persists. But a few other respondents have mirrored the same thing. I think it's quite clear that there is a serious contradiction here, and David Whitmer, for one, had no trouble whatsoever seeing it. But Whitmer, and all others who point this out will be flooded with counter-arguments. I have no problem with that. It is not my wish to argue with people who want to believe whatever suits them according to however they interpret the revelations. The way I clearly interpret the contradiction leaves me seriously in doubt that Jacob and D&C 132 "harmonise". Only some high trapeze verbal acrobatics can alleviate the problem, IMO.

If D&C 132 were for real, then the Nephites should have revealed all of this. It would have been consistent teaching since the time of Abraham, when it was supposedly first given. And if God did not reveal it to the Nephites, one can only wonder why? No where in the BoM does it explicitly say that PM is necessary to exaltation (salvation), and as for the meaning of the term "new and everlasting covenant", that was initially and specifically plural marriage, that is what D&C 132 is. Later re-interpretations made it apply to monogamous marriage too. That is what I meant by historical revisionism. Just think of the circumstances surrounding the reception of section 132. Joseph produced it to convince his wife that PM was necessary both to her and his exaltation.. It was not a revelation about monogamy, but about polygamy.

We can argue that the Nephites didn't have this teaching, or that scripture, and find all kinds of loopholes to explain the problem, but the bottom line is this: If it was so essential, then why didn't God reveal this to the Nephites?

Share this post


Link to post

Ray, you are right, it WAS initially about plural marriage.

But since its tenets can be applied WITHOUT CHANGE to our temple marriages today, I do not see that there is any contradiction.

Under Section 132, my marriage to my single (one-and-only) wife is just as legitimate as Brigham Young's 27 or Heber Kimball's 55 (I think he holds the record...) or my great-great-grandfather's 5 wives.

That is the point that I was trying to make.

(Regardless of what somebody said in the JoD in the 1870s.)

Beowulf

Share this post


Link to post

Hello There,

The problem with this logic is that it only applies when God commands (Jacob 2:30).

Share this post


Link to post
Is there any modern thought or revelation or literature on the commonly-held idea that there will be polygamous marriages in the celestial kingdom? I'm not talking about Brigham Young or anything, but more recent, like in Mormon Doctrine or the Ensign. Just curious...

I perscribe to the "it will all work out in the wash" Theory, where such sealings are allowed temperally, cause its the only theory that really covers all the bases for a siduation where you could die, and wife will remarry, decide she likes the new guy better, and you'll end up a ministering angel.

In the "it will all work out in the wash" theory, maybe you'll get credit for trying. And would have to marry one of those sisters who weren't able to be married on earth for whatever reason, or perhaps a spare wife from some else. Who knows.

As it seems better not to think about it; all the permutations of celestial sealing begin to boggle the mind! Hence I think I'll just trust that it will all work out in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Lori

When I was reading Mormon Polygamy I read of an apostle who was monogamous. I can't remember his name, but wondered why he was monogamous if they were teaching this principle to the church for their exaltation?

Does anybody know anything about why he was monogamous?

I also wondered if there were monogamous sealings in the temple since most of the church didn't practice polygamy.

I personally feel when I read about Joseph's proposals and all the statements by polygamous prophets, that it was used to brain wash women. I felt that from the first moment I read about Fanny Alger and then the rest of them. It hit me like tidal wave because everything that has never made sense suddenly does.

I do have a testimony of the Book Of Mormon but I am not so sure about Modern Revelation anymore. I do believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet. I just wish it didn't make perfect sense that they severly perverted an exception to the rule of monogamy. Emma wasn't barren.

Share this post


Link to post
When I was reading Mormon Polygamy I read of an apostle who was monogamous.  I can't remember his name, but wondered why he was monogamous if they were teaching this principle to the church for their exaltation?

Does anybody know anything about why he was monogamous?

I'm not sure who the apostle was, but I do know that Spencer W. Kimball's father refused to accept polygamy, though asked to enter it. He was not alone. There were men who could not bring themselves to this. My feeling is that if a man loves his wife then his feelings will be exclusively for her, and if they aren't then there are two options: infidelity, or polygamy justified in the name of God. Some of the sisters radically defended polygamy, saying that debauchery occurred in the world when men had no option but monogamy. That's nonsense. IMO "debauchery" is better than ensalving a dozen women to one man, at least that way the women can choose, but under theocratic polygamy they are threatened with hellfire if they do not share.

Listen to how the modern prophets, post-polygamy, have spoken about their wives, particularly David O. McKay, who said in his 90s that he was as much in love, more, then as he was when they first married. Can anyone seriously imagine him saying that with a dozen wives?

There is an argument that panders to the "men are hypersexual and need multiple women" idea. Maybe men who are unstable and who have never truly loved. Yes, lots of them around, but if he found his true love would he want another? If he truly loved her? And to test his mettle, would he be willing to share her "in the name of God"? In this case I accept what many have said, that polygamy is revolting to the natural sense.

