What if polygamy was never practiced?

[Anna]

Anna and Free, you are not seeing or listening. It has been answered sevearl times, and you still profess cluelessness?

God commanded somethng that was difficult. While there are those who would argue that monpgamy is difficult, it is not the same sort of challenge that polygamy was. Those who were willing to follow the difficult law were stronger. The weak were weeded out. It is the strength. There is a reason why the comparison is made to Abraham and his sacrifice. God wants proven, strong leaders.

You may say that pioneer life was tough, and why wasn't that enough. There were plenty of pioneers who were tough. I had ancestors who did essentially what the LDS pioneers did. Life was rough.

If you still have questions as to why, ask God why He used this challenge as the test.

charity,

Again, I appreciate your testimonies. But they really have no relevance to this topic.

Could I suggest you start a different thread for the bearings of one's testimonies.

It is a "what if" topic.

So if I may borrow your statement: "You are not seeing or listening".

[charity]

Anna, this is not testimony. I will repeat what I have said before in response to your 'what if.' The Church woulud have lost the strength of the people who were tested in the furnace of afflication. Not ordinary 'I am a pionneer and have to make my own soap' affliction. But 'soul searching, humbling themselves and relying on the Lord affliction.'

Brigham Young later made comments about how he feared for the Church when it became easy. This was what the Church gained. Is that plain enough for you?

If you are looking for some cheesy, "Well, golly, we would have twice as many converts" type of answer, that is way too superficial for consideration.

[Anna]

I would think that the needs of all involved in the exodus would be met, best they could, without distinction to the type of marriage one practised.

You have a certain je ne sais quoi way of twisting what I say. You've done is throughout this thread, so consider yourself on my do not bother to read/reply list. I wish you well as you continue to study plural marriage.

Nighthawke,

I certainly did not twist anything you said and do not appreciate the accusation. I have merely replied to you posts with reason and intellect.

I think you may just have a low tollerance to these qualities in others.

You made a mistake about the relationship between polygamy and eternal marriage, and seem to be still smarting over it. Forget it, we all make "misteaks".

[Anna]

I will repeat what I have said before in response to your 'what if.' The Church woulud have lost the strength of the people who were tested in the furnace of afflication.

Well this is a little more on topic. I can see your point.

But I have never known the Church, or the authors in this part of Chucrch history, to ever refer to polygamy as a furnace of affliction. Frankly I think such "furnace" could just as easily have been found in some "monogamous" marriages that I've seen!

I thought the purpose of polygamy was to "raise seed". I was not aware it was to build character through "affliction". I would think there were many other ways for members to gain strength. It would also seem to make little sense to me since, if so few practiced it - so few would have the opportunity to "gain strength through affliction". Maybe I'm just not following you here.

[Free From Mo's]

Brigham Young later made comments about how he feared for the Church when it became easy. This was what the Church gained. Is that plain enough for you?

Charity

So having monogamy would have made things to easy everyone. This was not plain enough for me. Oh yeah I am clueless and blonde. But by having polygamy the church gained something??? What exactly???

[onelowerlight]

I was thinking about what Nighthawke said about the doctrines of polygamy and celestial marriage being intertwined with each other, when I had an "aha!" moment. I was wondering: "why couldn't the doctrine of temple marriage be true independant of plural marriage?" and I realized that the answer is probably this:

In the resurrection and the judgement, when the time comes for us to receive our eternal rewards, it's highly unlikely that the number of women who qualify for exaltation will be equal to the number of men who qualify for exaltation. But God is very, very fair - as a missionary, I used to say that the God we believe in is an "equal opportunity God." He isn't going to deny people blessings because they weren't priviledged with the same opportunities as other people. LDS theology gives us a very clear picture of a very fair God.

Well, if God is an "equal opportunity God," and exaltation requires a temple marriage (D+C 131:1-4), then God can't have everyone be in a monogomous marriage and still be enabled to receive exaltation. Assuming that there won't be an equal number of men and women qualifying for exaltation, you just can't be fair and not allow plural marriage. When I realized that, things started to fall into place.

Assuming all this, I started to think of it in this way (and it's kind of simplified, so it isn't perfect, but I think it provides a good basic framework for putting the doctrines, principles, and history in the context where they fit the best): How many people are there, who will qualify for exaltation, who either were not sealed in this life, or were sealed but their spouses won't qualify for exaltation? Single people who just never met someone that worked out, despite striving to find a celestial mate, or people who entered into temple marriage but their spouse fell into apostasy or inactivity? Well, in the resurrection, these good people will have to receive a celestial partner somehow - the question is where and who?

