All Activity

Section 132 states, "any man who has this law revealed unto him must obey the same" -- not 'believe' this law, but 'obey' this law, so I don't consider a belief-only interpretation as aligning with an exegetical reading of it. I consider Brigham Young's words on the matter, not just his words in selective instances, as indicating that he believed "living" polygamy (not just believing in it) to be necessary for exaltation. Peder Wellentine's contemporaneous written words, heard first-hand, were from a conference attended by hundreds of priesthood holders. Joseph F. Smith was then here giving blanket teaching to all men present that they have to practice polygamy under threat of being separated from their loved ones by God. My argument doesn't really have to do with what "is" or "isn't" Latter-day Saint theology or canonized theology. Even the "canonized theology" has had 180⁰ changes, as the monogamous Section 101 was replaced with the polygamous Section 132. My core argument is that Brigham Young changed certain doctrines of God as taught by Joseph Smith and introduced false doctrines, like polygamy. I hope that clarifies my position to you more, I realize that I didn't explicitly explain that first. A much larger compilation of stories of women in polygamy than Carol Lynn Pearson's book would be Jennie Anderson Froiseth's volume of interviews, which is hundreds of pages long and was written contemporaneously. It's free to read online and I would recommend doing so if you think that women in polygamy were generally satisfied or content, or that they somehow had not actually been taught that polygamy was the "highest principle" (Monogamy as Divine Design makes reference to Froiseth in a couple of the sections, I don't know which ones and can't look it up now as I'm on my phone.) But it seems from your responses that you haven't yet ventured to read the Historical Monogamy Doctrine or Monogamy as Divine Design sites, which is perhaps why we've not had a proper baseline of understanding in our back-and-forth together. I'd encourage you to read them as there is expounding of thought in them that I haven't seen elsewhere and that I feel very grateful to have learned. At the very least, by reading them you can come back after and convince me why they're all wrong: Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

So 132:61 is speaking of unmarried (unattached) women who are not virgins?

Show me where the elders accumulated virgins but remained celibate after each instance. Imagine this conversation ... "Sorry honey, but I'm going to marry up to ten virgins but I promise to remain celibate with each one of them" Did Joseph Smith remain celibate with Emma?

Plucking a 3rd-hand journal recollections or newspaper poems out of context isn't an exegetical reading of LDS doctrine, it's quote-mining. 1856 Deseret News song and similar sermons were produced during the Mormon Reformation of 1856–1857. Jedediah M. Grant and Brigham Young launched a fiery revival campaign characterized by hyperbole, intense calls to repentance, rebaptisms, and heavy pressure to adopt plural marriage as a mark of spiritual devotion. A short-lived revival is not a permanent baseline of Latter-day Saint theology, nor canonized theology. Wilford Woodruff's diary noting that Brigham Young believed the very common Christian and Saint belief the end times were coming soon, and saying that one man might have to 'take thousands' was apocalyptic hyperbole regarding the last days, not a literal domestic mandate. Keep mining databases for the most shocking, extreme quote available, while ignoring how historical documentation and the church canon actually functions. Peder Wallentine's personal, third-party diary entry is not an official published sermon, a transcript, or canonized doctrine. In 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which made "unlawful cohabitation" a crime and stripped polygamists of the right to vote or hold public office. Some leaders did give fiery, defensive talks attempting to rally members against the government pressure. However, when speaking in an official, published capacity, Joseph F. Smith explicitly clarified the exact opposite. In 1878 (published in the Journal of Discourses, 20:28), Joseph F. Smith taught that plural marriage was not a universal condition for exaltation for every individual, but was only required of those who were specifically commanded by God in their circumstances. Using Carol Lynn Pearson's book (The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy) to argue that people entered plural marriage out of fear of losing their families, I don't deny that high-pressure sermons caused intense personal anxiety or that some families suffered heartbreak because of it. But rhetoric and individual decisions do not equate to the overarching doctrine of the Church, the story does not reflect a majority consensus among Latter-day Saints that only polygamists could be exalted. Historical diaries, journals, and official Church teaching you didn't find in your database shows how the majority of the Saints understood polygamy. Most Saints understood that one had to merely accept plural marriage as a divinely restored principle to be a "polygamist in faith," as Brigham Young put it, rather than every single individual physically entering a plural marriage. The Saints understood it was a specific calling or stewardship given to certain individuals, often leaders or men with financial means, not a blanket mandate for every member of the Church. And Saints understood the doctrine of exaltation centered on being sealed by priesthood authority in the temple and applied fully to monogamous couples. Carol Lynn Pearson’s heartbreaking human experiences stand out in historical literature precisely because they represent the extreme examples. While these incidents happened, treating them as representative of the everyday beliefs and lived realities of the majority of Saints is historically inaccurate.

