Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

D&C 132? Polygamy...


AmariYah

Recommended Posts

Please note that Abraham was commanded for the sole purpose of reproducing. Yet according to those who are familiar with Joseph's brand of polygamy, they try to separate themselves from the whole aspect of sex, that nasty thing needed in order to reproduce. Joseph did not bring back polygamy in its OT form.

So we are left to wonder why it was reintroduced in the first place. "Because Joseph said God said so" just doesn't cut it for me as an explanation.

Frog

Link to comment
Geaux LSU, you asked me: "I would like to ask you if you believe this to also be the ultimate reason behind polygamy in the OT days?"

I am not trying to speak for God, when He commanded Abraham and Jacob to have plural wives. In Abraham's situation, Abraham had been promised a multitudinous progeny. Sarah was barren, until divine intervention. Who else was there in Jacob's time to be sealed to as an eternal companion? Seems like only those 4 women were so blessed. I don't know.

I understand what you are saying. I have no answers - only guesses. So, I am seeking answers to questions I've had for a long time.

I guess the biggest question I have at this point in time is what is the ultimate purpose of polygamy. I always thought it to be necessary in times when "rapid reproduction" were necessary. I guess that would also relate to JS and the early members of the church.

I don't know. It's an issue that weighs on me greatly.

Link to comment
Geaux LSU, you asked me: "I would like to ask you if you believe this to also be the ultimate reason behind polygamy in the OT days?"

I am not trying to speak for God, when He commanded Abraham and Jacob to have plural wives.  In Abraham's situation, Abraham had been promised a multitudinous progeny.  Sarah was barren, until divine intervention. Who else was there in Jacob's time to be sealed to as an eternal companion? Seems like only those 4 women were so blessed.  I don't know.

I understand what you are saying. I have no answers - only guesses. So, I am seeking answers to questions I've had for a long time.

I guess the biggest question I have at this point in time is what is the ultimate purpose of polygamy. I always thought it to be necessary in times when "rapid reproduction" were necessary. I guess that would also relate to JS and the early members of the church.

I don't know. It's an issue that weighs on me greatly.

A good book on the subject of Polygamy is More Wives than One by Kathering Daynes. You can buy it at Deseret Book, it is not anti, by any stretch of the imagination. This book provides some good statistics. Granted a lot of the focus of the book is on Manti, but she also discusses SLC stats, and if I'm remembering correctly, she does discuss early church stats as well, a small bit. From what I have read, both from sources friendly and somewhat unfriendly to the church's position, polygamy did not grow the church's numbers, but instead, hindered them. I don't think that polygamy had even one positive imapct on the LDS church. I think it brought more problems on the church than it was worth.

Link to comment

There is one overriding reason that the Lord orders the exception to the default position of His law:

there shall not any aman among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; (Jacob 2:27)

...and that is:

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. (Jacob 2:30)

In Josephs case it would seem by mortal standards that the attempt to raise up seed unto the Lord by way of His prophet was foiled. Yet, those sealed to Joseph, and especially those adopted by Brigham for life only, were cared for and set apart to be the family of Prophet after this life. I know many, many good Saints who are descendants of those families and who rightfully claim to be Joseph's seed by law of adoption.

Attempts to portray the Principle as a sexual ploy or impure practice fly in the face of the doctrines, practices and real life struggles of those who hearkened unto the counsel of the Lord and obeyd Him despite terrible opposition and personal difficulty. The more first hand accounts I read of these events, the more I have curtailed my discussion of them, because the rampant misconceptions and disrespect of these faithful brethren and sisters, and their difficult sacrifices become more and more distateful to me.

Link to comment
I also think that the vast majority of saints who entered into this form of marriage had completely noble intentions and were not immoral in any way for living "the principal." No doubt there were some men who took advantage,

Thank you Katherine for using some sense and sensitivity.

There are so many misconceptions that they are hard to bat down. The principle was a calling, extended like other calls, and not something men were supposed to take upon themselves outside of the order of the Priesthood. It was also a calling that had to be sustained by the mans other wives.

There certainly were men who took advantage, who mocked the sacred practice and used it for selfish reasons and made victims of others. In some cases these very men who were caught and disciplined for abusing the practice were the most vocal critics of the Church in the press, spreading salacious lies about it.

Abuse of marriage is not peculiar to polygamy though. I can show you endless examples of men who disrespect their marriage vows, and even use marriage as an excuse to be intimate with a woman who value their chastity, and then dump them or commit adultry shortly after the marriage.

Link to comment

That was a great answer charity!