I suppose that these questions will get sorted out properly and agreeably to everyone in the millenium, but the end result will be plural celestial marriages. And it's quite possible that some of the monogamous couples of the church today may be asked, in the millenium, to become plural, to accomodate these things. When that day comes, this is something that we need to make sure we believe.

Of course, this is all just my own speculation, but it does make sense. I don't think that all marriages will be required to become plural, but I think that it might happen for quite a few. And D+C 132 does seem to hint at it, towards the end of the chapter.

Plural marriage is a principle that we still believe in, even if we don't practice it today. It's kind of the same with consecration. We don't practice it outrightly, but we still believe in it as a true principle. Charity illustrated that with the example of the decision that her and her husband made.

The point is, if the LDS church didn't practice plural marriage in the early days, the doctrine would either be largely unknown or wouldn't have made much sense to the members of the church. If we didn't have polygamy as a heritage in the church, I think a lot more members would have problems with the doctrine and would face a personal crisis in the spirit world when we see just how many celestial marriages are becoming plural. I know for myself that I wondered about the doctrine of plural marriage, and that it made me uneasy, until I read the accounts of my own ancestors, and how they practiced it in a very, very responsible, honorable, and respectable manner. After that, I haven't had much of a personal issue with polygamy.

To answer the question, if the church had never practiced polygamy, I think that the principle of plural marriage would be very, very difficult for us as members to understand, appreciate, or accept. It would be just a gospel theory out there, and when we cross to the other side, in the spirit world, and we see just how much of a reality plural marriage is, that we would have many more problems with it. I think God had us practice plural marriage in the early days of the church so that it would be a part of our doctrine and heritage, and that as such, if we had any personal issues with it, we would work them out here rather than in the spirit world. The negative side effects do not seem, to me at least, to undermine those who are sincere and faithful seekers of truth, whether they're Mormon or not, and the positive side effects help us to prepare, with more light and truth, for the eternities that will come later.

[charity]

Thank you, one. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

[onelowerlight]

Thank you, one. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

No problem! I appreciate yours, too.

[Anna]

To answer the question, if the church had never practiced polygamy, I think that the principle of plural marriage would be very, very difficult for us as members to understand, appreciate, or accept. It would be just a gospel theory out there, and when we cross to the other side, in the spirit world, and we see just how much of a reality plural marriage is, that we would have many more problems with it. I think God had us practice plural marriage in the early days of the church so that it would be a part of our doctrine and heritage, and that as such, if we had any personal issues with it, we would work them out here rather than in the spirit world.

onelowerlight,

So, if I follow you, you are suggesting that the one thing that polygamy has brought us, that we would not have if only "monogamy" was practiced, was a better understanding of certain things in the spirit world.

This might make sense to me if it was, in fact, supported by the actions of the church today. But frankly, the church seems to avoid the topic and teachings of polygamy today with a "ten foot pole". I would argue that, in fact, the church wants little or nothing to do with the topic in any sort of structured teaching or detailed public acknowledgement of this practice or history. I would suggest that, given the church's structured avoidance of polygamy today, the majority of members know and understand so little of this history, that it probably does not even enter into most peoples thoughts in contemplating the spirit world.

So perhaps, in your presentation it brings something that monagamy does not. But it seems, to me anyway, for reasons I've stated above, this rationalization is quite a stretch!

[onelowerlight]

So, if I follow you, you are suggesting that the one thing that polygamy has brought us, that we would not have if only "monogamy" was practiced, was a better understanding of certain things in the spirit world.

Not exactly. I would say that polygamy has made the doctrine of plural marriage a lot more real to us, which will benefit us in the spirit world, but also in the here and now. And I don't think that that's the only thing that polygamy has given us, either.

This might make sense to me if it was, in fact, supported by the actions of the church today. But frankly, the church seems to avoid the topic and teachings of polygamy today with a "ten foot pole". I would argue that, in fact, the church wants little or nothing to do with the topic in any sort of structured teaching or detailed public acknowledgement of this practice or history. I would suggest that, given the church's structured avoidance of polygamy today, the majority of members know and understand so little of this history, that it probably does not even enter into most peoples thoughts in contemplating the spirit world.