Was it the same Joseph F. Smith who said this: He finally concluded with these striking remarks: to all who have received the priesthood but have never lived with but one wife at a time in this world, it matters not what excuse you may make, you may say you was unable to support any more wives, you may say you have had sealed to you dead women, or you may say you could find none that would have you, suffereth to say [if] you have lived with but one wife, that wife and her children will be taken from you and given to some man who has more than one wife and you will be that man’s servant. --- Journal of Peder Christian Wallentine, 1883 --- The quote, "many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family" still holds for me, because there were women and men who believed, based on what church leaders said, that they were required of God to be polygamists, even if they didn't want to, and would face eternal consequences if they didn't. The address given by Brigham Young above specifically caused one of Carol Lynn Pearson's ancestors to take a second wife against his first wife's wishes -- the first wife, her great-something grandmother, immediately left him, breaking the family up. She relates the story in her book.

You may interpret most Mormon men not being polygamist as argument that polygamy was not intended for everyone by Brigham Young, but I think he definitely meant it for every man in the church: He [Brigham Young] also said the Lord was about to Empty the earth th[at?] men would be destroyed & He should live to see the day when thousands of women would Come to the men of this Church for salvation. One man would have to take thousands to save them. Journal of Wilford Woodruff Brigham Young wasn't the only one to be preaching "polygamy is necessary for exaltation" either: MDD 65 ~ Women given charge to help recruit additional wives for their husband ~ The idea that a wife must be in a polygamous marriage to obtain exaltation was promoted in the following song published in the Deseret News in 1856, which went so far as to state that wives should be employed in helping their husbands find additional wives to secure their own exaltation, Now sisters, list to what I say With trials this world is rife, you can't expect to miss them all, Help husband get a wife! Now, this advice I freely give, If exalted you would be, Remember that your husband must Be blessed with more than thee. Then O, let us say, God bless the wife that strives And aids her husband all she can T' obtain a dozen wives. Deseret News, 26 November 1856. Certain LDS members have argued that even when polygamy was in practice, monogamy was still regarded as the primary law of marriage, and that polygamy was taught to be the exception. But the teachings of the church of Brigham Young's day could not have been further removed from honoring monogamy as the primary law of marriage. Monogamy as Divine Design