Here are some more ideas to the question below

"Out of curiosity, what do members and non-members alike believe the ultimate purpose of polygamy to be. I am not wanting to limit this question to Joseph Smith, but the practice itself in all of Christianity. If the Church is to restore all things would polygamy not also be one of those things? If so, why? If not, why?"

Why would God have his Spiritual and Governmental leaders over his people into polygamy?

Why would he place it squarely into his Law to Moses?

Abraham Isaac,Jacob, Moses and David all had plural marriage.

Isaiah prophesies about it for a future time.

Abraham had two wives -

The Lord blessed them both

to be mothers of nations.

God told Hagar to go back to Sarai and he would bless her children.

Gen 16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian,

after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan,

and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Gen 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived:

and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

Gen 16:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee:

I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived,

I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.

Gen 16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her

as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

Gen 16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness,

by the fountain in the way to Shur.

Gen 16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go?

And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

Gen 16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress,

and submit thyself under her hands.

Gen 16:10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly,

that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

The Lord himself gave unto David his wives

and then took the wives away from David

and gave them unto another.

No condemnation of polygamy for David in the Bible

only on the killing of Uriah and adultery with Bath_sheba

2Sa 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him,

and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich,

and the other poor.

2Sa 12:2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

2Sa 12:3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb,

which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him,

and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup,

and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

2Sa 12:4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared

to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man

that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it

for the man that was come to him.

2Sa 12:5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man;

and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done

this thing shall surely die:

2Sa 12:6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing,

and because he had no pity.

2Sa 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel,

I anointed thee king overIsrael, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,

and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little,

I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD,

to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword,

and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword

of the children of Ammon.

2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house;

because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of

Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee

out of thine own house,

and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour,

and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

D&C 132:38

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my

servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until

this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of

me.

###Why did God allow for polygamy in the Law of Moses?###

So what is the deal with Moses and the Cushite wife?

"Well, there are two things. Firstly we know that Moses was married to Zipporah,

and that he is married to this Cushite. If you check the first verses of Exodus 16, 18 and 19

you will see that Zipporah returned to Moses sometime in the second or third month after the exodus from Egypt.

If you check Numbers 10 vv 11 and 29 you will find that one year later her Father is still Moses Father-in-law

(i.e. Zipporah is still with us) and if you follow the action into Numbers 12 you will see that

hardly any time passes before Aaron and Miriam get all hot and bothered about the Cushite wife.

There is very little time available for Zipporah conveniently to die in order to maintain Moses as a monogamist."

"This means essentially, that it appears that Moses was still married

to Zipporah when he was married to the Cushite, i.e.

Moses didn't just remarry when she died - Moses was a polygamist."

Might want to read this about what God said about this situation with Moses:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Num/Num012.html

DEUTERONOMY 21:15-17

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children,

both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath,

that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated,

which is indeed the firstborn:

17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double

portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength;

the right of the firstborn is his.

The people of the BOM were commanded not to practice polygamy.

However if the Lord needed to raise up seed unto himself

he could command it.

JACOB 2:27-30

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.

One answer to your question is for God to raise up nations on the earth

like in the case of Abraham above and Jacob.

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.

Isa 3

25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being

desolate shall sit upon the ground.

Isa 4

1 AND in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying,

We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel:

only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Matthew Henry

Commentary on Isaiah 4

It was threatened (ch. 3:25) that the mighty men should fall by the sword in war,

and it was threatened as a punishment to the women that affected gaiety and a loose sort of conversation.

Now here we have the effect and consequence of that great slaughter of men,

1. That though Providence has so wisely ordered that, communibus annis

Link to comment

Dadof7:

I know many, many good Saints who are descendants of those families and who rightfully claim to be Joseph's seed by law of adoption.

The implication of adoption is that the child's legal relationship with the biological father is severed.

Does this mean that those women, already married, who chose to marry JS, and seal their children to JS, severed the children's spiritual relationship with their biological father? Weren't some of these men faithful LDS, in good standing?

For someone who puts "dad" in his handle, you seem rather comfortable with a doctrine that would allow the Prophet to sever a man's spiritual bond with his children.

Link to comment
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. (Jacob 2:30)

Attempts to portray the Principle as a sexual ploy or impure practice fly in the face of the doctrines, practices and real life struggles of those who hearkened unto the counsel of the Lord and obeyd Him despite terrible opposition and personal difficulty. The more first hand accounts I read of these events, the more I have curtailed my discussion of them, because the rampant misconceptions and disrespect of these faithful brethren and sisters, and their difficult sacrifices become more and more distateful to me.