I agree that a lot of members of the church tend to avoid this subject, and it kind of irks me, too. I personally don't feel uncomfortable with the heritage of polygamy that we have in the church and would like it if we were a lot more open about it. Part of that might attributable to culture differences within the church - I know that out here in New England, if anyone knows anything about the Mormons, they've heard that we have something to do with polygamy. Many of my high school friends would ask me "if I join your church how many wives can I have?" So its something that isn't easy to ignore, and I think partly because of that, I've gotten to the point where it's not so much an issue that I have. I can see how in Utah and other places with a high LDS population, it's something that can more easily be ignored. And I think its sad that a lot of members tend to want to forget about polygamy.

But I don't think that the church itself is acting to reject this part of our heritage. They might not be as outspoken about it as some of us would like, but I don't think that the church itself is trying to hide our polygamous heritage or change the way our history is written. I haven't read a history published by the church that didn't bring up polygamy, though they may have emphasized it less than I expected. At the very least, we still have many talks from General Authorities in the days when polygamy was still being practiced, and the church has not ceased to make these very readily available.

We still teach it as a part of our history - the question is not so much WHAT we teach as much as what we EMPHASIZE. If there is "structured avoidance," I would say that it's not so much "avoidance" as it is dealing with the subject very carefully and delicately. I, also, would like it if polygamy were emphasized and explored a little more (which is what these books like "Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling seem to be doing), but just because it isn't emphasized as much as I want it to doesn't make me feel concerned that we're denying our history. I know that I'm not, and that if I were to ask questions on this issue, I'd get straight answers from the church and church resources. I know that because I already have, and I hope that you can, too.

[charity]

The Church at one time tried to live the United Order. The people couldn't handle that doctrine, and the Lord released them from the requirement to live it. We don't do that now. That doesn't mean the United Order was wrong or evil. How many talks have you heard in General Conference lately about the United Order? None. Why not? Because we aren't living that law right now. How many talks on plural marriage? None. Why not? Because we aren't living that law right now. Pretty simple.

[Observer]

The Church at one time tried to live the United Order.  The people couldn't handle that doctrine, and the Lord released them from the requirement to live it. We don't do that now.  That doesn't mean the United Order was wrong or evil.  How many talks have you heard in General Conference lately about the United Order?  None.  Why not?  Because we aren't living that law right now.  How many talks on plural marriage?  None.  Why not?  Because we aren't living that law right now.  Pretty simple.

I've heard that the Lord will never challenge a person or a 'people' beyond what they are capable of handling.

You now say that the people in the church "couldn't handle" the United Order requirement given by the Lord, and so he removed it. But when it comes to Emma Smith, no more or less than 50 PERCENT of the marital bond with Joseph, God decides instead of "removing" the difficult "requirement" to damn her, lest she is unable to "handle" the "difficult circumstance" required of her.

Such wishy washy thinking, far from a firm foundation. This is theology built on sand.

[charity]

You misunderstand Emma's place. She is with Joseph, where she belongs. You do not have the right to place such a judgement on her.

[Garden Girl]

Hi Anna...

In the past Sunday or so, our Gospel Doctrine Sunday school class included a lesson on early history and polygamy... it always brings a lively discussion. Most members today are well aware of this part of our history and doctrine, but since it is no longer practiced they simply do not continue to focus on it as much as other doctrines. Ask almost any non-LDS what they know about "Mormons" and they still to this day mention polygamy even though it ceased in 1890.

I, too, believe that it still is true doctrine and does have a relationship to eternal marriage, and when I pass on I will have an "eternal perspective" that will allow an understanding that I might not have here. As for here, it is a non-issue as it will not be re-instituted anytime soon that I can see. In my case, I was married to non-LDS for many years who respected and supported me in my beliefs but did not join. I have had his temple ordinances performed for him, including our being sealed as an eternal couple. But he still has his free agency... perhaps he won't accept the work done for him. So what happens to me in that case? Do I just stop my progression and am penalized because of him, or am I blessed by being part of a plural marriage, thus able to enjoy the highest and most spiritual blessings available in the Celestial Kingdom...

I think one reason the Church downplays polygamy is that we have moved on and today those that DO practice polygamy are not authorized to do so, and are so outrageous we do not want the Church associated with them in any way. GG

[Anna]

In the past Sunday or so, our Gospel Doctrine Sunday school class included a lesson on early history and polygamy... it always brings a lively discussion. Most members today are well aware of this part of our history and doctrine, but since it is no longer practiced they simply do not continue to focus on it as much as other doctrines. Ask almost any non-LDS what they know about "Mormons" and they still to this day mention polygamy even though it ceased in 1890.