Please note how close polygamy stands to power, possessions, and pride:

[5] But behold, hearken ye unto me, and know that by the help of the all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth I can tell you concerning your thoughts, how that ye are beginning to labor in sin, which sin appeareth very abominable unto me, yea, and abominable unto God.

[6] Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.

[7] And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;

[8] And it supposeth me that they have come up hither to hear the pleasing word of God, yea, the word which healeth the wounded soul.

[9] Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

[10] But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God.

[11] Wherefore, I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word which I shall give thee unto this people.

[12] And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.

[13] And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

[14] And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

[15] O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!

[16] O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!

[17] Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.

[18] But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

[19] And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good -- to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

[20] And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it?

[21] Do ye not suppose that such things are abominable unto him who created all flesh? And the one being is as precious in his sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust; and for the selfsame end hath he created them, that they should keep his commandments and glorify him forever.

[22] And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

[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.

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

[32] And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[33] For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[34] And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

[35] Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.  Jacob 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Lori

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

[32] And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[33] For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[34] And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

[35] Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds. Jacob 2

When I read these scriptures Brigham Young comes to mind. Listen to what he says of the tears and weeping of the women in polygamy:

>"Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it

>is frequently happening that women say they are UNHAPPY. Men will say,

>'My wife, though a most excellent woman, has NOT SEEN A HAPPY DAY SINCE

>I TOOK MY SECOND WIFE,' 'No, NOT A HAPPY DAY FOR A YEAR,' says one;

>and another HAS NOT SEEN AHAPPY DAY FOR FIVE YEARS. It is said that

>women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the

>liberty they ought to have; that many of them ARE WADING THROUGH A

>PERFECT FLOOD OF TEARS,...

I just don't know why some people can't make the connection. It doesn't mean the Book of Mormon isn't true. It just means that we shouldn't put all our faith in man. Revelations are not always from God.

Share this post


Link to post

Kind of like this one?

Lev. 3: 17

17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

1 Tim 4

1 NOW the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

:P

Perhaps we should throw Peters Table cloth vision out to?

Then the only people who can be saved are the Israelites?!

Hey?!!! Maybe no one can be saved?

Ex 20

13 Thou shalt not kill.

Next Breath...

Ex 21

7

Share this post


Link to post

So which ones of these are from God Lori?

Is this one from God?

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Share this post


Link to post

So which ones of these are from God Lori?

Is this one from God?

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

He must have been saying 2--5% of the population of the church today practiced it back then. :P The beauties of having lawyers among the brethren!

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,

Lori I can't confirm Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's plural wife. She never spoke for herself abut whether the affair was polygamy or just an affair. A lot of the information on the case comes from second hane rumor mongerors which shouldn't be considered reliable.

I saw a statement from I think Mosiah Hancock & his father Levi in Mosiah's auto-biography that I am not sure is a reliable source. I found out that Mosiah Had produced a false record of a prophecy his father supposedly heard from Joseph Smith Jr. that his son would be a great false prophet. If the prophecy was fabricated & attributed in Utah to Joseph Smith Jr. his credibility is shot. Todd Comptom relied on the story which I saw as weak when I saw his source establishing this as polygamy.

Also Ann Eliza Webb Young was about two years old when Fanny Alger was pregnant Joseph Smith Jr's daughter. Without the credibility of her father being established he could have lied. But she was to young to remember anything herself.

Benjamin F. Johnson did claim she was Joseph's plural wife but this was on second hand rummors. If Joseph Smith Jr. had told him then his quote would work a little better from me.

I don't trust Benjamin F. Johnson. I believe he provided false information about Joseph Smith Jr. & plural marriage. I noticed that Hyrum Smith in his story had tried to convine Almira to Marry Joseph Smith Jr. She supposedly co-habitated with Joseph Smith Jr by staying in room No.10 in the mansion house. They returned to Macadonia on about April 23, 1843. (In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Comptom Which caused me to notice a serious problem with his stories.page 296, 297.) Hyrum Smith was an active opponent of plural marriage as late as May 14, 1843.(Mormon Enigma, Emma Hale Smith Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery pg. 141.) There's no way Hyrum Smith could have gotten Almira to marry Joseph Smith Jr. on that April visit because Hyrum Smith Jr. had not learned about it yet.

The above presentation is devestating to Almira Johnson, Benjamin F. Johnson's affidavits regarding Joseph Smith & polygamy. If he perjured himself how can we believe either Almira Johnson, or Delcina Johnson were Joseph's wives. She perpetrated the same stories he did. He's the source for the popular quotes about Fanny Alger, one of the partridge sisters & his accusations Joseph Smith Jr. had married his sister. Unless I have missed some solution he looks like he was clearly guilty of fraud.