This quote out of Jacob 2:30, is the loophole JS used to excuse his practice of polygamy. To raise up righteous seed. Still apologists want to say that his "marriages" were platonic. :P I guess some could say that meant in the spiritual sense, but I don't buy it, and it doesn't even make sense.

BTW, I have a ggrandfather who had two wives. He seemed like a decent man by LDS standards, he held high callings in the church. He was the first Patriarch in Canada. He wanted to take another wife but his first wife, my gggrandmother wouldn't give her consent. Did he respect her wishes? Hell no.. He took another wife and since this was the time when the govt. was cracking down on polygamists took his second, much younger wife and left his original wife and kids to go hide out in Canada. By LDS standards, he was respected for what he did. By my standards, he was a terrible husband and a deadbeat father. On my husbands side, his gggrandfather had seven wives and I don't know how many children that he abandoned to go into hiding. Polygamy did no good for anybody. I don't respect my gggrandfather for what he did to his family against his wife's wishes. He knew he would have to leave his family and go to Canada, and he did it anyway.

Link to comment
Dadof7:
I know many, many good Saints who are descendants of those families and who rightfully claim to be Joseph's seed by law of adoption.

The implication of adoption is that the child's legal relationship with the biological father is severed.

Does this mean that those women, already married, who chose to marry JS, and seal their children to JS, severed the children's spiritual relationship with their biological father? Weren't some of these men faithful LDS, in good standing?

For someone who puts "dad" in his handle, you seem rather comfortable with a doctrine that would allow the Prophet to sever a man's spiritual bond with his children.

Yes that means exactly that. And in most of these cases the understanding up front was that they were being sealed to Joseph for eternity. Brigham was fully aware that many of the women he cared for and manyh of the children he raised were in fact, eternally speaking Joseph's family, and he loved Joseph enough to do that for him.

The journals and accounts of Diana Huntington Jacobs Young (Smith) and Henry Jacobs are very illuminating about the blessings and the struggles of living these laws- yet they all remained faithful and had increase of their own. I also subscribe to the doctrine that when the Lord requires a sacrifice of us and we give willingly, we are returned tenfold what we gave up in the first place.

Link to comment
Please note that Abraham was commanded for the sole purpose of reproducing. Yet according to those who are familiar with Joseph's brand of polygamy, they try to separate themselves from the whole aspect of sex, that nasty thing needed in order to reproduce. Joseph did not bring back polygamy in its OT form.

So we are left to wonder why it was reintroduced in the first place. "Because Joseph said God said so" just doesn't cut it for me as an explanation.

Frog

What explanation would cut it for you? I don't believe that many people who have criticized polygamy are seeking explanations. Most it seems to me are content in their own reasons and ideas.

This issue is a common sounding board for most critics. And I find it unfortunate. To my mind, JS knew that this issue would be problematic, not just for his time but also for the future. And yet, polygamy was enacted based on one of God's commandments to do so.

The decision was not popular....many left then and continue to leave now because of this revelation.

And yet, God's will will be done...regardless if it was popular or not. :P

Link to comment
I also subscribe to the doctrine that when the Lord requires a sacrifice of us and we give willingly, we are returned tenfold what we gave up in the first place.

If you expect 10 fold in return, then you are not making a sacrafice, you are making an investment. I have no respect for any man that would bargain away his children, either now or for eternity. Mine are certainly not for sale, at any price.

Link to comment
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. (Jacob 2:30)

Attempts to portray the Principle as a sexual ploy or impure practice fly in the face of the doctrines, practices and real life struggles of those who hearkened unto the counsel of the Lord and obeyd Him despite terrible opposition and personal difficulty. The more first hand accounts I read of these events, the more I have curtailed my discussion of them, because the rampant misconceptions and disrespect of these faithful brethren and sisters, and their difficult sacrifices become more and more distateful to me.

This quote out of Jacob 2:30, is the loophole JS used to excuse his practice of polygamy. To raise up righteous seed. Still apologists want to say that his "marriages" were platonic. :P I guess some could say that meant in the spiritual sense, but I don't buy it, and it doesn't even make sense.

BTW, I have a ggrandfather who had two wives. He seemed like a decent man by LDS standards, he held high callings in the church. He was the first Patriarch in Canada. He wanted to take another wife but his first wife, my gggrandmother wouldn't give her consent. Did he respect her wishes? Hell no.. He took another wife and since this was the time when the govt. was cracking down on polygamists took his second, much younger wife and left his original wife and kids to go hide out in Canada. By LDS standards, he was respected for what he did. By my standards, he was a terrible husband and a deadbeat father. On my husbands side, his gggrandfather had seven wives and I don't know how many children that he abandoned to go into hiding. Polygamy did no good for anybody. I don't respect my gggrandfather for what he did to his family against his wife's wishes. He knew he would have to leave his family and go to Canada, and he did it anyway.