30. 'But what if there are more righteous women than men? Weren't there a higher number of Mormon women than men in Utah? Early Mormon polygamy severely exacerbated, rather than resolved, any gender disparity by creating a severely limited number of available women for single men. A National Institute of Health meta analysis states that there was an average of 2.6 times more single men than single women throughout the course of polygamy being practiced by early Mormons. This imbalance continued until monogamy was mandated by enforcement, at which point the ''mate selection competitiveness'' afterwards fell (meaning balanced-out) by eight levels of measured intensity. Historical Monogamy Doctrine It doesn't make sense that Brigham Young was arguing things both ways -- he argued that any man in the church who wasn't a polygamist would be damned from exaltation, but then he also married such a high number of women to himself and other already-polygamists, that there weren't enough single women for all the single priesthood holders who were left to even have one wife -- so then you can argue, "those men perhaps weren't righteous enough", but he taught that any priesthood holder who wasn't a polygamist was defaulting their own chances at exaltation, meaning that he apparently thought that any "man in the church", as he is quoted above, *should* be a polygamist. His teachings were that polygamy is what gets a priesthood holder exaltation, and condemned any man who hadn't yet found a plural wife -- even though by math he made it so that there literally weren't enough single women for all the priesthood holders. He even said that even if a man had tried but hadn't found anyone wanting to be his plural wife, it's still the man's fault and he would still be out of exaltation as a result. Brigham Young: *creates a severe shortage of single women to single men* Also Brigham Young: "If you can't find one wife it's your fault, and if you only find one wife that's your fault too and she'll be taken from you in heaven." I've seen many arguments over the exact gender ratio of the early Mormon church in Utah, debating exactly how many more "faithful" women there were to whatever are deemed to be the number of men with the "same level of faithfulness", but whatever side of the argument you are on, there was definitely not twice as many women to faithful priesthood holders, so that made every faithful man having two wives untenable, which made Brigham Young and others of the Twelve having dozens of wives an even bigger demographic problem.

Did Section 132 then make plural marriage mandatory for everyone who heard it? No, it didn't. Even under Brigham Young, the majority of active Latter-day Saints were monogamous, and could never be polygamists if they wanted to. If plural marriage were the sole requirement to enter exaltation, the overwhelming majority of Saints, including bishops, stake leaders, and faithful members and every member not in the US would have been excluded. The quotes from Brigham Young in 1873 are historical footnotes, they don't define the universal doctrine of the Church, and ignores both the specific historical context of the 1870s and subsequent clarification by Church leaders. Brigham was not talking to those who simply lived faithful monogamous lives because they were never called to take additional wives. Men were typically called and vetted by local bishops or First Presidency leaders who deliberately targeted men of means who were financially, socially, and spiritually stable enough to provide housing, food, and protection for additional families, especially single immigrant women, widows, and young women who lacked financial support on the frontier. When Brigham Young made statements like the one in 1873, he was speaking directly to men who had been extended specific callings to care for women in the community and shrank back from that responsibility. Brigham Young believed that backing down or choosing monogamy out of cowardice or social pressure was a failure of faith. It was harsh rhetoric preached to push men who had been called. In the very same August 19, 1866 discourse in which Brigham Young you partially quoted, he explicitly softened his speech, "Now, we as a people will be polygamists, at least in our faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:269) Leaders both during and after Brigham Young's era clarified that plural marriage was never a universal command. Wilford Woodruff explicitly stated that monogamous men and women could attain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Joseph F. Smith taught in 1878 that plural marriage was only required of those to whom it was specifically commanded or given as a personal law by God, not an absolute blanket mandate for every individual in all eras. D&C 132:19 explicitly states that a man and one wife sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise will inherit exaltation. Claiming Saints only entered polygamy out of 'fear of damnation' oversimplifies history.