Oliver Cowdery & Warren Parrish were obviously upset about Joseph Smith Jr's sin enough to spread rumors.

After the Latter-day Saints got to Utah she unfortunately without proof got listed as a plural wife of Joseph Smith Jr. Most of the presentations I hear read on case are non-sense. I had a Restoration Apologetics by RLDS Apologist Jim Reeves that presented information about Ann Eliza's slanderous pregnancy myth. I believe if I remember the rumor of pregnacy was in Wylheim Wyll's Mormon Portraits. I think Chauncey Webb her father was the source.

Without proof it's not known whether Joseph Smith Jr. made a polygamist proposal to her. I had a letter quotes from William Mclellen which I see as weak. His 1847 conversation with Emma Smith doesn't look as strong as it does to others. I am not sure she told him that Fanny Alger was Joseph's plural wife. More likely Emma admitted some truth in the story but did not confirm all of the unsubstantiated rumors.

Sincerely,

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Is there any modern thought or revelation or literature on the commonly-held idea that there will be polygamous marriages in the celestial kingdom? I'm not talking about Brigham Young or anything, but more recent, like in Mormon Doctrine or the Ensign. Just curious...

No. We do have Pres Hinckley saying in an interview that he did not expect to see polygamy again. I have never understood the weeping and wailing over this in any case because, 1. Heaven will be...heavenly! So nothing that occurs there could be horrible by definition. So either there is no polygamy or polygamy is not horrible! 2. Anyone in the situation to be married will be a god which should be a fairly secure position in which to make your own decisions.

It should be obvious that those who engaged in polygamy did it out of religious conviction and they would hardly do it unless they did feel it necessary for their salvation. But there is nothing before or after that. And...the majority of people did not take plural wives...and they also had positions of leadership.

You would be hard pressed to make any scriptural connection other than one that says very plainly that it is a sometime thing. And we also have the very real logistical problem of not having enough extra females...and if we did, the CK would be run by women. I notice this tendency to think that one man surrounded by 30 goddesses would somehow be the Alpha Dog. On what basis? He is only half of a god without a female half and can do nothing without concensus. That would be a lot of consenus.

It is absurd to talk of polygamy as an eternal principle while never removing it from a 19th century political and social milieu. The only thing we keep current on is sex...and we bring our hormones into our speculations for some reason. We also have polyandry...why is there this implicit assumption that this practice should go by the wayside if we keep polygyny? Did anyone ever denounce it? Were those sealings undone?

There are so many underlying premises going on that no one ever untangles...we just pile more on top of them.

Share this post


Link to post

When I read these scriptures Brigham Young comes to mind. Listen to what he says of the tears and weeping of the women in polygamy:

>"Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it

>is frequently happening that women say they are UNHAPPY. Men will say,

>'My wife, though a most excellent woman, has NOT SEEN A HAPPY DAY SINCE

>I TOOK MY SECOND WIFE,' 'No, NOT A HAPPY DAY FOR A YEAR,' says one;

>and another HAS NOT SEEN AHAPPY DAY FOR FIVE YEARS. It is said that

>women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the

>liberty they ought to have; that many of them ARE WADING THROUGH A

>PERFECT FLOOD OF TEARS,...

I just don't know why some people can't make the connection. It doesn't mean the Book of Mormon isn't true. It just means that we shouldn't put all our faith in man. Revelations are not always from God.

And yet the women defended the practice. We need to respect their life choices and I find it insulting that we dismiss them. There was a also a pretty healthy divorce rate (thanks to BY)...with some women leaving one plural marriage and going to another. Do we have any business demeaning their choices from our armchairs? Utah became the Las Vegas destination for all of America for awhile divorces were so easy.

Another thing that has been overlooked in probably the best book out there...Compton's....is that the saints were literally starving during these early years. There was not enough to go around. Again, we are operating on assumptions and throwing more on top of them. And every assumption whether about then or in the afterlife has as its foundation that women are not capable of making their own decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Lori

When I read these scriptures Brigham Young comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post

You have to keep in mind WHY they defended it.  They were raised and commanded by the prophets that they would be damned if they didn't.

Also, if there wasn't enough food to go around then they should have stopped taking more wives.

My point exactly. You have no problem demeaning women as mindless fools if it makes your point...and the women who started this all were marrying the prophets..not being raised by them. And if there is not enough food...there is not enough food. What difference would it make who was married to who? The mouth still exists. If one wants to get practical, it would make more sense to combine in large households in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post

Anything God commands us to follow is necessary for exaltation. However, that doesnt mean He commands us all the same things. He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. It was required for Abraham's salvation. That doesnt mean we have to sacrifice our children to be exalted.

The point is anything God commands us is required for our exaltation. God has specifically commanded us not to marry more than one wife. so we jeopardize our exaltation if we violate that command.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×