I would love to see the lesson contained in what ever material was presented in your Gospel Doctrine class. Did you go off of church sponsored material or was this just a "discussion" that arose!

But if the church is not afraid or embarrassed about the polygamist history, I wonder why they so discretely avoid it on their own website. I wish I could agree with you that it is not a taboo topic, but all one has to do is go to this church website:

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

One has to ask the obvious question as to why all the monogamous marriages and wives are reflected as "Significant Events" for those prophets practicing monogamy, yet none, not a single one(except Emma Hale, who despised the practice), of the wives of the prophets who practiced polygamy are even mentioned. One would actually get the idea that these prophets never married at all. So much for the significance of "eternal marriage" when it was accomplished via polygamy!

Again, I don't think the outward actions of the church will support those who claim they are not embarrassed about it's practice or that they are not uncomfortable with recognizing it as part of it's history. Everything they do in public says something else.

I think one reason the Church downplays polygamy is that we have moved on and today those that DO practice polygamy are not authorized to do so, and are so outrageous we do not want the Church associated with them in any way.

I think this is a fair statement. I would agree with you.

But I don't think it was any less "outrageous" when the church was practicing it. Clearly most everone outside the church, and many within, viewed this practice, during the 70 yrs the church participated in it, as an outrageous act of eroding moral fiber. The same way it is viewed today.

Frankly, had the church never practiced polygamy, I believe there is no question the Church would be much stronger today in virtually every respect. Polygamy certainly did not provide us with anything in any respect that monogamy would not have.

And without showing any disrespect for all of the courageous women who followed what they believed was the truth, I think you would find most members would conclude that without the practice of polygamy, the church would be held in a much better light by all today.

[Nighthawke]

But when it comes to Emma Smith, no more or less than 50 PERCENT of the marital bond with Joseph, God decides instead of "removing" the difficult "requirement" to damn her, lest she is unable to "handle" the "difficult circumstance" required of her.

Such wishy washy thinking, far from a firm foundation. This is theology built on sand.

To damn her? I don't believe so. To hold her guilty perhaps, but to damn her? Nah.

[charity]

Anna, this is where you make the mistake. The Church is not about being accepted by people steeped in the philsophy of men. The Church is God's Kingdom on earth. Our Heavenly Father's work is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." It isn't to sound good. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of churches which do that. The kind that attract people because of the nice sounding philosophy will end up destroying their believer if they fail to preach God's word. A woman of an evangelical denomination even told me once that they kept firing their pastors until they got one that preached what they wanted to hear.

You have not accepted that God speaks to men today through prophets. You do not accept God's commands. So you make statements such as "outrageous act of eroding moral fiber" in reference to God's law. That is an affront to God. He does not command that which erodes morals.

I will repeat what I said before, in a slightly different way. The Church would obviously be in worse shape today had it not followed God's command. Now, if you want to question God, and ask Him why He did it, and didn't He know that the Church could have been more popular if He hadn't, go right ahead. Spit in God's face if you want.

[Anna]

But when it comes to Emma Smith, no more or less than 50 PERCENT of the marital bond with Joseph, God decides instead of "removing" the difficult "requirement" to damn her, lest she is unable to "handle" the "difficult circumstance" required of her.

Such wishy washy thinking, far from a firm foundation. This is theology built on sand.

To damn her? I don't believe so. To hold her guilty perhaps, but to damn her? Nah.

If one believes D&C 132 was from God, threatening Emma with destruction is a fairly strong form of "damnation"!

Not to get off topic here, but I had always wondered, after all the other revelations that had been given up to this point in Emma's life, why "God" knew it was time with this revelation to specifically threaten Emma with her soul/life for not going along???

I mean after all, hadn't she been faithful on the first 131 revelations?

Or is this just further validation that God was definitely a "male"!

[Anna]

Anna, this is where you make the mistake.

What mistake? Specific please.

You have not accepted that God speaks to men today through prophets.

True perhaps. I just believe God can speak to both genders with equal ease.

You do not accept God's commands.

charity, your name is becoming less applicable. Tell you what though. I won't stand in judgement of you if, you can take up the teachings of Christ and not stand in judgement of me!

So you make statements such as "outrageous act of eroding moral fiber" in reference to God's law. That is an affront to God.

Absolutely false. I just don't attribute acts of "eroding moral fiber" to God. Since I don't attribute it to Him, it can never be an "affront" to Him.