John Tucker was born to a prominent family in the Kingston Order of polygamists, his father being the leader of the Order. This video details his life growing up in the Order, marrying, suffering from growing doubts, before eventually leaving with his wife and being baptized into the LDS church. After joining the LDS church, he received a baptism of fire experience, saw visions of Christ, saw his ancestor in the temple, was taught the scriptures personally by the Spirit and by Christ, and gained a testimony that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist and that polygamy was never of God. I included timestamps for the video below. 00:00 Introduction 03:30 John's predecessors forming the Order from LDS dissenters 10:00 John growing up not knowing he had a father, wives living as single mothers, incestual infertility 17:15 Origins of the Order, family dynamics, and Order dynamics 23:15 His mother's devotion, testimonies of polygamy 28:30 The devolution of polygamous systems, marriages being orchestrated 30:45 Spiritual experiences within and outside of the Order, John's father saving him at birth, polygamous miracles and lessons 48:30 Gender number imbalances, polygamous dating relationships 55:00 Cognitive dissonance, the doctrine of exaltation 57:30 The hardest challenge within the Order, and his relationships with his siblings 59:50 Near fatal experience in the mine, being saved by his mother's Spirit-prompted prayer 1:09:10 Doctrinal doubts, severe financial struggles 1:35:35 LDS missionaries knock on his door, attending LDS church 1:48:00 Jesus teaching him the scriptures 1:55:15 Criminal abuses within the Order 2:01:45 Birth defects within the Order, and "the promises of the fathers" 2:06:50 Leaving the Order officially, joining the LDS church, seeing his ancestor in the temple, COVID years 2:20:45 His baptism of fire experience, visions of the Savior 2:36:20 Gaining a testimony that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, being taught of the Spirit that polygamy is never of God 2:42:30 Outreach to his extended family 2:50:30 His post-polygamy mentality

It isn't really obvious from how the site uses those quotes, but the last quote (the one from the Historical Record) is talking about Joseph Smith. It is Benjamin Johnson's testimony about what Joseph taught him. Joseph was asking Benjamin to help him propose to Almera Johnson and gave that indication. The first quote is interesting because shortly before he says that, he also says: Basically, the reason why the saints were commanded to take more wives is because there aren't enough good men. The second quote is Wilford Woodruff's journal entry about the 1873 discourse. So it isn't a separate time that Brigham Young said it.

Those are good questions to ponder. Thinking about it, my first instinct is to ask the question, are we morally bound to accept all verdicts that come through a court of law? What about people who are found guilty but actually were innocent and exonerated (as proven later through DNA)? Would it have been wrong for those who believed in their innocence to rail against the legal system at the time they were incarcerated? If the answer is no, then it could not be wrong to rail against the legal system if someone were found innocent that we believed was guilty. From that perspective I don't think we are under any obligation to replace our well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone based solely on what a judge or 12 people's interpretation of the evidence decides. Legally, yes they have been found innocent (or guilty) and I do believe we have a duty to support the system that made the judgement. But it's not a perfect system and as long as innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent I don't believe we are under any personal obligation to agree with the outcome of a trial. Especially not a rape trial where much (if not most) of the evidence that would be put forth could be subjective in nature.

They accepted Jesus’s and Paul’s call to celibacy even within marriage?

I still don't think that interpretation works with an exegetical reading of Section 132, as it says, "all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." Such an interpretation of the law of polygamy was also not shared by Brigham Young, 93 ~ Those unwilling to practice polygamy were told they would lose their families in the hereafter ~ In later years Brigham Young went so far as to teach that a husband who was living monogamously would have his wife taken from him in the eternities: Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.' He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.... and he will remain single forever and ever. Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873. Journal of Discourses volume 16, pg. 166. August 31, 1873 [A] man who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [be] taken from him & given to another. Prophet Brigham Young, quoted by Wilford Woodruff, in Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 579 He also told me that he would preach a sermon that day for me which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend its meaning. His subject was the ten talents, “Unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from him that hath not (or will not receive), shall be taken away that which he hath (or might have had).” Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children, as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future to those who were heirs of salvation. The Historical Record: https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord06jens/page/220/mode/2up In light of this it could be argued that many may have entered polygamy not due to belief of it being a wonderful, glorious principle of heaven, but out of fear of receiving cursing, eternal damnation, and being eternally separated from one's family. Historical Monogamy Doctrine

The revelation sets out broader teachings about eternal marriage and plural marriage. But has a personal context involving Joseph and Emma. The passage is describing one category of authorized plural marriage, while other arrangements may have involved different circumstances. Verse 64 is specifically about a wife in a particular situation "If any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things…" The verse then says she must "believe and administer unto him." The verse describes a husband who holds the relevant keys and teaches his wife the law. It is not phrased as a general instruction to every woman or every married couple. It doesn't establish a universal command for every Church member to practice it.