I am not impressed with efforts to dillute the Principle (saying it was exclusively platonic) or criticize it.

You can dismiss Jacob out of hand as a ploy by Joseph Smith, but that is simply your opinion and does not address the actual beliefs that the Latter-day Saints held and hold today. There are several examples of this outside of that particular verse and in the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. I just cited that one because it's pretty straight forward and easy to cite.

I would not have made the choice your gggrandfather did in arguing with my first wife. I don't enter into any covenant as a married man without regarding my wifes counsel in the highest regard. I already know what her counsel is to me regarding remarriage after death, or if the Lord were to require it of us again in this life (which is not something I expect will happen).

Children and husbands being abandoned had more to do with persecution (persecution created by those who perverted than spoke against the Principle) than it did the Principle, indeed the Principle has many laws and statutes that clearly indicate a man must never compromise the care of his existing family to add to it.

Nevertheless Polygamy has done good for many, many, many living Saints today who would not have been born into their noble lineages without it. Ask for a show of hands at Church sometime of those with polygamous ancestry, then when they have their hands up ask how many would have preferred that their ancestors were born outside of the Covenant they now partake of? I'm guessing you would be in the minority along with those with their hands still up.

Link to comment
This quote out of Jacob 2:30, is the loophole JS used to excuse his practice of polygamy.

Hi elect_lady I am sorry to hear about how your ggrandfather treated his family.

I believe that the LDS faith teaches consent of the first wife.

In any case I must point out that the writings of Jacob are very different then that of Joseph Smith.

Would you mind taking a look at the following short study on Jacob?

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Mag...plates$3.0

Why was there no comment on the OT record?

Do you believe in the Biblical record?

thanks

curious as to who would abandon his wife or wives - and how would he choose -

or would one go somewhere it was legal.

jkfrost

Link to comment
The journals and accounts of Diana Huntington Jacobs Young (Smith) and Henry Jacobs are very illuminating about the blessings and the struggles of living these laws- yet they all remained faithful and had increase of their own. I also subscribe to the doctrine that when the Lord requires a sacrifice of us and we give willingly, we are returned tenfold what we gave up in the first place.

Do you mean Zina? I think Henry got totally hosed on that deal, but he did agree to it (at least the first time around.)

Link to comment
I also subscribe to the doctrine that when the Lord requires a sacrifice of us and we give willingly, we are returned tenfold what we gave up in the first place.

If you expect 10 fold in return, then you are not making a sacrafice, you are making an investment. I have no respect for any man that would bargain away his children, either now or for eternity. Mine are certainly not for sale, at any price.

No I don't expect ten fold in return. :P

Sacrifice is sacrifice, but the Lord does bless us for our willing sacrifice.

Again this is why I don't address this delicate issue much. It seems a little sacred to trot out in front of those who would use it for a semantic game. I would prefer a bit more grown up discussion thank you.

Link to comment
The journals and accounts of Diana Huntington Jacobs Young (Smith) and Henry Jacobs are very illuminating about the blessings and the struggles of living these laws- yet they all remained faithful and had increase of their own.
Link to comment

And yet, God's will will be done...regardless if it was popular or not.  <_<

...And regardless of who it hurts, apparently.

And regardless of who it benefits, apparently.

I am afraid that your mind is made up and I don't see you embracing any of the comments that have been posted about polygamy. Nor do I see you willing to see a different perspective. And this is okay.

Polygamy will always be a controversial issue, especially now as critics try what may to discredit the church. But this covenant still stands tall in the saddle for many members of the church and for the off-spring of those who were born from polygamous families.

And like I said, JS knew the problems of this issue. But he had no choice in the matter.

I cannot see him risking his 'power base' as some 'inventor' of a new faith and as 'author' of the bofm to instill such a policy for some sex on the side. Sorry, that fish don't fly with me. Miss Kitty's place two counties over would have been a better option. :P

God's will needs to be obeyed. :unsure:

Link to comment

The Principle was certainly an Abrahamic test, or like Noah building the arc, it seemed crazy... yet it was wisdom in the Lord's eyes (and testified to in many places in the scriptures not just one verse of the Book of Mormon), and we are not going to know the fullness of it until we see the end of His plan. But there are good things that have come from it, descendants who are grateful for it, and blessings we receive to day from it.

This is where our opinions diverge. I don't believe it was a test of any kind or "wisdom in the Lord's eyes", just bad information. I don't condemn or judge those good people who practiced it because they were faithful decent people living their religon. I do not believe it was ever a commandment from God, hence, it died out.

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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