Now, if you want to question God, and ask Him why He did it, and didn't He know that the Church could have been more popular if He hadn't, go right ahead.

I did a long time ago. Through a witness of the Holy Spirit after much prayer, He revealed to me that it was not His command. That is why I have much comfort in my discussions of this issue.

[juliann]

I certainly did not twist anything you said and do not appreciate the accusation.  I have merely replied to you posts with reason and intellect.

I think you may just have a low tollerance to these qualities in others.

Let's see if I have this right...when you voice your every thought without a shred of evidence, documentation or any other sort of credible back-up....it is "reason and intellect". When LDS do it...it is "testimony".

I have never seen you back up a thing you say with anything but bluster and snide comebacks that you obviously believe to be intellectual". If you have done all this "study" you can easily produce some documentation for your bluster. Let's see it.

Start with the claim that there would have been more LDS without polygamy. That ought to be good.

[charity]

Anna, your 'mistake' is in assuming that polygamy was not what God commanded, and that the Church would have been better off if it hadn't ever happened. But I suppose you are to be given some leeway, since you do not have the witness that all the people who actually participated in it did at the time. And the witness that has been given to all the members who, although not having participated in it themselves, still understand and know that it was God's will.

I don't know the source of your inspiration, but I would put Eliza R. Snow up against yours any day.

By the way, our personal opinion does not matter. God knows what is an affront to him and what is not.

[juliann]

So perhaps, in your presentation it brings something that monagamy does not. But it seems, to me anyway, for reasons I've stated above, this rationalization is quite a stretch!

Well...there we have it. Everyone else's thoughts are "rationalization". Hers are..."intellect".

Please use your renowned reason and intellect and tell us why Malina's model of social bonds and religious leanings would not be relevant to any other new religion. Then explain, with references, what differences it would make.

[Anna]

Let's see if I have this right...when you voice your every thought without a shred of evidence, documentation or any other sort of credible back-up....it is "reason and intellect".

Juliann,

For this thread, could you please provide a specific post or statement I have made, where I have not reflected such as opinion, that you find lacking reason or fact.

If I'm gonna get invinted to a "cat fight", I'd at least like to know why!

When LDS do it...it is "testimony".

Where I have recognized such responses as such, please tell my why you think it was not appropriate?

I would certainly not "stalk" you in your conversations. But if I'm gonna jump in and try to stir up a hornets nest, I would at least be specific as to my objections.

I have never seen you back up a thing you say with anything but bluster and snide comebacks that you obviously believe to be intellectual". If you have done all this "study" you can easily produce some documentation for your bluster. Let's see it.

Again, for this thread, could you provide some specifics?

Start with the claim that there would have been more LDS without polygamy.

Please provide the quote you are attributing this "claim" to me and I will.

Please use your renowned reason and intellect and tell us why Malina's model of social bonds and religious leanings would not be relevant to any other new religion. Then explain, with references, what differences it would make.

Hey, I remember that movie. "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield. That was the scene where he was in the big room all by himslef and the "stuffy" business/economics professor made a complete jerk of himself by asking some ridiculous question to Rodney because he was trying to impress everyone around him with such a ridicuolus question. Don't tell me you had the understudy part! Dang, you play a pretty good stuffy jerk too when you want.

Juliann,

Get off my case or provide substance to your harrassment.

Should I just assume when I am addressing charity I should address both of you!

[charity]

Okay, Anna. Give us specifics, please, on your statement "Frankly, had the church never practiced polygamy, I believe there is no question the Church would be much stronger today in virtually every respect."

What the "every respect" you refer to, and please give us a polygamy-mongamy comparison on those "respect." Thanks.

[Anna]

Okay, Anna. Give us specifics, please, on your statement "Frankly, had the church never practiced polygamy, I believe there is no question the Church would be much stronger today in virtually every respect."

charity & Juliann,

As my statement says, "I believe". I do believe this. I believe this because, as I have articulated, I find nothing but an outward sign of the Church avoiding it's polygamist past in both it's current teachings and its public appearance via websites and interiews of its prophets.

I also find no significant nor redeeming spiritual values that were brought about with polygamy that would not have been brought to us with monogamy. All I find, as supported by other lds posters on this thread, is an explanation that gets a role of the eyes and people walking away from lds missionary discussions because of this past.

It is a part of the churches past that, by all candid discussion I've had with members and non-members, seems to be a deterent to those questioning the Church's claims. Such seems to be supported by comments from lds posters on this thread.