@Grok In response to your summary of the aftermath for men accused of rape falsely, Chat wanted me to be sure and let you know its opinion: Chat knows it can go a bit long at times, it is used to a slower pace, so provided this Tl;dr version for Grok as well because it knows Grok is quite busy these days and wants to help the whiz kid make his mark in the digital world….

I am undecided on that point, as I think the evidence available to date is not sufficient to establish guilty intent. That said, everyone was blotto, so if everyone lacked the capacity to consent, then Jane Does might be seen as also being "guilty (morally) of rape." Alas, that won't happen. At this point, even an acquittal or a retraction from Jane Doe would not restore them to their status quo ante. I think news stories that get this sort of coverage seldom end in rational outcomes. For many, the options are A) the frat guys are guilty of rape, or B) the frat guys got away with rape. I asked Grok what happened to the men accused in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Scandal: And that was for men who were affirmatively exonerated and won millions in compensation. These guys will likely live the rest of their lives under the stigma of the accusations, regardless of whether the allegations are proved up or rebutted. Thanks, -Smac

.

We aren’t responsible for the verdict or the punishment if any of those involved. We aren’t the immediate victims having to live with the consequences (though I see our society as a whole victimized when such behavior is being allowed to continue without much consequence). Railing against the system would be pretty meaningless and a waste of energy and increase unnecessary stress, so not that healthy. Better to respond in a constructive way and go to work promoting the change you need to see…such as stronger penalties for colleges that avoid doing more than checking the box when it comes to the Campus SaVE act that requires, I believe, the evidence based effective bystanders intervention program. Apparently all colleges are ‘complying’, but if compliance is one event when students and faculty first join the college when they are likely already overwhelmed from all the other new info they are exposed to, that’s just performance and not commitment. The requirement needs to be tougher. These are programs that actually work to prevent rapes. https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/2016 Another intelligent response would be to discontinue frat or sorority houses as their culture is correlated the likelihood of sexual assault (drinking especially, but also social expectations with dating/sex) and disband any club with members engaging in excessive drinking behavior at formal and informal gatherings (sure, kids will get together and do it any way off campus, etc, but making it harder and less prestigious is likely to help).

I used to assume that eternal progeny meant eternal sex too, but I think the theories of Monogamy as Divine Design make more sense: MDD 3. "Wouldn't being a polygamist mean that God the Father can produce more spirit children more quickly?" Many Latter-day Saints have assumed that if we teach of resurrected bodies, eternal marriage, and eternal progeny, then there must be eternal procreative sex too. This assertion has been used to argue for the validity (and even advantage) of eternal polygamy as well. While a woman living infinitely could be consecutively pregnant with an infinite number of children even if produced one-by-one, it is noted that a God-man with more than one immortal partner can produce an infinite number of children at an even faster rate than if He has only one partner. This has been an argument for eternal polygamy for at least a hundred years. It has caused outside critics to point out that such an idea means a heaven of men potentially having eternal harems of women who are eternally pregnant and burdened with child-bearing. This "women as eternal incubators" idea has sometimes been given as reason when asked why we do not hear more of Heavenly Mother, asserting that She is too busy spiritually birthing more spirit children, and so being more involved in our lives is therefore not part of Her role. But it would be worthy to consider why the mechanics of human reproduction are as they are, and consider if they are perhaps mechanics that only apply to humans — Males emit about 200 to 500 million sperm with each ejaculation. Even when conception succeeds, only one (or in rare cases, two or three) sperm ever successfully fertilize an egg. This "less than 100,000,000 to 1 odds" is an evolutionary feature to help ensure that only one of the highest caliber of sperm succeed in fertilizing the egg, but the inefficiency of having literally hundreds of millions of sperm be wasted with every emission in order to weed out any defective or weak sperm would not likely be a feature of reproduction in a heavenly realm with no risk of genetic imperfections. Having mothers carry developing babies in their own body is protective to the survival and the development of the child. It serves as a safety feature by which the developing baby cannot be separated from the mother; the placenta acts as a mechanism for all needed nutrients to reach the developing baby from the mother; and the placenta also acts as a barrier to protect the baby from environmental toxins. That women are usually only pregnant with one developing baby at a time is also a survival mechanism, as it helps ensure the survival of one baby by not having that baby be competing for nutrients with another. These evolutionary protective mechanisms are potentially features that are only existent on earth. If we know that human fertilization is an act of evolutionary "one winner to many losers" feature, and that female childbearing is to protect a developing human fetus from the threats of a brutally-naturalistic earth, it could be reasoned that our fertilization and child-bearing mechanism for creating human life is solely a telestial-based model. The creation of spirit bodies in a higher realm would not necessitate any "survival of the fittest" competition between genetic material (if our spirit bodies have anything that could be termed "genetic material"), there would be no mortality-based threats against any "infant" spirit children being created, and no limitation of nutrient, space, attention, or anything else to hinder one Father and Mother God from forming an unlimited number of spirit children simultaneously. MDD 4 ~ Perhaps born of the creation-mind of God, not of Their bodies ~ We have not been explicitly given any doctrinal answer as to by what mechanism God the Father and Mother formed our spirit bodies, but if we believe that God created the earth, and everything on it, through the organization of existant matter and the guided development of biological organisms, and that this was achieved solely through the intended will of the mind of God acting on natural laws, could our spirit bodies have also been formed by solely the intention of God? Could we suppose it to be possible that our spirit bodies were perhaps formed by the united mind of a Man & Woman God, rather than by some kind of resurrection-fluid passing between resurrected bodies? The idea that we were created by the will of God (as opposed to thinking that our spirit bodies exited out of a god-vagina) is a belief held by all the rest of Christendom, and it fits more closely with the language of Abraham 3:22 where we read, "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was;" Monogamy as Divine Design

By "For priests who were instructed to enter plural marriage..." are you implying that certain church members weren't being instructed to practice polygyny in D&C 132? Because in verse 3 it says, "for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." And then verse 64 states that the Lord will destroy any wife who has been taught of this but does not "believe and administer" in it. Those who insist that Section 132 is only talking about Joseph & Emma seem to be forgetting those verses of it entirely.

You have a point. Outside of a legal context, I too believe these men were guilty (morally) of rape. Part of the problem becomes when (and if) these men are found innocent in a court of law, will we (the royal we) accept the verdict or will we rail against the very legal system that found them innocent?

In scriptural idioms, a "virgin" in the context of marriage simply referred to her status at the time she entered the covenant (as opposed to a widow or divorcee). The descriptor applies when she is espoused (betrothed/married). If a law said, "If a man marry a maiden, and she bear him children..." nobody interprets that to mean she remained a literal "maiden" after childbirth. Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language a "virgin" can be an unattached woman. The main point of verse 61 is stating that if a man marries a woman who is not bound to another husband, and then enters a subsequent marriage with another unattached woman under priesthood authority, he is not committing adultery. It is addressing covenant legalities, not demanding that previous wives remain perpetually untouched.

Verse 61 doesn't really make sense. It assumes you will marry a virgin, then she will remain a virgin all the while you are looking for your second or other virgins to marry. Would your 5 wives really remain virgins as you march toward your tally of ten mentioned in the next verse?

Are you a child of heavenly parents who used their fully functioning sexual organs to form you?

Not all of the people in this discussion accept revealed truth as valid. Analytics definitely doesn't. I do it because I want to understand what really happened. Did Joseph actually have a set of ancient plates that he supernaturally translated? Or did he pre-write it and then read it off? Did he pre-write it himself or with others? Did he make it up on the fly? That to me is what I'm interested in.